The Elusive 10: Found!

The votes have been tallied and the verdict is in:

Paulina Porizkova was the only babe (in her prime) who got a plurality of 10 votes. Zeta Prime (nee Catherine Zeta Jones) came in a close second with a bare plurality of 9 votes edging out her 10 votes. Here is a better photo of the young Paulina:

Great Zeus’ beard. Her body may be a little too lithe for some of you, uh… drum and bass butt lovers, but there’s no denying her face is perfection. It simply doesn’t get any better than her when she was young. There may be equally beautiful women, but you’d have to search high and low to find a woman objectively *better* looking. Ric Ocasek, inarguably one of the ugliest men in the world, got to bang this ethereal beauty during her prime. He continues monopolizing her pussy today.

Look at their properly polarized body language. She truly loves him. And he her.

From Wikipedia:

Ric has been married three times; he married early in life, but divorced and was married to his second wife, Suzanne Ocasek in 1984. Ric was still married to Suzanne when he made the acquaintance of model Paulina Porizkova during filming of the music video for The Cars’ song “Drive” (directed by Timothy Hutton). At that time, Porizkova was just 19 years old and Ocasek was 35.

Five years after meeting, in 1989, Ocasek and Porizkova married. This was Ocasek’s third marriage, and Porizkova’s first. In 2009, the couple celebrated their 20th wedding anniversary and their 25th anniversary since they first met. Ocasek has a total of six sons, two from each of his three marriages.

Ric Ocasek is a super alpha. He has spread his seed far and wide, and enjoys the love of a beautiful woman. His fame, voice and catchy pop tunes whisked away his ugliness. No ugly woman with talent and fame can claim the same compensating appeal to men. Kathy Bates, a great actress with an ugly face and a fat body, once went on Letterman and lamented the trouble she had meeting men despite the advantages of her money and fame.

Ocasek hit the jackpot with Porizkova, which is why their marriage endures today after 25 years together. He really can’t do much better. Although, as Porizkova ages — and admittedly Porizkova started off her aging trajectory with such an overabundance of beauty that it might take a decade or two longer than the average woman for her to hit the wall — Ric may start feeling that old feeling again and eyeing little sluts with bad intent. I doubt he’d need much more game than taking a chick home and popping in one of his circa 1980s music videos.

Let Ric’s and Paulina’s love be a lesson, ladies. If you want a shot at winning commitment from an ugly-ass rock star, you had better be a 10 with a heart of gold. And preferably foreign-born.

Speaking of Porizkova, she recently had this to say about the occasion of her 40th birthday:

Former supermodel Paulina Porizkova has described the pain and frustration of losing her looks in the ageing process – insisting she has felt “invisible” since she turned 40 years old.

Porizkova shot to fame in the 1980s and became one of the world’s highest paid models, gracing the covers of the most high profile fashion magazines and spending seven years as the face of cosmetics giant Estee Lauder.

The 45 year old has stepped away from modelling in recent years, turning to TV instead with a regular role as a judge on America’s Next Top Model and a stint on Dancing With The Stars.

Porizkova now admits she misses her days as a model and feels “sad” her beauty has faded.

She tells the New York Post, “Nothing ages as poorly as a beautiful woman’s ego. When you have used your beauty to get around, it’s like having extra cash in your pocket. I was so used to walking down the street and having the young guys passing by at least give me a flicker of a look. But once you’re over 40, you become invisible. You’re a brick in the building and it’s sad. It just feels like the sun went down a little bit. It got a little cloudy outside.”

But the former supermodel is adamant she would not consider cosmetic surgery to regain her youthful appearance, insisting her former catwalk pal Janice Dickinson looks worse since she went under the knife.

Porizkova adds, “She was one of the most beautiful girls you’ve ever seen in your whole life. Now she looks like a transvestite.”

Another brick in the building. Any fat part of the bell curve women reading Paulina’s pained regret probably felt their hearts drop into their flabby stomachs. After all, if a ravishing beauty and former supermodel like Porizkova can suddenly become “invisible” to men at the age of 40, what hope do they have? Porizkova looks as good as a 45 year old woman can possibly look (she’s up there with Monica Bellucci for defying the hands of time), and yet even she has noticed the men’s eyes have stopped undressing her.

In comparison, this is where it is so much better to be a man. With an attractive lifestyle and a charming demeanor, a man can enjoy the lustful yearnings of younger women many more years than the average woman can expect to enjoy the pursuits of men, younger *or* older.

