Thumping, throbbing, pulsing… a sinuous dolphinoid stroke through crisscrossing waves of briny, grinding flesh, arrive at destination: a ramshackle tropic-themed auxiliary bar. I wave, regally, in the vicinity of the bartendress, to order a stiff one. To my left, propped lordotically on a stool, a slim blonde in slimmer dress squeezes a lime wedge into her love potion. She thinks (incorrectly) a stray sour squirt hit me; I feign injury.
Blondie: “Oh, I’m sorry about that!”
Left hand up to left eye, I execute a grimace with great gusto. “Aagh! My eye! It burns.”
She gawks for a beat, I spread two fingers slowly apart, revealing the abstractly-afflicted eye, peering at her with my miraculously and expediently cured vision through the finger gap, smiling with same orb a reprieve from a personal injury lawsuit. I leave the scene, pressed in equal measure by physiological necessity and the advantages of calculated absence. Her friend, almost as attractive, says “bye” loudly as I set off.
The right inflection can flip a “bye” into a “why not stay for a longer ‘hi'”?
Re-trace my dolphin migration, arrive at bathroom to discharge the blowhole. Too many pissers. The walls bulge, Matrix-like, with the teem of testosterone. Zipping and careful to avoid slipping in the slosh of urine accumulating on the floor, I contort my return way through the crowd to the bathroom exit, as a crescendo of primate chest beatings alerts my early warning detection system. A stygian mutant standing in the doorway prognathously bellows, “That’s rude, man. That kinda rude can get a man killed”, at a retreating Topper pretending to ignore the taunt. He repeats his threat in staccato bursts of gumfire three or four (thousand) times, a menacing series of war cries intended to evoke the fear of an inevitable eruption of normalcy into sudden, violent, pitched battle. I raise my arms into a preparatory garrison as I snake around the rapidly intensifying black hole of gravitational incivility.
Escape velocity achieved. One hundred paces between chaos and rapture. Back at dryland Bar Tiki, the blonde, still seated, still smoldering, shifts to make room for my adjacent insertion. I accost her.
“You know I’m practically blind in my right eye now.”
“You mean, your left eye?”
“Oh, yeah, my left eye. Blind as a bat. At least your right side looks good. I hope your left side makes the grade.”
Her face energizes for gratifying combat. She sparkles, I toggle. Everything is gonna be alright.
A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.
1. More sexualized women.
Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?
In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.
2. Less sexual dimorphism.
It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.
Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.
In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.
4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.
A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.
Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.
5. Hatred of beta provider males.
Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.
6. More aggressive sexual signaling.
A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.
Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.
7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.
A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)
A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:
Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).
8. More women acting out like men.
Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.
Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?
9. More men acting out like women.
This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?
The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.
Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.
But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.
Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.
So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?
They weren’t born that way, they were made that way, by repeated failure with women in the sexual marketplace. Their romantic failure is a consequence of their inexperience, lack of game, and their poor understanding of female sexual nature, each reinforcing the other in a feedback loop of infinite incel, until marriage at 33 to a dumpy hausfrau (and they are legion).
But there’s another, even crueler and more invidious, reason why beta males become bitter about women:
Women treat beta males worse for no reason other than that they aren’t alpha males!
As we learned from yesterday’s post, a study has found that women who are rejected by an alpha male experience a surge of bitterness and bad feelings that they then dump onto any beta males unlucky enough to be next in line for the faire maidens’ hands.
Now, a question for the tough guys who like to dump on the bitterbetaboys (and CH stands accused along with the sadistic rabble): If women are autonomically treating beta men like shit, through NO FAULT of the beta males’ own, might it stand to reason that a legitimate explanation for beta male bitterness and romantic failure is their parallel sexual market reality in which they have to deal with cranky, bitchy, demeaning women who are pissed off that they didn’t get the alpha male of their dreams? Just sayin’.
Meet a girl, charm a girl, love a girl. Beautiful, you found a soulmate. But, there will come a time, sooner than you’d like, when a girl will want something “more” out of her relationship with you. That “more” can be gifts, giving up your skeet shooting hobby, moving in together, or, usually, marriage. If you’re dating a green card whore lovely foreign girl overstaying her visa, (say, an au pair), “more” means cold hard cash to pay her immigration lawyer.
There’s a simple solution to this problem. Enjoy your time banging that cute foreigner, and when she thinks you’re putty in her hands and feels brave enough to ask you for money, walk.
It’s a wonder more men don’t avail themselves of this option. All it requires is the confidence to know that replacement pussy is within easy reach.
