Archive for the ‘Dating’ Category

If ¡SCIENCE! was a woman, she’d beg me to fill her belly with my champions.

Thanks to the id-exposing carnal house of online dating, a treasure trove of social science data has dropped, and it confirms numerous pearls of wisdom and Game techniques tenderly curated in the Chateau Heartiste Library of Love.

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one’s chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Strategic behaviors — aka GAME — can help a man attract a higher quality girl. Modest? Depends on your definition of success. I’ve always said men shouldn’t expect Game to consistently land them hard 10s, but they can expect to land girls an SMV point or two higher than what they would otherwise manage to pull without Game.

Let’s explore what’s hiding in SCIENCE’s cleavage. First, mate selection studies agree that there is a universal ideal of high sexual market value (SMV, measured as youth and beauty in women and as a combination of traits in men):

It is a common observation that marriage or dating partners strongly resemble one another in terms of age, education, physical attractiveness, attitudes, and a host of other characteristics. One possible explanation for this is the matching hypothesis, which suggests that men and women pursue partners who resemble themselves. This in turn implies that people differ in their opinions about what constitutes a desirable partner or at least about who is worth pursuing. At the other extreme, and more in line with biological studies of mate selection, lies the competition hypothesis, which assumes that there is consensus about what constitutes a desirable partner and that mate seekers, regardless of their own qualifications, pursue those partners who are universally recognized as most desirable. Paradoxically, this can also produce couples who resemble one another in terms of desirability, as the most desirable partners pair off with one another, followed by the next most desirable, and so on. To the extent that desirability correlates with individual attributes, the matching and competition hypotheses can, as a result, produce similar equilibrium patterns of mixing.

The ripples of mate choice that disturb the observable surface of the sexual market indicate much more powerful waves underneath which guide people’s romantic choices.

However, while the two hypotheses may produce similar outcomes, they carry very different implications about the processes by which people identify and attract partners. If there is consensus about who is desirable, then it creates a hierarchy of desirability such that individuals can, at least in principle, be ranked from least to most desirable, and their ranking will predict how and to what extent they are pursued by others. Historically, however, these hierarchies have been difficult to quantify. Since they reflect which partners people pursue, and not just who people end up with, one would need a way to observe unrequited overtures and requited ones to determine who people find desirable. Online dating provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to observe both requited and unrequited overtures at the scale of entire populations.

This explains the category error made by feminists of either sex, by tradcons, and by suckup white knights when they incorrectly conclude that people’s first choice in mate is the mate they end up with. Nope. Bobbing in the wake of every successfully reciprocated choice is the lovelorn detritus of more attractive but unfulfilled choices.

“Aspirational” pursuit of mates completes the full sexual market picture, filling in those blank spaces normally left overlooked by a quantitative data focus on how men and women eventually match up.

We also explore the ways in which people tailor their messaging strategies and message content based on the desirability of potential partners, and how desirability and dating strategy vary across demographic groups.

Play to your audience. Don’t overgame a plain jane, don’t over-beta a hottie.

To study individual desirability, we focus on messages between users of the website in four cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Paper should really be titled, “Aspirational pursuit of shitlib mates”.

 Figure 1 shows the distribution of this quantity separately for men and women in each of the cities. The distribution is roughly consistent across cities, and although women receive more messages than men overall,

Women receive more messages than men. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs. Check.

the distributions for both display a classic “long-tailed” form—most people receive a handful of messages at most, but a small fraction of the population receive far more.

The bottom 10% of women receive fewer than five messages. The bottom 25% of men receive fewer than five messages. Female hypergamy is real. Check.

Corollary: a small fraction of online daters receives most of the messages. Online dating is low investment, low return. Check.

However, desirability is not only about how many people contact you but also about who those people are. If you are contacted by people who are themselves desirable, then you are presumptively more desirable yourself.

The Chateau’s definition of the alpha male co-signed by SCIENCE. Check.

As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older women are less desirable, while older men are more so (1819).

The existence of The Wall and men aging like wine, women like milk, vindicated by SCIENCE. Check.