I have read that beautiful people suffer more psychologically from aging than plain-looking or ugly people, because they have more to lose. A twenty year deterioration can turn a hot babe into a barely recognizable hollow-eyed zombie of her former self, while an ugly MFer will still look pretty much like an ugly MFer twenty years later. The only thing unusual about Paulina’s observation of her rapidly declining sexual market value is her willingness to publicly acknowledge it. This marks her as a woman of excellent character.

Paulina is right about cosmetic surgery, too. The procedures aren’t good enough yet to slip past the quasi-tranny valley where aging broads surgically altered in the hopes of regaining their youthful glow instead resemble puffy bat-faced transvestites. Hopefully, science will advance on this front and true anti-aging breakthroughs will bless the world with more beautiful women for me to plunder.

***

Some other notes from the “Elusive 10” voting:

Lollygirl got the most 7 votes. The person who submitted her pic as an example of a 10 clearly has a jones for natural redheads. Truth be told, so do I. Unfortunately, Lollygirl was a little too skanky looking to compete with the exquisite beauties on display in that post. May her lolly forever shine on suggestively. Too bad redheads may disappear from the face of the earth.

Seven of the girls got rated a 9. This demonstrates that wide agreement exists on what constitutes 8s and 9s, but once you attempt to nail down feminine perfection, you run up against a dividing line of growing subjectivity past which men have individualistic tastes, and that this taste likely differs based on race. The reason for the boisterous disagreement probably arises from the fact that 10s are simply too rare in the state of nature to have exerted much of a selection effect on men’s mental beauty templates.

10s are not 10% of the population. Whoever claims that is living in a bubble. Female beauty isn’t on a linear scale. 10s are no more than 0.5% of all women. Probably more like 0.01%. You people need to get out in the world to reacquaint yourselves with the sad fact that most women walking around day to day are repulsive warthogs. If you limit your visual scope to non-obese women between the ages of 15 and 25, then you can plausibly claim a lot of women are bangable 6s and 7s, but you’d have to have laser-like focus to erase from your peripheral vision the aforementioned warthogs.

80% of the voters were white. (Voters and readers are not necessarily identical sets.) I suspect, though I cannot prove it, that white men are more transfixed by female facial beauty than are black men, who tend to focus more on the voluptuousness of the female body.

9% of voters were Asian, which far exceeds their proportion in the American population. Perhaps they boosted Hyori Lee’s rank? Of course, some of those self-identified Asians may be subcontinental Indians, in which case Aishwarya Rai got the boost.

The Finnish race represented 2.65% of the Chateau votes. Finns are 0.0008% of the world population. A fling I had with a Finn chick (you can see her arm in this post) was a twilight zone-ish experience. Pleasurable, but weird. She had incredibly soft skin.

Blacks accounted for 4% of the voters. The black girl got 6% of the 10 votes, which means there’s some jungle fever going on! The Finns, gotta be them.

Read Full Post »

Sexbot Update

They’re coming. And sooner than you think.

A YouTube commenter writes:

the day humans will stop existing is just around a hundred years after the first realistic sex robot hits the market.

Unless reproduction is industrialized and severed from the mating market after the appearance of that first lifelike sexbot, this commenter is likely correct. Here is an older post about the probable ramifications of sexbots on human society and dating.

When sexbots become realistic enough to compete with attractive human women in the bedroom, then what you will essentially see is a sex ratio that is numerically skewed in favor of men. Basically, the world will become one giant liberal arts college campus. Men will stop running traditional game and instead run “present and accounted for” game.

Read Full Post »

Another Cougar Bites The Dust

Nearly two years ago, the original Chateau host predicted that Ashton Kutcher was cheating on his cougar love, Demi:

instead of sleeping their way to the top, men commit their way to the top.

anyhow, give it time. most of these older female celebrity-younger male B lister couples are inherently unstable. i bet within five years ashton has fully severed himself from demi and hooks up with a young hottie. as opposed to hooking up with young mistresses on the sly as he is doing now.
heh heh.

It was also predicted by this very blog’s überhost that once Ashton’s cheating was discovered, Demi would put up with it in humiliating fashion because her rapidly declining sexual market value severely limited her options to get an equally high status man.

Right on cue, a chorus of cougars growled that yer humble host was wrong; that Ashton LURVED LURVED LURVED Demi and would never betray her. And just look how hot Demi is! Ashton could hardly do better. The virtual Ashton harem of aging broads reveled in bringing him up on this blog as some sort of retarded feminist proof that the older woman-younger man couple was the exception that broke the rule.