WOMEN ARE HEARTLESS BITCHES WHO JUST USE ME FOR FREE MEALS, TEACH ME HOW TO PUMP AND DUMP THEM, SENSEI
the thing about beta losers is they have an uncanny knack for finding women who will manipulate them, and they assume this is what all women are like because all the women they get ensnared by do this to them
we’ve all known guys who end up with one crazy or manipulative bitch after another…I always figure this is a mommy issue and when I’ve been able to verify it, it is
All women are capable of exploiting men for emotional and financial provider services. What separates the manipulative woman from the endearing sweetheart is something more than simply differences in innate characteristics: It’s the exploitability of the men they meet and date.
Beta males don’t have an “uncanny knack” for finding manipulative women. What beta male niceguys have is an uncanny lack of astuteness about the nature of women. A niceguy with no game riding a heady romantic idealism into every interaction with women opens himself up to exploitation. The sort of doofus who buys pizza for a chick on Tinder he’s never met in the hopes of sexual favors is… to use a phrase that drives feminist cranks wild with rage… asking for it.
Women love sexy men, and part of being a sexy man is playing the courtship game with enough skill and keenness that you’ll never be mistaken for an anhedonic sucker.
Related: The mainstream media have been reading CH. “Men should play hard to get.” Glad to see the Rude Word of Game is finally penetrating block-like skulls.
In my years of living, dating, and loving across these United Plates, I’ve come to certain conclusions about women drawn from a wellspring of eagle-eyed observations and red raw experiences. One of my personal observations is that smarter women tend, for various reasons among which female hypergamy must surely loom prominent, to have more difficulty locking down a long-term boyfriend, and to stay single far longer in between relationship bouts, than do women of less Hollywood-sized prefrontal-pectorals. And this romantic failure is worse the smarter the woman.
But, I didn’t have the benefit of ¡scientifical! studies to confirm my observations, so I guess I should have washed my brain of any pattern recognition inputs and waited the requisite fifty years for the scientific consensus to come to a prevailing view.
As I’ve always said, if you keep your eyes open and live not by pretty lies, 80% of the patterns you observe about human nature will eventually be proven true by laboratory analysis (or at least recognized as a real phenomenon by cultural gatekeepers). (15% of the remaining 20% are too difficult to properly measure by social scientists, and the last 5% of your observations can be grouped under conventional wisdom that science manages to overturn, usually by data-twisting legerdemain.)
A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic.
Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable. […]
Why don’t men want women with whom they can converse and who challenge them? [ed: spot the false premise] When did the aversion to strong and intelligent women become a code orange? When did everyone just want to go to the Bahamas and lie around?
In an article by “The Wire,” financial reporter, John Carney, gives one explanation for this phenomenon, deducing, “successful men date less successful women not because they want ‘women to be dumb’ but rather because they want ‘someone who prioritizes their life in a way that’s compatible with how you prioritize yours.’”
Basically, they want someone who isn’t ever going to let her career come before making dinner and pleasing them first.
My take is that men, especially smart men, instinctively recoil from very smart and/or educated women (in the same way women instinctively recoil from needy niceguys) because men know that a woman of equal or greater brainpower or academic achievement is a high risk for future relationship instability and a latent threat to paternity assurance. Men are aware, consciously perhaps, subconsciously definitely, that female hypergamy is real and therefore it’s personally advantageous to find women who aren’t too much more gifted in traits that double as male mate fitness cues.
In short, it pays men to date up in looks and date down in everything else.
The inverse is also true. It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.
Everyone’s happier all around if they abide the above two Heartistian precepts.
A reader contemptuously adds,
Nearly schizophrenic incoherence, self-loathing, generalized rage, sexual frustration, pride that she can’t admit that a life has been spent believing pretty, stupid lies and making irretrievable mistakes, contempt and hatred for men on one hand, yet demands and pangs of hopeless desire for their attention and affection and love on the other hand, unabashed hatred for women who are young and attractive and willing to make love and devotion to a man a priority in their lives.
This hamster wheel is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second. The axle is going red-hot from the friction. The spinning wheel is making a sharp, high-pitched, painful screeching sound, which sets your teeth on edge. If you listen carefully millions just like it are audible all over America.
This can’t go on much longer. 10 years, maybe. But not 50. Probably not another entire generation.
Future generations will look back on the women of this era with disgusted amazement.
Before then they are going to spend the second 50 years of their medically extended lives alone and filled with a despair and a hatred for their own lives and for the lives of those around them who have managed to be happy which is going to poison our society for many years to come.
If they weren’t so vicious and destructive you could almost feel sorry for them.
I do think we Americans are living through a period (heh) when women are at their absolute worst. Porn addicted manlet men aren’t much better, but this dystopia is largely a female-centered implosion.
