Omega Of The Month

Readers who grapple with the concept of alpha and beta sometimes point out that betas can’t be *that* disliked by women, since many of them do eventually manage to marry women on the depreciating side of their sexual market value. That’s true. Although betas struggle through their teens and twenties to get any attention from chicks star-struck by badboy alphas, they simply wait it out and land the chunky princess of their dreams when she’s nearing 30 and fretting about her expiration.

So, no, betas, while not exactly lighting a flame in women’s hearts, are not universally disliked by women. That distinction belongs to omegas.

What is the omega male? This is the man who is so physically or socially revolting that he actively repulses women from all strata of the sexual market. Even the fat chicks and frazzled single moms run away in fear and terror. The omega male is the man who cannot get ANY woman without paying for it, except the absolute filthiest, fattest and fugliest of the dregs. He is almost guaranteed to live a life of involuntary celibacy if he maintains any sort of standards for himself. When he decides that sexual relief is more important than standards, he will hook up with a waddling terrabeast sprouting wiry hair from a chin mole or a leprotic methhead who makes him look normal in comparison.

But why explain it when a picture can tell a thousand words? Behold… the omega male! (Omega female included at no extra charge.)

This photo is from a newspaper story about people who like to dress up and act like infants while they collect disability benefits from the government. (Data point #2,453,789 in the decline of America.) This omega male is nestling, Oedipally, in the blubbery boobies of his morbidly obese “girlfriend” who takes care of him as if she was his doting mother. He sips from a baby bottle and sleeps in an oversized crib (fashioned out of a piano case).

Losers like this are funny to laugh at until there are a lot of them, at which point the beauty is sucked out of the world and lawyercunts start to look like desirable girlfriend material.

I would have to say that for a guy like this, game will not help him. At least, not while a baby bottle is suctioned to his lips. News from the construction workers who had to reinforce their apartment floor with steel rebar is that neither of them has seen their genitals since middle school.

Read Full Post »

The Price Of Female Hypergamy

It was a banner week for alpha males. The Terminator blasted inside a housemaid and had a kid named John Connor with her ten years ago, who will grow up to defeat the evil cyborg governators under whose watch debt and native displacement exploded. The head of the IMF — some feminism-embracing leftie anti-American transnationalist open borders nutjob, no doubt — was arrested for raping a (possibly) AIDS-infected hot Muslim black chick in the mouth. (See pic of her here, courtesy of In Mala Fide.) Is it even possible to mouth rape without some modicum of consent? Women have teeth; they could just chomp down.

I won’t bother getting into the political and ideological ironies of a liberal Republican governor impregnating a Mexican and sticking it to his loyal Kennedy wife, or a good-standing member of the global illuminati raping a third world immigrant. That ground has been covered well enough on other blogs. And anyhow, it speaks for itself.

The Arnie and DSK scandals illustrate an important dynamic that is often missed in these discussions of alpha men behaving badly: female hypergamy comes with a cost. Alpha women (i.e. beautiful, young women) who are able to fulfill their hypergamous instincts often suffer negative blowback in the form of cheating partners, withdrawn love, illegitimate kids and even in extreme cases, rape.

Women who want a top dog for themselves have to be ready to take the bad with the good. Top dogs enjoy plenty of attention from women, all of them potential interlopers, and top dogs don’t face nearly the same obstacles that beta males do in the pursuit of sexual gratification. The result is that many alpha males are going to find it incredibly easy to fuck around, to have kids with maids, and to get away with raping hotel staff (until they commit their rapes in hotels owned by allies of political foes.) In other words, to utterly humiliate their loyal and loving wives.

And yet, the pull of the alpha male is so strong that many of these humiliated wives not only wearily abide the indiscretions, but they defend their cheating bastards beyond all rational reason for doing so.

Women are aware of the downside risk to winning an alpha male’s commitment in the hypergamous sweepstakes, (at least, they are subconsciously aware), and some who have the goods to get an alpha’s putative commitment will nevertheless settle in due time with a provider beta, when their looks have faded and they (conveniently) discover within themselves a well of renewed appreciation for the man who won’t stray or knock up maids. These women merely nurse a sense that sounds something like this: “Sure, my devoted herb hubbie isn’t very exciting, but christ almighty I’m pushing 40 and my emotional sanity just can’t handle another six month fling with a cheating bastard.”