Well, the celebrity rags are reporting that Ashton Kutcher has been stepping out on Demi with a very cute and very young blonde mistress. (She’s only twenty-ooooooone….) And muckrakers are reporting that Ashton and Demi are putting up a “united front”.

HA HAAAAWW!

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Miss Moore, and YOU… WILL… ATONE.

You can practically hear the nation’s leading cougar pundits expire in the cold, snowy mountain crags. Maureen Dowd was found with her yellowed claws embedded in a fallen tree that resembled a Bill Clinton dildo.

If the prediction was off, it was only in overestimating the number of years it would take for Ashton to stray. Ashton couldn’t hang on for more than a couple years before his cock homed in on young, fresh, tight inelastic pussy like a divining rod.

Here is a new prediction: Demi Moore’s next lover will be lower status than Ashton Kutcher. And she will begin tweeting nude photos of herself in a desperate bid for sexual relevancy. Bruce Willis will continue banging hot young babes.

Read Full Post »

HBD And PUA

AHE comments:

it is ironic the HBD movement is so closely associated with the Game o sphere.

on the one hand u have people arguing genes dont lie. on the other, people argue it isnt too hard to lie about your genes.

HBD (for those readers who aren’t yet familiar with the term) stands for “human biodiversity” and is a school of thought that acknowledges that humans differ genetically in character traits on the population group level as well as the individual level. It shares an underlying doctrine with PUA (pickup artistry) — namely, that evolutionary science can explain a lot about modern human behavior, whether ethnic, racial, or sexual. Thus, HBD and PUA are cross-linked on a foundational level. Perhaps the most notable difference is that practitioners in PUA, through the use of game, are candid about seeking to exploit the knowledge of generalizable human behavioral differences for personal fun and profit. HBD believers (which, in actuality, includes most of humanity, regardless of their claims to believing it or not) hide their true intentions behind an obfuscatory cloud of squid ink and evasion even as they rush to move to undiverse neighborhoods when their kids are old enough to go to school.

The difference between a PUA and the typical HBD follower: the PUA has the integrity to stand by his actions and not insult your intelligence.

But the web has released an unabashed HBD Kraken from its underwater lair, and this beast is not afraid to confront harsh realities without the whitewash of politesse and codewords. Unfortunately, in its zeal to smash pretty lies by the boatload, the movement tends to succumb to infatuation with its opposition theories. The faint whiff of immutable determinism swirls snugly like a straitjacket on the follower fringe. An impetus to categorize human interactions based on easily perceived objective traits hints at the nerd-lke systematizing mind trying to grasp the significance of the new and dangerous knowledge.

AHE’s comment is a perfect example of this, and similar to a lot of other anti-game comments floating around the HBD-sphere. His (her?) assertion that HBD is all about “genes don’t lie” betrays a newbie’s understanding of the science, or a liar’s facility with disingenuousness. No evolutionary scientist worth his salt would argue that genes are wholly deterministic, or that the environment plays no role in shaping who we are. What the HBD movement *does* argue is that, since the second half of the 20th century, the genetic explanation for human differences has gotten short shrift, while the environmental explanation — or “blank slate” paradigm — has been untouchable. HBD thus brings balance to the force by revealing the ugly truth that genes account for a lot more of who we are than is currently acknowledged by our ruling class cognoscenti. That this makes a lot of lying shitsacks uncomfortable is a doubleplusgood perk.

So AHE’s specious association between HBD and PUA beliefs is false. Game is not about lying about your genes, just as HBD is not about genes determining the totality of who you are.

AHE, and some others with HBD-themed blogs, claim that belief in game is like a belief in the blank slate — you can’t make an alpha out of an inborn beta. Genes über alles. What an out of tune pitch to make by some of our web’s best and brightest! Can no one improve his lot? Is a 90 IQ person incapable of learning anything? Should that dummy just hang it up as soon as he’s born and suckle through a feeding and drugging tube provided by his 120+ IQ elite caretakers?

Or, to put it in simpler terms, imagine two 90 IQ kids. One is dumped in an empty trailer park to fend for himself, separate from civilization, and the other is raised the normal way, up through high school where he earns a solid C average. Can anyone realistically say the former is going to possess the same knowledge base and the same power of reasoning as the latter? Yes, the average 90 IQ kid is not likely to achieve what the average 110 IQ kid will, but he can, through effort, maximize what he’s got.

In the same way, a natural born beta can work to maximize his attractiveness to women by learning and applying game. And we have the proof that it works, in the testimony of literally tens of thousands of men who have seen their success with women skyrocket after becoming acquainted with the principles and tactics of game. True, the beta with game may never reach the exalted heights of the natural born alpha, but he can improve his lay rate and the quality of women he dates.