There’s a gene-culture co-evolution process that describes how groups have self-balancing mechanisms, so that when one type of organism within the group becomes too numerous, a competing type will start to have greater reproductive success to “bring balance to the force”. I forget the term for it, but the classic case is the “cheater-cooperator” evolutionary strategies, in which cheaters prosper (and hence reproductively prosper) in cooperative societies, but then lose ground to cooperators when cheaters become too numerous and start poaching each other.
Well, a similar thing could be happening with SMRT women. The more smart over-educated over-credentialed women a society has, the less reproductively fit they become at the same time women with average smarts become more reproductively fit. The group shifts its evolutionary strategy toward smarter or dumber women as each becomes prominent. Maybe this is why human IQ hasn’t continued upward into the stratosphere…. smart men get tired of the haranguing from smart women and smart women get locked out of the dating market because there aren’t very many men smarter than them who can satisfy their hypergamous urgings, and they resist settling for dumber men.
Related, the supply of beta males in a group could also fluctuate according to some cosmic balancing mechanism that favors or disfavors betas depending on their numbers. The rise of pathologically altruistic white beta males in the West is producing blowback as their ranks swell with self-abnegating ankle-biters. Ultra violent thugs or ultra charming cads are starting to increase in impression, if not yet in number, and women are turning to them for relief from the effete beta male masses.
It’s a spitball, I know, but maybe it’s high time for the patented CH BOSSS strategy to invigorate our culture to take center stage? Maybe it already has and we’re just now waking up to the fact?
PS Really smart women fuck like demonesses. They love their contraceptively-enabled fucking as much as any sub-mensa slut.
White women are kinda, sorta… most definitely raciss n sheeeeiiit. But what about those righteous, morally superior goodwhite women who throw off the burden of white privilege and happily date black men?
Unfortunately for branding purposes, these moral paragons aren’t exactly the classiest or thinnest ladies. From an earlier draft of a paper referencing the same Yahoo Personals internet profile data, researchers discovered (likely much to their chagrin):
Body type, political views, and religion are also related to the exclusion of blacks or Asians. Among white women, one of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. [ed: :lol: ] For white men, body type has no effect on their likelihood of excluding blacks or Asians. While political views also have no effect on racial exclusion by white men, white women who describe themselves as liberal or very liberal are less likely to exclude black men as dates than women who are not political, middle of the road, or conservative. Surprisingly, liberal white women appear more likely to exclude Asian men as dates, although this finding only borders on significance. Finally, religion affects black exclusion, and Asian exclusion among white women. Specifically, we see that whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor; that is, all white men and women who identified as Jewish excluded blacks as possible dates; all white women who identified as Jewish also excluded Asian men as possible dates. Further, white men who do not state a religion or who state their religion as “other” are far more inclusive of black women as dates than those who describe themselves as not religious. Likewise, white women of “other” religions are more likely to include Asian males as dates.
What a cluster bomb of hatefacts!
Now the only question remaining is whether fat white chicks settle for black men because those are the only men who’ll have them, or that black men try but fail to get sexy white chicks and decide to shoot for the easy prey because even a fat white girl is more feminine than the typical black girl? Same difference, I suppose. My limited knowledge of the mating rituals of matricentric cultures is that it’s a bit of both; fat chicks are stuck choosing between a steel-reinforced dildo and a black man, and black men hone in on fat white chicks because they love can tolerate grotesque booties and they learned from experience that sexy white chicks want nothing to do with them.
These findings are perfectly in line with the CH observation — heck it’s in line with just about everyone’s observations except that no one wants to bring it up at the company picnic — that the white women who date black men are often fat, gross, and classless.
Probably unsurprising to most, the kind of white women willing to dance by the dusky coonlight? Fat liberal white women with sanctimony issues.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that fat liberal white women are just about the most unappealing dating prospects for any white man with options and a working set of nads. So… good riddance.
And wazzup wit da Eskimos? Man they talk a big game about breaking down race barriers, but when the rubber hits the ho, it’s “Blacks?! Are you meshuggina??”.
Let’s end this journey through the human hindbrain on a hopeful note. Dear NOWAGs, if you want a white woman (and who doesn’t?), date a Wiccan. I’m sure you have the psychological tools to stoically endure her kookiness.
It hardly needs clarifying to regular visitors of Le Chateau, but CH has no problem with racial dating preferences. Racism is natural, evolved, and a part of what makes us human. Racism expands the diversity in the world by creating and sustaining group aesthetics that would otherwise get swamped into oblivion by a one-world fuckfest.