But that is not nearly the majority of women. Most will instead take their chances, should they have the chance to snag an alpha, and some will wind up like poor put-upon Maria… older, wrinkly, man-jawed, no chance now in her deteriorated physical state to meet another man of the caliber of Arnold. Sure, she’ll do like most post-wall victim divorceés in these situations do, and manage to move on with her life and hamsterize that her replacement beta boyfriend is better than Arnold, but we’ll know the truth.

The Arnold scandal is interesting in another way: it holds a mirror up to our discriminatory, absurdist legal system. As Helen Smith says, what if this had been Maria’s kid? In today’s anti-male legal climate, Arnold would have been on the hook for child support if Maria had a ten year old kid by another man on the downlow. The courts and their femcunt foot soldiers would say “in the interest of the children” and “a bond has been formed” and all that self-serving horse shit that is nothing but cover for institutionalizing the second-class treatment of men. And then Arnold, still reeling from the news that Maria had been cheating on him, would suffer the additional body blow of financial responsibility for raising the bastard spawn of Maria’s infidelity.

Of course, no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver. There’s no court in the land that will saddle Maria with an order to pay up for Arnold’s love child. If they did, Oprah would command an army of yentas to storm the Capitol building until legislators changed the law, quaking in fear before all that female empowerment.

And yet, according to most women and their male sycophants, it’s perfectly fine, nay even morally just, to exact this same malevolent injustice upon men.

To that I give a hale and hearty FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUU.

The awesomeness of alpha males following the dictates of their genes and behaving badly with impunity is surpassed only by the audacity of feminist hypocrisy when the roles are reversed.

Read Full Post »

Testosterone: The Genius Drug

Exposure to high prenatal testosterone levels may contribute to genius.

Savant-style genius may be affected by the amount of testosterone you receive in the womb, according to a new University of Alberta study.

The roots of extraordinary genius have long been the subject of a nature versus nurture debate, but educational psychology professor Martin Mrazik thinks that prenatal conditions may be the determining factor.

“We can’t underestimate the power of nature. Some things may be very biological in nature, and no matter how hard we try to develop a genius, maybe it’s not really the way to go about it,” Mrazik said.

Mrazik and his colleague from Rider University in New Jersey recently linked prenatal testosterone exposure to children with high levels of precociousness — the presence of above-average mental capabilities at an early age. The pair used advanced techniques such as functional MRI scans to investigate how the brain works.

“Testosterone seems to influence the right hemisphere. That’s where our math, science, reasoning, and abstract thinking take place […] We found a lot of evidence to suggest that in very precocious kids, [they] have very highly developed brain networks in the right frontal lobes of their brain.”

Mrazik also found that precocious children were found to have a higher incidence of short-sightedness and allergies, conditions which may also be associated with more exposure to testosterone in the prenatal environment.

So there you have it: proof that, on average, men are more logical and rational, and deeper thinkers, than women. All thanks to the wonder drug that is called testosterone. All hail Big T!

When I was a kid I had pretty bad allergies. But my eyesight is crystal clear. If I wasn’t busy screwing I could have been a fighter pilot.

The research is still in its early stages, and Mrazik is certainly not advocating for pregnant women to artificially enhance their testosterone levels, especially considering the potential negatives. He explained that in many cases, savant-like genius is associated with learning disorders such as Asperger’s Syndrome or autism.

I could see eugenics embracers like Jodie Foster stabbing themselves with needles full of steroids in hopes of imparting their male fetuses with super high IQ. Only to find out they had given birth to Tokyojesusfist.

On a related note, a reader wrote to say he was concerned that his unmasculine digit ratio — a biological quirk associated with prenatal testosterone levels that affects the ratio of the index finger and ring finger lengths — meant he might turn out gay.

I told him not to worry about it. There appear to be two major testosterone events in a man’s life. The first is prenatal — how much testosterony goodness is released in the womb affects your 2D:4D digit ratio. (High T = lower ratio.) The second T event is puberty and young adulthood. It is during that time frame that a second blast of T is released which affects such things as secondary sex characteristics. There is even a study out there (perhaps an ambitious reader can look it up for the edification of the studio audience) which concludes that the second wave of T is more important for a man’s physical and psychological “manliness” than the prenatal T, which seems to exert its primary influence on mental traits such as math ability and level of empathy. The study quoted above supports my view of the functions of these two testosterone events. And as of now, there is no evidence that the two major T events are related. Exposure to low T in the womb does not necessarily mean the release of adolescent T will be low as well.