Which brings us to a quirky observation of the HBD community: a number of HBD writers and commenters exhibit a curiously child-like lack of understanding of female nature, and what motivates women to make the decisions they do in the dating market. It’s a strange blindspot they have that is probably best explained by their nerdiness and their concomitant need to quantify male attractiveness based on readily observable traits and markers of a traditionalist coloration. Doubters like AHE can only see male worth in easily measurable metrics like looks, money, and material possessions. To them, no man who doesn’t have status along these metrics will see any success with “alpha mimicking” game.

But game alone is enough to attract women, regardless of the objectively measurable quantity of those other male attractiveness traits. As has been argued here before, GAME IS ITS OWN STATUS. Women are turned on by men with tight game as much as, or maybe more than, they are turned on by a man with good looks or a high powered job. Certainly the conventional measures are helpful to a man’s success with women, but they aren’t the whole story. Game itself is a turn-on for women, because game is a true, authentic manifestation of manly power. During the learning stage, some portions of game may be a “mimicking” of alpha traits, but once game is internalized it becomes as much a part of a man’s suite of powerful coolness as any other marker of male attractiveness. After all, a man gunning through law school to get a high paying job that is attractive to women is “mimicking” alpha traits — faking it till he makes it — just as much as the guy attending the university of game. That one route happens to be more efficient than the other for acquiring the love and sexual surrender of many women is no argument against its authenticity.

Furthermore, there is the matter of game being a positive indicator of desirable male traits in and of itself. The men who excel at game are signaling a high ability to learn and apply new concepts, and a fortitude to see a self-improvement project through to success. These characteristics — fortitude, open-mindedness, discipline, ambition — are attractive to women. Now some will say these traits are all genetically influenced, and that may be true, but if so it does not argue against game as an authentic signal of male fuckability.

So HBD nerds need to get over the obvious “money/looks/fame” box within which they argue and constrict themselves, and begin to see that, like human differences in general, there is room to remake ourselves into better versions of who we are. To deny this is to deny there is any reason to put forth effort into anything of note after birth. There is more than one way to pierce a pussy. Women love game-spitting charming assholes as much as they love resource-providing stoic captains of industry. There is no contradiction in this observation.

On a side note, betas having more kids than alphas is not necessarily evidence that they are better with women. Instead, all it could mean is that the betas are finally getting their shot at aging pussy after the alphas have had their fill of that same pussy when it was younger, hotter, tighter and uninterested in baby-making. Number of kids is a poor measure of alphaness in this hedonistic day and age.

Read Full Post »

Players Die Young

It’s time to take an internet-y jaunt around the world of science and extract nuggets of wisdom from the minds of your betters.

Womanizers live fast, die young.

Promiscuous males are so intent on pursuing sexual partners that they can neglect even essential tasks such as eating, says a new study published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

The finding suggests that male promiscuity is not more common – despite its potential evolutionary advantages – because it is subject to natural limitations: playboy males have stunted growth and go to an early grave. […]

When the male fish were regularly supplied with new unfamiliar females throughout their life, they spent less time looking for food and more time pursuing the females. Males living with unfamiliar females also grew more slowly and to a smaller adult size, and tended to die sooner.

In contrast, males living with a single partner ate regularly, grew steadily throughout their lives and lived longer.

“The considerable costs of promiscuity to the individuals involved reveal a natural limitation on promiscuous behaviour, previously undescribed in vertebrates,” says Jordan. “Perhaps those who wish for a more promiscuous existence will see this as a warning.

Sure, this is a study of fish, not humans, but it may be relational. I can recall during my most deliriously promiscuous months I suffered from frequent colds and exhaustion. My health regained its footing when I settled into serially monogamous relationships.

There is one possible way out of this trade-off between promiscuity and health: be a late bloomer. If you start your womanizing career after you have fully grown and gained your maximum size, strength and constitution, you may not suffer the deleterious health consequences of chasing a wonderful variety of pussy. Vitamin D helps also.

******

Femtard fave bonobos aren’t the free love communitarians originally thought:

A team of researchers led by Gottfried Hohmann of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has discovered that the higher up a male bonobo is placed in the social hierarchy, the greater his mating success is with female bonobos. But even males who are not so highly placed are still in with a chance of impressing females.