For women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is 60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines.

Men are expendable, women perishable. Check.
SMV sex-based double standards are real and immutable. Check.
Barely legal sexpots and older charming billionaire werewolf fantasies reflect real romantic desires of each sex. Check.
May-December romances are normal and natural. Check.

In keeping with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on ethnicity (1520), with Asian women and white men being the most desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities.

Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an undergraduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is associated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

LMAO overeducated careerist shrikes BTFO. ps check.

We now turn to the central results of our study. First, we use our desirability scores to explore whether people engage in aspirational mate pursuit (that is, messaging potential partners who are more desirable than they are) and how the probability of receiving a reply varies with the difference in desirability between senders and receivers. […]

The most common (modal) behavior for both men and women is to contact members of the opposite sex who on average have roughly the same ranking as themselves, suggesting that people are relatively good judges of their own place in the desirability hierarchy. The distributions about this modal value, however, are noticeably skewed to the right, meaning that a majority of both sexes tend to contact partners who are more desirable than themselves on average—and hardly any users contact partners who are significantly less desirable.

Note that while both sexes aim out of their league, this has to be weighted against the number of each sex considered attractive enough for sex, and because more women than men get messaged (more men are considered no-gos by women) the result of contacting more desirable prospects is that more women get contacted in general.

…women are more likely than men to receive replies—but among both women and men, the probability of a reply is a decreasing function of desirability gap, more desirable partners replying at lower rates than less desirable ones. The differences are stark: Men are more than twice as likely to receive a reply from women less desirable than themselves than from more desirable ones, and for messages sent to more desirable women, the reply rate never rises above 21%. Yet, the vast majority of men send messages to women who are more desirable than themselves on average. Messaging potential partners who are more desirable than oneself is not just an occasional act of wishful thinking; it is the norm.

Men practice a dragnet strategy; drag the net over the ASCII sea and collect a number of tasty red snappers while keeping the nets open in the hopes of catching that prized sturgeon. Women employ a different strategy; spearfishing. Target only the alpha fish and take aim.

Conditioned on the number of messages sent, men and especially women who reach higher up the desirability ladder tend to write to a less diverse set of potential matches, in terms of desirability gap. This behavior, consistent across all four cities, indicates that mate seekers, and particularly those setting their sights on the most desirable partners, do not adopt a diversified strategy to reduce the risk of being rejected, as one might, for instance, when applying to universities.

Maybe people think very desirable prospects will love them if they “share values” and outlook. Big mistake.

Women initiate far fewer contacts than men, but both sets of curves fall off with increasing desirability gap in all four cities. One might imagine that individuals who make a habit of contacting potential partners significantly more desirable than themselves (large positive desirability gap) would also initiate more contacts overall to increase their chances of getting a reply, but they do the opposite: The number of initial contacts an individual makes falls off rapidly with increasing gap, and it is the people approaching the least desirable partners who send the largest number of messages. A possible explanation is that those who approach more desirable partners are adopting a “quality over quantity” approach, more precisely identifying people they see as an attractive match or spending more time writing personalized messages, at the expense of a smaller number of messages sent.

This seems to be a bad strategy that exists only because online dating is an evolutionarily novel environment that hasn’t yet weeded out people who practice it. I mean, the definition of anti-Game is trying too hard to impress a more desirable prospect. (Wait for it, because the study addresses my skepticism.)

Both men and women tend to write substantially longer messages to more desirable partners, up to twice as long in some cases. The effect is larger for messages sent by women than by men, although there are exceptions.

Women can be exceptionally cold toward beta males while effusing with egregious feminine ardor for alpha males. Lesson: whether you’re a beta or alpha male, don’t mistake the treatment you get from women for how women treat all men.

Among the groups we study, for instance, it is men in Seattle who have the most pronounced increase in message length.

Seattle is soyboy central. Too much estrogen. Very sad!

[Of the cities studied, Seattle presents the most unfavorable dating climate for men, with as many as two men for every woman in some segments of the user population (fig. S1)].