In any case, the reader should relax. As far as we know, male digit ratio has nothing to do with being gay. In fact, one study purported to show that gay men have more masculine digit ratios.

Read Full Post »

Why The Royal Marriage Is Doomed

Hand holding involves a dominant and a submissive hand position. The dominant hand is the one over the top of the other hand, with the palm facing backward.

Women prefer the submissive postures in relationships. It is their subconscious preference, as it is men’s preference to assume the role of the dominant partner. Try it sometime with your girlfriend. Hold her hand in the reverse, where your palm faces forward like in the pic above. You will find your unconscious revolting against the act, a silent scream crying out from the cellar of your mind, begging for relief from the jarring oscillation to its rhythmic pulse.

William has subverted this natural predilection and holds Kate’s hand in the submissive posture. I predict she will cheat on him before her 38th birthday.

Read Full Post »

My First Experience With Game

I had two first experiences with game. The earlier one was unintentional, the later one was a deliberate execution.

In ninth grade a curly-haired girl had a crush on me. I didn’t know this at the time, mostly because my attention was diverted to my own crush, a brunette with a righteous ass and hair so shiny it looked like it was polished.

Curly-haired girl invited me to a party at her parents’ house. In her basement with about fifteen other classmates, we listened to music (no drinking) and laughed a lot. She giggled around me and was constantly breaking away from the main group to come over and talk to me in private.

In an act of cruelty only a young man oblivious to the repercussions of his actions could achieve, I remember asking her if shiny-haired girl was coming to her party. Assuming I came to her party because I wanted to reciprocate her feelings, she stammered and blushed at this jarring question, before answering no.

“Ok, no big deal,” I replied.

I wasn’t paying much attention to her reaction, but if I had been I’m sure I would have noticed her heart fall to the floor.

The next week, curly-haired girl passed a note to me in the cafeteria. (It went through about three girls’ hands before landing next to my lunch.) It was a stick figure drawing of her face (or maybe it was mine, hard to tell) with a heart over the head. Underneath, she wrote that she liked hanging out with me.

She was a cute girl, but at that age infatuations grip one’s focus to the exclusion of all other girls. I was crushing on shiny-haired girl and no other girl would do, and that’s that. Luckily, I grew out of it by tenth grade. It’s strange, but evolution has designed men to be more pedestalizing when they are young. Some men never grow out of it. This is a gender flaw of malehood, and one that should be rectified by wise fathers. If I had a son in high school, I would tell him to put his crushes in perspective and enjoy the company of the hundreds of equally cute girls who roam his high school halls, lest he risk turning into a sniveling beta once the cold, harsh real world comes calling.

The above was my first foray into aloof, indifferent take-away game, and holy shit did it work. Curly-haired girl nursed a crush on me right through senior year.

***

My first experience with calculated, conscious game happened at an outdoor cafe. She approached with a mutual group of friends to be introduced to me. She was hot as balls. Slender, tall, chiseled cheekbones like a model, pert tits, and dressed in a very sexy black dress.

I was taken aback. She was a hard 9. Incredibly, she was sweet-natured as well. Very easy to talk to.

Through sheer fortitude, and with some help from being socially proofed, we spent the night together chatting. I was new to the game — the schematic, systematized game, not the organic game that I had been running for years by mimicking naturals and avoiding pitfalls based on personal experience — and when she asked if I would be joining her and her two friends who were planning to split off to go to a different venue, I remembered what I learned and declined the invitation. Following a girl around town like a puppy dog, no matter how well the conversation is going, is a seduction-killer.

My friends gave me a hard time for turning down a night with a bonafide hottie, but I knew better. “Patience,” I told them. “You’ll soon see magic.”

A few days later I called her and arranged a date. Then, a day before the date, I canceled, offering a plausible excuse, though I had no good reason to do so. A week later, I called again to reschedule the date we never had, and she expressed shock that I would call her.

“I thought you weren’t interested. You canceled our date.”

I ignored the stinky bait and set up a meeting at a local pool hall.