Researchers reported for the first time direct support from mothers to their sons in agonistic conflicts over access to estrous females. Martin Surbeck from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology discovered that the presence of mothers enhances the mating success of their sons and thereby causes mating to be more evenly distributed among the males. As bonobo males remain in their natal group and adult females have the leverage to intervene in male conflicts, maternal support extends into adulthood and potentially affects male reproductive success. (published in: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences)

Variation in male mating success is often related to rank differences. Males who are unable to monopolize estrous females alone may engage in coalitions with other group members to chase higher ranking males off these females and to thus enhance their own mating success.

High status male bonobos get more sexual access to females, just as in chimpanzee tribes. Here, there is the additional influence of high ranking bonobo mothers helping their sons get a screw. Mothers benefit because sexually successful sons give them more grandchildren.

In addition to rank, the presence of mothers does indeed enhance the mating success of sons and thereby reduces the proportion of matings by the highest ranking male.

Mothers and sons seem to be inseparable and mothers provide agonistic aid to sons in conflicts with other males. As bonobos are male-philopatric, i.e. males remain in their natal group, and adult females occupy high dominance status, maternal support extends into adulthood and females have the leverage to intervene in male conflicts. The absence of female support to unrelated males suggests that mothers gain indirect fitness benefits by supporting their sons. “Females do not grant this kind of support to unrelated males. By helping their sons the mothers may likely increase the number of their own grandchildren”, says Martin Surbeck.

It never made sense to believe that mothers wouldn’t have some influence over their sons’ reproductive success. It is, evolutionarily speaking, in mom’s interest to see her son do well with the ladies. There are parallels to human families. Mothers of murderous sons nearly always absolve, excuse or defend them. Mothers, despite having an almost universal lack of game knowledge, do exert a sort of primitive effort to set up their sons with “good girls”. Sometimes these efforts even work. I imagine in more matriarchal societies, like sub-Saharan Africa where fathers are generally less involved in family matters, mothers play a big role in increasing the status of sons and helping fight off (not necessarily physically) competitor males who could vie for sexual opportunities with the same women as their sons.

******

Single moms take note: if you want help from the bastard spawn of your first badboy lover in raising any future spawn, you had better have the future children with the same badboy.

Help from earlier offspring in rearing a subsequent brood should evolve more easily when the mother is strictly monogamous. A comparative study of birds provides evidence in support of this view.

Cooperative breeding, in which more than two individuals combine to rear a single brood of young, has evolved repeatedly in animals, and most commonly in insects and birds. This situation poses an evolutionary paradox: because individuals have only two parents, some of the carers in these cooperative societies are helping to raise young that are not their own.

A related study shows that promiscuous females reduce a society’s cooperativeness.

Theory predicts that the evolution of cooperative behaviour is favoured by low levels of promiscuity leading to high within-group relatedness. However, in vertebrates, cooperation often occurs between non-relatives and promiscuity rates are among the highest recorded. Here we resolve this apparent inconsistency with a phylogenetic analysis of 267 bird species, demonstrating that cooperative breeding is associated with low promiscuity; that in cooperative species, helping is more common when promiscuity is low; and that intermediate levels of promiscuity favour kin discrimination. Overall, these results suggest that promiscuity is a unifying feature across taxa in explaining transitions to and from cooperative societies.

So, a society of sluts = Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. POF’s fiancé wept again.

******

Women are more compassionate than men because it benefits their health. File under: the eternal solipsism of the female body.

The research demonstrates that concern for the well-being of others does, indeed, benefit the self. By increasing the effectiveness of social support, compassion served a stress reduction function for women in the study.

Signaling, stress reduction, SWPL membership dues… call it what you like, it’s clear that compassion is not exactly the noble human trait our pious poseurs and puritanical lefties would tell you it is.

******

Women, do you want to marry a man who won’t cheat on you? Then make sure he has higher economic status than you.

The more economically dependent a man is on his female partner, the more likely he is to cheat on her, according to research to be presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.

“But for women, economic dependency seems to have the opposite effect: the more dependent they are on their male partners, the less likely they are to engage in infidelity,” said Christin Munsch, a sociology Ph.D. candidate at Cornell University, and author of the study, “The Effect of Relative Income Disparity onInfidelity for Men and Women.”

What’s going on here? Two explanations jump to mind: one, lower earning men cheat because their higher earning wives emasculate them either through withdrawal of sex or by snarky verbal slapshots. Thus, they seek the reinvigoration of their testicular fortitude in the flaps of another woman’s vulva. Or, the higher earning wives fell in love with the sort of lower earning but charming ne’er-do-wells who are more apt to cheat because they can. Either way, it’s in both men’s and women’s interest, if faithful, long term marriages are their goals, for the wife to be hotter than what the husband has previously dated and for the husband to be higher status — as measured by income, social standing, or some other status variable like fluency with game — than the wife.