Isn’t pantifa headquartered in Seattle? No wonder they’re so worked up.

Here, we see an interesting difference between women and men: The women show an increase in their use of positive words when communicating with more desirable partners, while the men show a decrease. The effect size is modest but is consistent across all four cities and statistically significant (P < 0.001; table S4).

Subconsciously, men perceive their upbeat motivational emoting to be a value lowering trait in the company of cute babes. Evidence for the evolved neg?

Buckle up, because here comes the big payoff in term of implications for effective Game tactics used in the seduction of women:

in all four cities, men experience slightly lower reply rates when they write more positively worded messages. Although our analysis cannot reveal the underlying process that gives rise to these behaviors (for example, reinforcement learning), this result may offer a hint about why men tend to write somewhat less positive messages to more desirable partners.

Men have more success at getting responses from more desirable women if the men send less enthusiastic messages. Be A Challenge, Flip The Script, Skittles Man and Bring Da Movies strategies vindicated.

On average, people pursue partners who are roughly 25% more desirable than they themselves are. In the language of matching and competition introduced at the start of this article, it appears that people are pursuing a hybrid strategy with elements of both—they are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their behavior accordingly while, at the same time, competing modestly for more desirable mates.

If you really want to bang and date an HB8, you’ve got to compete immodestly for the hotties and modestly for less desirable girls. Turn that message rate pyramid upside down; more messages to the hotties, fewer messages to the wannabe thotties.

Our results on aspirational mate pursuit are consistent with the popular concept of dating “leagues,” as reflected in the idea that someone can be “out of your league,” meaning that attractive matches are desirable for but unavailable to less attractive others. Provided that leagues are envisaged as a single continuous hierarchy rather than as distinct strata, our results suggest that, contrary to popular belief, attracting the attention of someone out of one’s league is entirely possible.

Related, I’ve long had to correct misinterpretations of my Dating Market Value categorization system in which ignorant or bad faith readers assume concepts like alpha male and beta male are discrete entities rather than (as this study’s authors state about “dating leagues”) continuous SMV hierarchies.

One might wonder how the patterns we observe online might inform our understanding of offline mate pursuit and dating markets. Online dating differs from offline dating in several important ways (25). Because of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely fiercer online than offline. This may increase the extent to which a hierarchy of desirability exists online and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of fish in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back. It has also been suggested that consensus about what makes an attractive partner is strongest in the early stages of courtship, when partners do not know as much about one another (2627). While it is difficult to study early courtship offline—our method requires unrequited overtures, which are hard to observe in offline interactions—these differences suggest that hierarchies of desirability may be more pronounced online than off.

Now where have we all read this before? Oh yeah. And oh yeah.

Bloody hell, will SCIENCE ever stop slurping my knob?

Read Full Post »

From a 1963 porno mag:

The cock carousel has a rich Crimson Pill history.

The seeds of America’s decline were already evident in the sexual abandon of women unleashed by mid-20th Century. What we’re dealing with now is a post-patriarchal culture set in motion many decades ago.

As with all post-patriarchal cultures, demise is guaranteed because abandoning benevolent patriarchy violates fundamental sexual polarity rules which govern relational dynamics between the sexes.

As a reader put it, “Men adapt to nature. Women adapt to man.”

Read Full Post »

Welcome to the CH patented, leather-bound B.O.B. seduction system.

Birth order has an impact on a girl’s character. How much of an impact is debatable, but the zero sum sexual market is all about exploiting pattern perturbations at the margins. In my travels through the Valley of the Thots, I’ve noticed that only-children, first-borns, middle chicks, and “woopsie” last-borns share personality, and hence sexuality, traits.

Only-children girls:

The stereotypes are true. Only-daughters have been coddled their whole lives. They have never had to compete for love and attention with siblings, and their parents (probably sad they didn’t have a son, given they stopped at one kid) treat them with kid gloves because they don’t want the onlies to be upset with them. Sometimes the fathers will resent their only-girls, or push them to be tomboys against their natures, and this will later fuel a slutty rebelliousness in the only-girl that materializes as Dad’s worst nightmare. These girls grow up to be your typical “precious princesses”; selfish, egotistic, demanding, irrationally confident…and DTF. Yes, onlies love to jump in the sack with men who can overpower their solipsism and associated shit tests. The catch is that onlies make such an overpowering first impression that most men are intimidated by their lookatme antics.