I bounced her to three different locations during the date. I knew this was the smart play based on what I had read in the game literature. “Time distortion”, the players called it. Bouncing causes a girl to think she has spent more time with you than she actually has, which in turn makes her more comfortable with you and riper for the sexing.

Later that night, I took her to an outdoor spot to watch the stars twinkle. It was summer, and the warm night air beckoned. As we sat there gazing at the sky, the conversation became deeper, filled with anticipated meaning. During this stage of the seduction, I prepared to execute one psychologically brutal mindfuck in the form of a take-away. I knew I had to do this because such a hot girl was likely a pro at transitioning suitors into the friend zone. I had to disabuse her of any urge she might feel to do that to me.

Somewhere in the midst of our conversation about the value of long term relationships, I asserted, “I’m independent, I value my freedom.” I made sure to say this with retreating body language. I moved my arm off her back and leaned away.

She didn’t respond to that, but seemed chastened a bit.

I dropped her off at her house, where I fingerbanged her in my car. We were together for two years.

***

Men who learn game experience two revelations. One, they are amazed how well it works once they begin to apply it. Two, they remember all those past moments with girls on whom they had run game unknowingly, and the reason for their successes becomes illuminated as if it were etched on stone tablets and handed down from god.

While I had some rudimentary natural skills with women, once I learned systematized game — the science of seduction — I stepped onto an accelerated track to pleasures I couldn’t believe were available for the taking. There’s been no looking back since.

Read Full Post »

The Creativity Stagnation

Jason Malloy, one of the more perceptive presences on the web, had this to say about creativity in the comments section at The Inductivist:

There are two different kinds of creativity … or rather there are two distinctive wells of creativity.

The first well is simply an extension of general intelligence. Smarter people can make more interesting and complex connections. They also have lower time preference which permits gradual elaboration of their raw creative abilities through craft.

The second (and probably more vital) well is an extension of male sexual drive, and should be thought of as “insight” or extemporaneous creativity. It is hormonally mediated which explains why men are more creatively accomplished than women, and, more importantly, why male creative accomplishment occurs primarily when men are in their 20s and then declines with age. Female creative accomplishment does not show this aging pattern because females are drawing from the former well of creativity but not the latter.

East Asians have plenty of the former kind of creativity but are deficient in the latter because they are biologically calibrated for low male mating effort. Blacks are the opposite. They have high extemporaneous creativity because they are calibrated for high mating effort.

This vital creativity has declined over time as men have become biologically pacified (e.g. the dramatic centuries-long decline in violence — violence being another extension of male mating effort). Most recently Millennials are both less violent and less creative than previous generations.

So contrary to received concerns, I believe creative stagnation should be viewed as a symptom of civilizational progress.

The racial angle is very interesting here, and comports with what I observe in daily life. Also, I have noticed when I’m oversexed by a girlfriend’s insatiable appetite (yes, it is possible to be oversexed), I start to feel claustrophobic and mentally lethargic. I feel a pressing need to get away so that my creativity batteries can be recharged. Maybe this is why I deny women the closure of marriage and kids — I know what it means for my free man’s soul.

Next question: Does ethnic and racial diversity increase or decrease creativity? I suspect, contrary to received wisdom, that diversity above a certain minimum threshold decreases creative output. America clearly was more creative when it was 85-90% white.

So… safe dullness or violent creativity? Pick one or the other. Safe dullness is the end game of a feminized society, while violent creativity is the hallmark of a masculinized society. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck between the two, but today we are clearly too far over into the malaise and soul-suckery of feminization. The Chateau will do its part to correct this historical transgression.

Read Full Post »

File Under Science: Love At First Same Night Lay

We here at the Chateau have in the past written that it is just as easy — in fact, may even be easier — to fall in love and begin a healthy long term relationship with a woman after having sex with her on the first date as it is with a woman who has made you wait for weeks or months before having sex.

Well, now science once again hearts Chateau with a new study proving exactly our contention.

Relationships that start with a spark and not much else aren’t necessarily doomed from the get-go, new University of Iowa research suggests.

In an analysis of relationship surveys, UI sociologist Anthony Paik found that average relationship quality was higher for individuals who waited until things were serious to have sex compared to those who became sexually involved in “hookups,” “friends with benefits,” or casual dating relationships.