But this is not the whole story.

Ironically, men who make significantly more than their female partners were also more likely to cheat. “At one end of the spectrum, making less money than a female partner may threaten men’s gender identity by calling into question the traditional notion of men as breadwinners,” Munsch said. “At the other end of the spectrum, men who make a lot more money than their partners may be in jobs that offer more opportunities for cheating like long work hours, travel, and higher incomes that make cheating easier to conceal.”

So basically, men will cheat under a lot of different conditions. Alert the media! Men like a variety of pussy! Unless the woman is exceedingly hot — like a 9 or higher — she should avoid marrying a much higher earning man if she doesn’t want to endure the pain of infidelity over and over and over…

******

Trusting people aren’t necessarily more gullible than skeptical people.

People high in trust were more accurate at detecting the liars—the more people showed trust in others, the more able they were to distinguish a lie from the truth. The more faith in their fellow humans they had, the more they wanted to hire the honest interviewees and to avoid the lying ones. Contrary to the stereotype, people who were low in trust were more willing to hire liars and they were also less likely to be aware that they were liars.

Moral of the study: If you are going to aspire to be a manwhore taking advantage of innocent blondes of Northern European descent, you had better have a good poker face.

******

For the men (you women should lift too, but I don’t want you getting any ideas that the 2.5 pound pink dumbbells are gonna make much difference to your cellulite ridden asses): you can build just as much muscle doing high rep light weights to failure as doing low rep heavy weights to failure.

Current gym dogma holds that to build muscle size you need to lift heavy weights. However, a new study conducted at McMaster University has shown that a similar degree of muscle building can be achieved by using lighter weights. The secret is to pump iron until you reach muscle fatigue.

“Rather than grunting and straining to lift heavy weights, you can grab something much lighter but you have to lift it until you can’t lift it anymore,” says Stuart Phillips, associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster University. “We’re convinced that growing muscle means stimulating your muscle to make new muscle proteins, a process in the body that over time accumulates into bigger muscles.”

I have put on sixteen pounds of muscle in the past five months lifting very heavy weights, two sets for each exercise of approximately 6-10 reps and 4-7 reps each. My routine is formed around a core of the big four: deadlift, squat, bench and wide grip pullups. I also take whey protein, creatine, and an assortment of peer-reviewed legal supplements, and my diet is 80% paleo. (Note: I have nothing against steroids.)

I’ve done both the high rep light weight and low rep heavy weight methods to failure, and I find that the latter leaves me feeling more aggressive and torqued. The former gives me more of a pump, which quickly subsides after a half hour. I like the feeling of accomplishment I get from incrementally lifting heavier weights, so I will stick with that method. Perhaps a mixed routine incorporating both methods is the way to go.

Read Full Post »

Tough Times Are A Bounty For Betas

Think we might be heading into a double dip recession? Or, worse, a decades-long economic retraction with hyperinflation and a general growing business and government incompetence thanks to a dumbing down of the population? Rejoice, betas! This is your moment in the sun. Chicks who were reminded of their mortality were more attracted to soft, less masculine herb faces, and this preference was most pronounced for women at the peak of their fertility cycle. (Regrettably, their desire to have kids also went up, so make sure you strap on that condom if you’re going to bang a chick recently diagnosed with cancer.) PS: Mortality salience refers to reminders of one’s death.

Previous research has shown that individuals who are reminded of their death exhibited a greater desire for offspring than those who were not reminded of their death. The present research investigated whether being reminded of mortality affects mate selection behaviors, such as facial preference judgments. Prior research has shown that women prefer more masculine faces when they are at the high versus low fertility phase of their menstrual cycles. We report an experiment in which women were tested either at their high or fertility phase. They were randomly assigned to either a mortality salience (MS) or control condition and then asked to judge faces ranging from extreme masculine to extreme feminine. The results showed that women’s choice of the attractive male face was determined by an interaction between fertility phase and condition. In control conditions, high fertility phase women preferred a significantly more masculine face than women who were in a lower fertility phase of their menstrual cycles. In MS conditions, high fertility phase women preferred a significantly less masculine (i.e., more average) face than women who were in a low fertility phase. The results indicate that biological processes, such as fertility phase, involved in mate selection are sensitive to current environmental factors, such as death reminders. This sensitivity may serve as an adaptive compromise when choosing a mate in potentially adverse environmental conditions.

In short, women who thought about their own death suddenly found feminized beta providers a lot more attractive than masculine alpha cads. This preference was largest for ovulating women, who normally show the exact opposite preference when times are good and death is a faraway abstraction.