First-born girls:

The weight of expectation is placed on these girls. They have carried the burden of pleasing their parents and undertaking some responsibility for their younger siblings. These are your straight-arrow, apple polisher chicks with a good head on their shoulders. They know what they want in a man, and it’s usually a long-term commitment. First-borns respond well to “shared values” and “life dreams (or lost dreams)” Game routines, because they have spent their lives trying to please others often at the expense of pleasing themselves. You want to be the man who can connect with the first-born on the level of someone who gets what she’s had to sacrifice, and who can give her what she’s allowed herself to miss out on before she met you.

Middle chicks:

Keep in mind that White American family size is decreasing, so middle- and last-born chicks are a vanishing breed. Still, I’ve known a few, and they have their own way of seeing the world. Middles are usually artsy, free spirits, and this predilection extends to their poon. They have big, soft hearts, easily broken, that soar and sway and get carried away on bouts of self-induced drama. These were the girls largely ignored by their parents, left to explore on their own. And explore they do, every nook and cocka. Be the man who notices her “special talents” and she’ll be yours forever.

Woopsies (last-borns):

“Mistakes” are pampered even more than are only-children, especially if they’re girls. These are the “rare jewel” daughters of fathers who shower them with baubles, credit cards, BMWs for their Sweet Sixteen birthdays, and a hands-off approach to disciplining them. Part of the reason is that parents get lazy by the third kid, opting to let nature take its course. Another reason is that parents, feeling guilty about neglecting to properly raise the Woopsie, alleviate their guilt by giving the Woopsie lots of gifts and leeway to do as she pleases. The woopsie girl can do no wrong, and because she has never had boundaries on her behavior, she grows up into a thrill-seeker who will push men’s boundaries just to see how much she can get away with before the hammer comes down (it rarely does…most men are pussies). The Woopsie is liable to shack up with a jerkboy grifter before she ever has a serious relationship with a serious man. She’s prone to cheating, carousing, gallivanting, acting out, and then regretting her decisions when the Wall looms. Men looking for the Woopsie Bang should stress script-flipping; the Woopsie can’t resist a hard-to-get man after a lifetime having her feelings validated and her every want fulfilled by her Pedestal Polishing Dad.


“traitors first” connects the dots,

So essentially go for onlies and woopsies for the easy lay and first and middles for LTR or waifu.
Wow that really does explain why the female market is so screwed up, you’re picking from 70% + onlies and woopsies (probably closer to 90% now a days) leaving less than 30% (way less) as potential wife material and probably half of that left over is probably a lost cause.

There is much truth in this.

Small family size = More dirty sluts?

mmmmmm….could be!

Read Full Post »

Sex skews can have profound impacts on sexual market behavior. The scarcer sex gets to dictate the terms of engagement. Generally, more women than men means more cads and tramps, fewer dads and damsels. While more men than women means this:

Western societies, particularly in America, have currently operative sexual markets which strongly indicate sex skews that favor women: dull-looking egomaniacal attention whores holding out for apex alphas. Western Men are noticing. From farmlegend,

CH: “But the hourglass-shaped, slender, feminine woman is a vanishing breed, and fat chicks are so disgusting that men will bang a strident, chisel-jawed, hipless careercunt with 3% body fat because the alternative — spelunking neck deep into the smegma swamp of a quintuple-folded labia-rinth — is so ghastly.”

Couple things –
In my day, “curvy” meant Sophia Loren, Racquel Welch. In 2018 America, any overfed warpig with a beer gut, flabby batwings and pendulous tits can proudly call herself “curvy” and no one bats an eye.