But having sex early on wasn’t to blame for the disparity. When Paik factored out people who weren’t interested in getting serious, he found no real difference in relationship quality. That is, couples who became sexually involved as friends or acquaintances and were open to a serious relationship ended up just as happy as those who dated and waited.

Abstinence counselors, prudes and Promise Keepers wept.

“We didn’t see much evidence that relationships were lower quality because they started off as hookups,” said Paik, an assistant professor in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. “The study suggests that rewarding relationships are possible for those who delay sex. But it’s also possible for true love to emerge if things start off with a more ‘Sex and the City’ approach, when people spot each other across the room, become sexually involved and then build a relationship.”

Pure, feral lust is a necessary prerequisite to romantic love. A love not undergirded by animal lust is not a romantic love at all. It is, at best, a companionate love, or an affectionate love, or a phony love that two losers convince themselves to feel when no other options are available. So why delay the inevitable? If you feel hot for each other, go ahead and consummate on the first date! You won’t poison any budding relationship that might follow.

So if not the context of sexual involvement, what is behind the lower quality scores for relationships initiated as hookups? Paik points to selection: Certain people are prone to finding relationships unrewarding, and those individuals are more likely to form hookups.

“The question is whether it’s the type of relationship that causes lower quality or whether it’s the people,” he said. “The finding is that it’s something about the people.”

In other words, genes trump culture. Again. Can a blank slatist read a science article these days without having an ulcer attack?

The study has a few choice things to say about sluts, implying that they make poor wife and girlfriend material:

People with higher numbers of past sexual partners were more likely to form hookups, and to report lower relationship quality. Through the acquisition of partners, Paik said, they begin to favor short-term relationships and find the long-term ones less rewarding.

It’s also likely that people who are predisposed to short-term relationships are screened out of serious ones because they don’t invest the time and energy to develop long-term ties, Paik said.

Why bother investing when the sexual horizon beckons with illimitable choice?

“While hookups or friends with benefits can turn into true love, both parties typically enter the relationship for sex and the expectations are fairly low,” Paik said. “In the casual dating category, some people think they’re headed for a long-term relationship, but there are also people who are only in it for sex. It basically brings ‘players’ and ‘non-players’ together. As a consequence, it raises the question of whether casual dating is a useful institution. This paper would suggest not really, because it doesn’t screen out the non-romantic types.”

Re-read the above paragraph for clarity. That pretty much describes modern dating in a nutsack. Casual dating is dead, replaced by one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of Don Juans; a system of neverending seduction designed to maximize the scramble for mating opportunities, to indulgently reward the winners, and to mercilessly punish the losers. We are living in the Reign of Replicators.

And who do you think comes out on the top and bottom in this system, based on relationship quality?

In conducting the study, Paik controlled for several factors known to influence relationship quality, such as marital status, children and social embeddedness. Consistent with prior research, he found that unmarried couples and those with children had lower relationship quality, but couples with positive ties to each other’s relatives had higher relationship quality.

Losers: Single moms, women in an alpha male’s rotation.
Winners: Couples formed from close-knit (read: non-diverse) communities.

There was one final interesting coda to the study:

In a study of Chicago-area adults published earlier this year, Paik reported that being involved with a friend increased the likelihood of non-monogamy by 44 percent for women and 25 percent for men. Involvement with an acquaintance or stranger increased the odds by 30 percent for women and 43 percent for men.

Note that sex disparity. When a woman eventually spreads her legs for a male friend (read: orbiter) she is more likely than the man to cheat. In contrast, when a man has sex with a mere acquaintance or a stranger he is the one more likely to cheat. This tells us something very revealing about the evolutionarily molded mental processes of men and women. Judged by their relative increased propensity to cheat, women are more prone than men to consider a converted LJBF an unsatisfactory sexual partner. And men are more prone than women to cheat on a lover who was a stranger or loose acquaintance at first meeting.

Lesson: If you want a faithful girl as a lover, you’re better off starting fresh with a new woman than trying to convert a long-time female friend to a lover.

And if you are a woman who wants a faithful man as a lover, you’re better off having a relationship with a man from your family or community circle.

Another way to look at this: Women get stronger tingles for strange and mysterious cock than they do for familiar and friendly cock. And men feel more fidelity to familiar and friendly former LJBFs whom they have finally bedded than they do for random hookups.

Read Full Post »