If you are a beta male, then you will hope and pray for another Great Depression, war, or alien invasion. It seems counterintuitive, (after all, wouldn’t a highly masculine man be a better choice for protection during tough times?), but it makes some sense if you remember that alpha cads also bring with them the threat of abandonment, which would be disastrous for women trying to survive in a bad environment. Since the free-for-all, stoically unjealous polyamorists can’t grasp why male abandonment is a bad thing, the Chateau will helpfully remind them —

In tough times, betas will be especially loathe to assume the child-raising duties of another man’s bastard spawn.

Some more study results:

The present results provide new evidence about how environmental factors, such as the presence of death reminders, can influence human reproductive behaviors, such as mate selection. […]

First, it has been shown that people in a MS condition will adhere more strongly to socially acceptable norms and will react negatively towards those persons who do not uphold these norms (Greenberg et al., 1990; Greenberg et al., 1994; Rosenblatt et al., 1989).

Troubled times breed collectivism. Are the notoriously monogamous, norm-following and shame-avoiding Northeast Asians the product of millennia of living off marginal land constantly raided by tribes to the north?

In the present research, the face selected by ovulating women in the [Mortality Salience] condition could be considered a more average face than faces chosen by high fertile phase women in the control condition and low fertile phase women in the MS condition.

Average = herb. Exceptional = lantern jaw and heavy brow ridge. Interestingly, non-ovulating women showed a slightly lower preference for herb faces when they were confronted with their mortality. So alpha cads are not out of the running completely when the shit hits the fan. But you gotta notice just how upside-down bizarro world the mating market looks when the good times come to an end. This might explain the rise of the beta male during the first half of the 20th century, when world wars wracked societies.

High fertile phase women in the MS condition may have viewed the masculine face negatively because of the association of masculine faces with socially negative characteristics and would view feminized faces more positively because feminized faces are shown to be associated with more pro-social attributes such as being helpful, cooperative, trustworthy, and a good father (Boothroyd, et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2008; Johnston, et al., 2001).

Sure, the herb may be a bad lay, but when the cupboard is bare he’ll be out there scrounging up food for his lady. Personally, Chateau hosts prefer being known for their lay expertise. It’s more fun.

Second, it has been shown that following [Mortality Salience], women and men may find the physical aspects of sex and sexual attraction unappealing, as the physicality of sex may be a reminder of one’s eventual mortality (Goldenberg et al. 1999; Landau et al. 2006). In the present research, it may have been the case that high fertile phase women experienced the highly masculine male faces as associated with physical sexuality and, therefore, death.

Sex is the little death (if you’re doing it right).

Following MS, women who are at a high risk of pregnancy may view mates with highly masculine faces as involving more risk than mates with more feminized faces.

Reminders of death and hardship usher an alternative universe where highly fertile ovulating women prefer pasty-faced betaboys. In good times, just the opposite preference is observed. Ergo, late empire prosperity and decadence may go a long way toward explaining the rise in rates of single mom-hood — in good times, these womb-lubed women choose unreliable alpha cads as fathers, subconsciously figuring that if the alphas bolt it won’t much matter since resources (in the form of ample food supplies and government largesse) are plentiful. Chateau Heartiste wrote about this dysgenic trend nearly three years ago.

In future research, it is necessary to investigate the extent to which highly masculine faces increase death-related thoughts in high fertile phase and low fertile phase women.

Our results suggest that mortality salience may result in an over-ride of the high fertility phase-induced preference for masculine faces and a strengthening of the predisposition for less masculine and likely higher investing mates.

The study results show that it makes sense for a betaface to remind girls of their impending demise. Call it Death Game. You casually mention a lady friend who died prematurely from some rare disease or freak accident, and then lament how little time we all have on this earth to pursue our goals and realize our dreams. Say “Life is so precious, and death is always around the corner, so grab what’s in front of you and live like it could all end tomorrow!” while touching the spine of her back with the chill fingertips of your best Grim Reaper impersonation. Throw in a bit of NLP for good measure: “My afterlife is probably… beLOW me. Sex is a great way to fight death… with me, I love each day I’m alive.”

Our sample was composed primarily of White, middle-class college women who have been shown to express a preference for mates who will invest heavily in her and her children.

D’oh! Talk about saying a lot in so little. How do black and asian women respond to mortality reminders? Are their natural tendencies strengthened, or do they enter a bizarro world just like white women?

Read Full Post »

The Limits On Hypergamy

Via Randall Parker, here is a study of birds showing that less attractive female birds choose equally unattractive mates.

Less-pretty female house sparrows tend to lower their aim when selecting a mate. Addressing the lack of studies on condition-dependency of female mate choice, researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology found that female sparrows of a low quality prefer males of an equally low quality.

Researchers from the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology in Vienna studied sexual selection preferences in the common house sparrow. Though it has always been assumed that females will want to choose the best possible mate, in terms of reproductive and genetic fitness, Matteo Griggio and Herbert Hoi have found that, in fact, unattractive females dare not dream of mating with males who are considered out of their league. […]

“Actually, we found that overall, female sparrows don’t have a preference for badge size in males”, Griggio explains, “but we did find that less attractive females – those with a low weight and poor condition – have a clear preference for less attractive males with smaller or average-sized badges”. Rather than not find a partner, unattractive females will simply settle for an unattractive male.

Griggio continues: “There is some good news for the plainer females though – while they may be forced to settle for less dominant males with small chest badges, these males have been shown to invest more time in parental care than their good-looking counterparts.”

We here at the Chateau write a lot about female hypergamy, as it is a powerful motivating force in shaping the dating market and, ultimately, influencing your own success or failure with the opposite sex. Female hypergamy gets short shrift in studies and in popular culture because it is one of the uglier truths about women’s natures. Since gender is one of the four pillars of protected PC classes holding up the high church of leftist blank slate theology — right behind race but trumping homosexuality and any-religion-that-isn’t-Christianity — it makes sense that our commissars of media agitprop would work hard to avoid having to touch the subject of female hypergamy.

But we touch it here! And grope and fondle it lasciviously. That’s why it’s worth mentioning that even hypergamy must occasionally bow to the restrictions imposed on free market choice by female mate value. Although the above study is of birds, some parallels can be drawn to human behavior; parallels which are corroborated by real life experience. Women may loathe the idea of settling, but many of them do, as you can readily see by walking out your door and noticing all the ugly ass couples canoodling like they really enjoy the prospect of fornicating with each other.

Like the female house sparrow, less attractive women may deliberately avoid dating higher quality men in favor of beta males for a number of reasons:

1. Less attractive women sacrifice too much to keep an alpha male around. There are plenty of couples where a much better looking man invested absolutely nothing into a skewed relationship and got all the sex he wanted in return. This might be fun for the plain jane for a while, but I’m sure the thrill wears off after a few months, (or years, if she’s truly deluded about her own value).
2. Less attractive women figure they don’t have a shot, and so don’t bother flirting with alpha males. Call it the Sour Grapes Syndrome; a homely chick insists she prefers niceguys or nerds to the exclusion of those “meathead jocks” or “douchebags”, but in reality she is simply rationalizing her limited options. Sour Grapes Syndrome explains why ugly chicks don’t commit suicide en masse.
3. Less attractive women have to make a trade off that more attractive women don’t. A hot babe can land *and* keep an alpha male around to help her raise her young, but a homely chick has to decide between a one night stand with a horny alpha who will be embarrassed by his slumming the next morning and a relationship with a beta who will lavish more caring attentiveness on her and any brood she may have with him.
4. Less attractive women like to feel they are better looking than what their partner normally gets. This is a power law of mating dynamics. We all want to leverage our power in the dating market to the hilt, and a relationship where there is a big imbalance in power sharing is inherently unstable. Homely chicks know, either through experience or instinct, that dating alpha males results in a huge power differential that will almost always result in a breakup with her in tears. So she avoids dating alphas when it’s time to get serious about landing a committed man. Homelier women are smart to do this; studies have shown that the strongest relationships are ones where the woman is better looking than her partner. When a women feels pretty in the context of the man she is with, she will be happier… as long as the man keeps up his end of the bargain by having higher social status and/or game.

Note that none of the above reasons should imply that female hypergamy is rendered null and void for unattractive women. Human females are a little more complicated than house sparrows. In real life what we see are homely girls giving hypergamy the ol’ college try until their options, and their ability to stoically endure continual pump and dumps, are exhausted. This often plays out in practice with the widely observed phenomenon of urbanized 4s, 5s, and 6s suffering a series of humiliating short term flings with men well above their level during their 20s, followed by a grudging acceptance of the utility of settling for the boring beta male in their later 20s and 30s.

Seduction artists who like to dumpster dive (and really, you should probably turn in your PUA card if you prefer taking the easy road to low quality pussy) should continue treating the playing field as if female hypergamy was in full effect all the time, because most homely chicks — even the married ones — can’t resist getting used like a disembodied hole by a superior man.

Read Full Post »