Another thing about the America of my yute – a plain-faced, hipless, titless gal was practically invisible in the SMP, and would have considered herself fortunate to snag a dull, hardworking average dude for marriage and babymaking. The obesity epidemic has radically transformed the social value of these types of women, and they can and do get away with behaving like entitled queens near the apex of the pyramid. I personally know of a few women in my orbit of acquaintances that fit this description, and the amount of attention they get from the ravenous horde of thirsty men is unreal – they get approached all the damned time, shit test and flake like it’s goin’ out of style, and sneer at the effrontery of men that show her interest who aren’t 6’3” and studly.

I’ve written about this topic before: female obesity has a huge impact on the practicable sexual market:

there is another, MASSIVE factor at work skewing the sexual market, and one that, just as unsurprisingly, gets almost no attention from the PC-soaked punditariat: female obesity.

Imagine you are an unmarried working class dude recently unemployed. You look around you and marvel at a sea of grotesquely misshapen fat women, rolls upon rolls of undulating flesh hiding stores of cheesy poofs, porky hellion spawn trailing their wakes, chins resting atop chins, bloated diabetic cankles stomping the Walmartian grounds like lumbering elephants. In some towns, close to 40% of the available single women are clinically OBESE.

This is obesity folks, not just overweight. Overweight women are physically repulsive, but obesity renders them monstrous. To clarify this assertion for the modern indoctrinated female reader: an obese woman is as sexually undesirable to men as a jobless, charmless, humorless, enfeebled, dull man is sexually undesirable to women.

So back to our realistic scenario: Our typical unmarried working class man surveys his cellulite-blasted kingdom (and it does not matter how fat he, himself, is, for fat men and thin men alike prefer the exquisite sight of slender female bodies), and he makes a quick hindbrain calculation. Does he bust his ass in a crappy service sector job doing women’s work for a shot at legally bound long-term commitment to a shuffling shoggoth dragging the bastard spawn of a hundred alpha males in tow, or does he say “fuck it” and turn to video games and porn featuring hot, thin chicks for his status and dopamine fix?

Sex skew doesn’t necessarily have to be purely birth-ratio numerical in character; a functional sex skew can exist anywhere the BANGABLE population of one sex outnumbers the bangable population of the other sex. Given the inherent nature of the sexes — expensive eggs, cheap sperm, female perishability, male expendability — there will under normal circumstances and in most places and times be fewer bangable women than bangable men, but additional, novel factors can push that ingrained female-favored skew closer or further from favoring women.

Gross, boundless obesity — an evolutionary novel factor if ever there was one — negatively affects female bangability more than it does male bangability, so a high rate of female obesity would in practice reduce further the number of bangable women available to men, creating a “dads and damsels” sexual market of fewer women and more men that mirrors a numerically shifted sexual market in which male live births greatly outnumbered female live births. The tilted playing field would tilt even more against men, from all the fat women standing at one end of it.

In short, widespread (heh) female obesity means women can call the shots, and the less-fat the woman, the more shots she can call and the louder and more obnoxious her calls. Sex-skewing obesity has a downstream effect on the sexual market that influences the decision-making process of every woman, slender and larded alike, so that even the plain janes and the bangable-by-black-man-standards chubsters strut and preen like the past HB8s of a better, thinner America. Meanwhile, a present day HB8 has so many options and love-parched lickspittles fanning her with online flattery that she leverages her power to convince an alpha male to accept exclusivity and nagging before he’s ready (if she’s forward-thinking), or she squanders her prime lubricity years on the cock carousel laboring under the well-fed delusion that she has all the time in the world and a limitless, uninterrupted menu of alpha males eager to save a ho and pay through the nose for the privilege of it.

The picture is complicated (for the worse) by the fact that “dads and damsels” aren’t the sole manifestations of a female obesity-skewed sex market that favors women. Scarce slender pussy can just as easily mean more men dropping out of the dating market rather than “dadding up”, especially if conditions in the dating field are such that actively or attitudinally chaste, pleasantly feminine damsels remain in short supply, which as anyone looking at Current Year Cuntery can readily ascertain they are. And “dropping out” becomes a lot more tolerable to men if they have the horniness release valve of hardcore online porn, to be supplemented (very soon) with lifelike HB10 sexbots.

None of this state of affairs, btw, is conducive to maintaining, let alone building, civilization. But we won’t learn this lesson until it’s too late. It is required.

Solve the female obesity pandemic and you solve countless associated ailments suppressing the innate greatness of European Christendom.


Read Full Post »

The Battlecunt

As our Modren Wahmen lose E and gain T, they become increasingly and routinely combative, as if they’re biologically turning into men, rather than just aping men because they mistakenly think this makes them attractive.

I’ve seen the changes in the field: women don’t play coy as much as they draw swords. Shy flirting (a lost art among women imo) has been replaced by bellicosity. Chicks come snorting out of the gates, stomping all over newborn flirtations, unloading batteries of YASS BITCH QUEEN interrogations, snark, and leading questions.

I’ve had to adjust, as I assume most men have, and this may explain why men of more sensitive constitutions have preferred to drop out altogether. The turtling soyboy can’t adapt his vestigial Game to meet the challenges of today’s ballcutter; his only options become dropping out or merging with the eunuchracy and hoping that his new master — the battlecunt — generously offers a crumb of clitty litter to her supplicating lackey.

A recent example from personal experience: A girl I chatted up almost immediately asked me whom I voted for in 2016 (she could probably smell the musky MAGA on me).

NINTH CIRCUIT SLAYER: that’s personal.

GIRL: not really.

NINTH CIRCUIT SLAYER: way really. since you brought it up, you look like a Rod-ham voter.

GIRL: what’s that supposed to mean?

NINTH CIRCUIT SLAYER: it means what it means.

GIRL: still not getting it.

It was then I realized she didn’t know that Rodham was thecunt’s maidencunt name.

NINTH CIRCUIT SLAYER: hillary clinton. surprise me, and tell me you’re not with her.

GIRL: *sensing the trap* maybe I voted for Bernie.

NINTH CIRCUIT SLAYER: nope. you don’t have a Bernie face.

Physiognomy talk is chicknip. A sly allusion to your meaning is all that’s required to fluff up her hamster.

GIRL: oh yeah? *leaning in* what kind of face is a Bernie face?

I was in my groove with that quimquisitive opening, readying a fusillade of cold reads, but just as her pleat-heat was about to emanate into my zone of sinfluence an unpretty friend summoned the pussy comeandsaveus, and a throng of thongs descended on us, pulling her away from a romance she would never forget (and write about later in a twatzine recalling in vivid color her INDIGNATION that she surrendered herself to a very bad no good magaman).

Gird for battle, gentlemen, because the leash is off and the girlies are gine-primed for a man who fights back. This is the time to show some mettle, a little steel in the spine; these alpha-starved hillary harridans are boiling over with resentment at the soyboys in their midst, and subconsciously welcome any man mentally strong enough to wrest the whip from their dainty hands and free them to enjoy their neglected femininity.

Read Full Post »

Camel Cock comments,

*** Submission for comment of the week ***

Good show, kid, but ya came up short. This week’s COTW has already been awarded (details soon). Dry your eyes, though, because you submitted excellent Game-related content.

If you are half-way good with girls and live in a smaller city you will eventually run into the same ones especially when you are out on dates. Some girls will wave, some will come up to you and your date and say Hi, and the trully daring will even come up and give you a hug.

The girls (on your date rotation) who hug you when you’re out on another date are the ones who want to fuck you, but only if they can feel like they’re besting another girl to get to your pole position. Prepare for a lifetime of Dread Game if you decide to LTR one of those bitches.

Almost every girl I’ve gone out with has asked “Who was that?” or “Who is that?” The hotter the girl, the quicker my date asks about her.

Of course. This is classic female preselection. Girls judge men by the number and quality of women who keep his company. This is because girls can’t get most of the mate value information they need about a man just by looking at him, so they use a short cut: if other girls like him, he must be hsmv.

Before I used to be vague and say “a friend” “drinking buddy” or “just some girl” but I’ve been inspired by CH’s recent tingle generation talk and a few weeks ago when I was feeling especially zfg I responded, “Your competition.”


I’ve tested this on a few girls and it’s tingle dynamite! It’s mostly in the delivery. When they ask about the other girl. I turn my head slowly, I look them in the eye and with a jerkboy smirk I say “Your competition.”

I believe the reason it’s so great is bc your dating asking you about the other girls is a shit test and most guys justify or play down the other girl…not what a true jerkyboy does.

There is a way to provoke the same effect in your girl without explicitly revealing your game plan. In fact, I’d argue that feigned dismissiveness can be a more powerful intoxicant on the female hamster than can pulling back the curtain and announcing her place in the pecking order. For instance,

HER: who was that?


Leave it hanging right there, and she’ll be spinning her wheel for days wondering what your deal is (aka whether you have a harem), which means she will only find satisfying resolution in sex.

But there is a class of girls for whom a stone cold stunner like “Your competition” will work wonders. These are the kinds of girls who need bold, unmistakable displays of drama to begin lubing up for Act 2.

Oh and if u get shit tested, your delivery or eye contact was off. Most of the times I’ve said it girls get those anime eyes and their jaw drops. They can’t believe u just dropped such a massive tingle bomb. Some trash talk and qualify themselves and try to justify why they are better.

A girl in the defensive crouch is a girl with a torrential pouch.

One caveat, make sure the girl saying hi is slightly more attractive or at least on par with date girl.

True dat. If a fatty comes over to say hi, acting like she’s one of your plates, heisman that hambeast with the quickness.

HER: who was that?

THE WOOD OF WOMP: one of my obsessive admirers. poor girl. so sad.

Read Full Post »

The Judge says giving women all the responsibility for initiating and controlling the pace of sex is the answer to false rape accusations.

Women are just dishonest to the bone, 24/7. You can think everything is cool because the dumb bitch doesn’t say anything, next thing you know, she claims you raped her, or she “felt half-raped”.

In such a climate, Game…CHARISMA…is needed, because the only safe sexual encounter is one initiated and controlled by the dumb bitch.

The Judge is well-meaning but his suggestion will actually make the problem of women blaming men for the regret and emptiness women normally feel after impulsive hookups much worse. Ceding the domain of bedroom escalation to women is no guarantee of a safe sexual encounter. As we all know, a woman will back-rationalize any sexual encounter into a distant facsimile of actual events to support whatever her feelings require in the moment, and that includes sexual interactions she initiated and controlled. Even if you signed a consent form with a lawyer present and tied your hands behind your back so that she would have to undress you and guide your penis into her three holes, if she felt bad about it the next day she’ll concoct a load of self-serving sophistry to excuse her actions and relinquish her accountability, which in practice means IT’S ALWAYS THE BOYIM’S FAULT.

Paradoxically, the closest thing men have to a guarantee against a false regret rape accusation is to DOMINATE and LEAD the girl to a sexual encounter in which she CAN’T CONTROL her erupting arousal and EAGERLY SURRENDERS to the man. (Then make sure you give her a peck on the cheek and tell her something nice before bolting in the morning. Leave em wetter than you found em.)

The problem with the physically and personably unattractive amy schumers of the world is that they are fated to date weak men, soyboys, gloryhole faces, male feminists, john scalzis, and simpering omega nerdos. A woman who initiates and controls the sexual encounter from start to finish with one of those kinds of un-males will FEEL LIKE she was raped afterwards, because her contaminated womb will be crying out for a mercy killing. Naturally, this bad feeling of existential darwinian regret will compel her to deny her role in the consensual sex and to seek absolution by shifting a fake blame onto the unwitting loser male who thought she was enjoying his tepid romantic advances.

A woman sexually in control is a woman emotionally in doubt. Give her control over sexual progression and the only guarantee you’ll get is her post-coital spite and resentment. Few women, deep down, want to lead a man. Most women, deep down, want to follow a man. You, as a man, deny this want of women at your peril.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: