Is The Sexual Market Efficient?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Dating Preferences Vs Options

Is assortative mating simply a function of convenience, i.e. mate proximity? There’s a lot of chatter on the blogs about how the college-educated are marrying others in their same educational and class bracket, and that this proves that men and women are selecting partners based on criteria such as intelligence and socioeconomic status. In other words, people are assortatively mating along education and SES lines because that’s what they prefer to do.

Here at the Chateau we make the bold claim that assortative mating doesn’t tell the whole story. The Ivy League grad who goes on to marry a plain jane Ivy Leaguer would, in fact, be a lot happier marrying a hot and sexy waitress with decent smarts. And that the marriage statistics don’t so much reveal preferences as they reveal restrictions imposed by lack of options. The CEO or IT entrepreneur doesn’t avoid marrying the hot waitress because she’s less intelligent or of lower social status, but because he simply doesn’t have the amount of social contact with her that would encourage meeting, dating and marrying.

Lo and behold, here is a study from the excellent Barking Up The Wrong Tree blog which lends credence to the Chateau view.

Marriage data show a strong degree of positive assortative mating along a variety of attributes. But since marriage is an equilibrium outcome, it is unclear whether positive sorting is the result of preferences rather than opportunities. We assess the relative importance of preferences and opportunities in dating behaviour, using unique data from a large commercial speed dating agency. While the speed dating design gives us a direct observation of individual preferences, the random allocation of participants across events generates an exogenous source of variation in opportunities and allows us to identify the role of opportunities separately from that of preferences. We find that both women and men equally value physical attributes, such as age and weight, and that there is positive sorting along age, height, and education. The role of individual preferences, however, is outplayed by that of opportunities. Along some attributes (such as occupation, height and smoking) opportunities explain almost all the estimated variation in demand. Along other attributes (such as age), the role of preferences is more substantial, but never dominant. Despite this, preferences have a part when we observe a match, i.e., when two individuals propose to one another.

What this is telling us is that educated men marry educated women not so much because they prefer education in itself as a mate quality, but because that’s what’s available to them. Ergo, smart men would prefer to date hotter but less educated girls but don’t because they don’t run in the same social circle. You have to meet the hottie community college grad before you can propose to her.

Individual preferences will always remain for men centered on women’s youth and beauty. Luckily for all the chunky college attending careerist femcunts, the men they marry don’t mingle very often with Hooters chicks. If they did, you’d see less assortative mating along SES metrics, and more along the natural preferences of men to date and marry PYTs irrelevant of their educational attainment. This theory also elegantly explains why so many American men settle for fat chicks — when 60% of the nation’s women are tub-a-lards, options are quite limited. And for a lot of desperate losers, sticking a dick in a wet, flabby, porcine hole beats celibacy.

Now you know why rich, geometrically-jawed snobs like Maria Shriver diligently work to surround their alpha male husbands with ugly mestizo housekeepers instead of uneducated but hot Russian au pairs. An aging upper class wife knows who her true competition is. Regrettably for the Shrivers of the world, even a sausage-y third world maid is ripe for the banging to a guy who’s been tapping the same depreciating pussy for years. Arnold’s case illustrates well how important convenience and opportunity can be to a guy on the lookout for strange.

So for all the lawyercunts who married lawyers and are proud of the fact: sugartits, you were just in the right place at the right time.

Viva romanticismo!

Read Full Post »

Dating A Vegetarian Girl Is A Sacrifice

This comment from Quant reminded me of a girl I used to date:

And it doesn’t matter how bad she wants to save the planet, it would better for my image of her if she flushes after doing number 1 instead of “letting it mellow.”

Too funny. The girl I dated would say the same exact thing to me.

Me: [getting up in the morning to pee and seeing yellow water in the bowl] Gross. Yo, babe, you forgot to flush.

Her: I didn’t forget. If it’s yellow let it mellow.

Me: Why?

Her: It’s good for the environment.

Me: I didn’t know we were in a prolonged drought. Is toilet water in short supply?

Her: You shouldn’t waste water.

Me: My god the urine smells so bad it’s singeing my nose hairs.

Her: All right, give it a rest.

Me: What if I have to take a dump? Your urine water is gonna splash back up on my baby smooth ass cheeks. Is that supposed to turn me on?

Although the above conversation sounded fun and teasing, I never could see my ex the same way again after that traumatic morning I first saw her yellow pee water. Something triggered in the primitive sex part of my brain and she instantly lost 0.5 sexual market value points. The end was sealed by an unflushed toilet.

YelloMello Girl was also a 5-year vegetarian (shocker!). No meat or fish whatsoever. Her diet consisted of pasta, bread, beans, sprouts, quinoa, cereal, carrots and trail mix. For a vegetarian, I rarely saw her eat truly outstanding (and paleo-approved) vegetables like broccoli and kale. Although she had a nice figure from running and biking all the goddamned time, her un-made-up skin was sometimes blotchy. When the sun glinted off her cheeks, I could tell that her diet was going to result in premature wrinkling for her.

Dating a vegetarian girl is no fun. (This is primarily a female phenomenon. Heterosexual vegetarian men are so rare in the state of nature that few women have experience dealing with one.) A simple formula for those who need a demographic breakdown of vegetarians: Vegetarianism = single female SWPL.

One of the sublime pleasures in life is a medium rare filet mignon with a glass of pinot noir. Grazer girls rob you of enjoying this pleasure to the fullest. Sure, vegetarians will insist that they don’t judge you for your carnivorous barbarity, but you can easily observe her judging you in all the little mannerisms and passive-aggressive quirks she throws your way.

For some reason, grazers are highly offended by the smell of bacon. If you happen to cook bacon for yourself when she’s staying over, grazer girl will snark at you for “stinking up the place”. She will scrunch her face up with exaggerated disgust, and ask you to “please hurry up and eat that, it’s turning my stomach.” So much for nonjudgmentalism.

I have a theory that the reason grazers react so violently to bacon aroma is because it smells SO GOOD it might tempt them to betray the Gaianist religion for which they have sacrificed so many years in penitential devotion. Bacon is the gateway meat to apostasy.

Now that Western Christianity is a dead letter religion among the suckup SWPL set, something needs to replace the evolution-sized hole left in their heads from the excision of the traditional organized religions. That worshipful, in-group yearning is replaced by a new religion: the religion of “sustainable living.” Gaia is their God. Lettuce their Eucharist. Global warming their Nicene Creed. Canvas tote bags their cross. Marathons their forty days and forty nights in the desert. Recycling their tithe. Pet adoption agencies their soup kitchens and charity organizations. It’s a fucking joke, and it’s on them. They think they are above the religious impulse, when in fact they are as much a base animal as those plebes who earn their sneers; they’ve simply substituted a different flavor of the religious crack that gets them high.

Most vegetarian chicks aren’t going to blatantly try to convert you. They know better. And they also know, on a subconscious level, that you as a man would be less attractive if you joined her in pasture grazing. So they smirk and sneer and judge but they won’t ever really push their insipid lifestyle on you. Nevertheless, their lifestyle is an imposition on yours. Want to cook at home? If she’s cooking, you’re going to be crabby eating her twigs and leaves. If you’re cooking, prepare to brush up on vegetarian recipes. Home cooking is always a one-way street with grazers. Even the simple act of sharing platters at a restaurant becomes fraught with romance-killing difficulty. And don’t forget the hidden seething envy and affront that grazers feel as they have to watch you eat succulent meats in front of them.

And however tolerant of meat-eaters that grazers claim to be, their sanctimony can’t help but assert itself. After all, what’s the point of being a dedicated vegetarian if you can’t lord your moral rectitude over the unenlightened? It’s a human compulsion to grasp for status points by assuming a higher plane of moral reasoning. YelloMello girl, like most veggie chicks, would act unduly offended if I mistakenly ordered take-out stir fry that included chicken.

“You KNOW I don’t eat meat!”

“Just pick it out.”

“Why don’t you respect my wishes?”

The phony indignation is especially grating. It’s as if they want you to notice their hallowed commitment to their bean sprouts religion. Why suffer for an arbitrary religion if others can’t see and appreciate your suffering? After a point, it became something of a running gag to me. When she asked for a snack, I would hand her beef jerky, and say “Oops, thought it was a celery stalk.” Or I’d buy pigs’ feet and leave them in her fridge, telling her I ran out of room in my own fridge.

Ever watch the chicks at Trader Hoe’s browsing the veggie section with a basket full of plant foods? Look closely, and you can practically see the righteous self-satisfaction smeared like spackle across their faces. Behold her proudly line up her beans and hummus containers on the check-out stand, carefully arranging each product so that the entire line can bear witness to her revelation.

I despise her. Then I proudly line up my salmon, whole milk, broccoli, red peppers and almond butter and feel a glow of superiority as I watch the ghetto black mom behind me with her crate of juice boxes, chips and candy.

The id monster doesn’t play favorites.

Read Full Post »

File Under Science: Love At First Same Night Lay

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

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

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

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

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

Abstinence counselors, prudes and Promise Keepers wept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was one final interesting coda to the study:

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Women Prefer Laconic Men

My date kicked me hard in the shin under the table. I was gazing at her cleavage into her eyes, so she must have wanted my attention.

“Ow! What’d you do that for? You hit the bone.”

She leaned forward over her entree and put her hand up to her cheek to shield her face from possible lip readers.

“See that couple sitting next to us? Don’t look over! Just listen to their conversation.”

I suffered grievous injury because she wanted me to eavesdrop on a conversation. Goddamn, chicks really love inserting themselves into the drama of other people’s lives. I looked over. A man in his late 20s, neatly if blandly dressed in a button-down and slacks like a freshly pressed widget off the yuppie assembly line, was seated across from an attractive MILF-y brunette who appeared a few years older than him. She had that frozen grin on her face that people get when they are listening to someone talk and trying to seem interested.

“What am I supposed to be listening for?”

“Just listen!”

It wasn’t hard to do. The man was talking incessantly, and loudly, punctuating important points with open-palmed axe chops of his hands, like a politician giving a stump speech. His face was animated and he thrust his head forward in his date’s direction for emphasis, as if he believed what he was saying was handed down to him from the heavens and she would soon be converted. And what was he saying that merited such self-enthusiasm? Tales from work. Name dropping. And, I shit you not, stock movements.

I moved closer to whisper to my date over glasses of wine. “He’s talking about his job. Kind of a bore. But an excitable bore, like a small child. Maybe he just got a new gig and he thinks he’s suddenly a member of the ruling elite. That could make anybody a bore.”

“I know, a total dud! He won’t stop talking. He’s not letting her get a word in. Listen, he keeps cutting her off.”

It was true. He would breathlessly regale her for what seemed an eternity and she would try to gamely interrupt with a “Yeah, it’s true. That’s like…”, and he would cut her off with a hyperactively blunt “Right!” that may as well have been shouted through a bullhorn into her face, before continuing where he left off. This cycle would repeat itself through the course of the night, each passing minute eliciting a more pinched expression from the woman.

“Hey, at least he sounds like he has a good job, mingling with power brokers,” I said half-facetiously. “And he’s not bad looking. Any woman would be happy with such a catch.”

My date smirked at me dubiously. “Yeah, right. Look at that poor woman. She’s in pain. She wants to get away from him but she’s stuck.”

“Maybe she could excuse herself and escape through the bathroom window.”

“You’ve done that, haven’t you?”

“Come on now, I’m not that kind of guy. I leave through the kitchen.”

She listened some more. “There’s no way she’s seeing him again. Name dropping! That is so lame. This is a first date and she’ll be relieved to get out of here. He’ll try to call her but she’ll ignore him.”

“Oh, I don’t know. She’s getting up there. She might be thinking that’s the best she can do.”

“You’re such a jerk sometimes. I feel bad for her. Lucky for her she won’t see him again.”

“You seem happy about this love connection failure.”

“Yes. We women are very sympathetic to other women sitting through bad dates. We understand what it’s like. There’s nothing worse than a guy who won’t shut up.”

“Even if he has a lot to talk about?”

“Especially if! Leave a little mystery. You didn’t tell me anything on our first date. Lord knows why I saw you again. Anyhow, guys who dominate conversations are probably bad lovers. Selfish and controlling. They don’t care who you are, they just want a pretty face hanging on their words.”

“I just want a pretty face unzipping my fly.”

“Do you always have to be so immature?”

“Yes, Auntie Pink Snappy.”

******

We’ve talked here about the problem of being tongue-tied in the presence of women. A scarcity of speech is the biggest issue for the majority of men. But we shouldn’t forget the mirror image of this attractiveness-killing ineptitude: the nonstop talker. The motor mouth. A significant minority of men — particularly greater betas and lesser alphas on the cusp of making a mark in the world — suffer from the second problem: they don’t know when to shut up and let the woman speak, enamored as they are with their blossoming manhood and acquirement of conventional male attractiveness traits.

Talking too much fails on multiple dimensions: it increases the odds you’ll say something dull or beta, it strips away mystery, and it demonstrates a lack of interest in the woman’s values and desires. It also shows you don’t truly understand women, for a harangue about your accomplishments, social climbing, materialism, or connections is a red flag to women that you are an insecure, approval-seeking mediocrity, no different than the thousands of other men dancing like monkeys for a pretty woman’s attention. Harangues are especially off-putting to women when the subject matter is devoid of emotional resonance, as most men’s shop talk would be.

And why do women despise male suck-ups? Well, because women in their natural state rarely seek the approval of any man except the most dominant ones, they become confused and irritable when men for whom they might grant sexual access seek their approval. They don’t subconsciously apprehend why a man would work SO HARD for her endorsement. What has she brought to the table in a few seconds that would catapult her to superstar status by her doting date?

Oh yeah, tits and ass. But that doesn’t alter the disgust women feel for lapdogs and credential burnishers. Sure, they may recognize on some deep limbic level that T&A revs men’s engines, but their own psychological latticework is not constructed of male body parts, and so they don’t project a female fascination with the body onto men. What they project instead is a female fascination with a man’s personality and character. I.e., his alphaness. Thus, they expect men to think and feel the same way about women. They wonder why he talks so much when he should be connecting with her.

On the contrary, a man who has his inner shit together, who feels pretty damned good about himself, won’t be impelled to talk ad nauseam about his alpha fortune. His relaxed, cocky demeanor is his best advertisement.

The vignette above is by no means exceptional. You see this sort of dynamic all the time if you go out to places where lots of couples go for dates. It should be heartening to the readers of this blog that the vast majority of men simply have NO CONCEPT WHATSOEVER of how to properly arouse a woman. Fully 90%+ of the world’s men do not run any active game.

It’s even worse than that. Of those 90%, at least half run ANTI-GAME, like the man in the above situation. Observe people on dates and you’ll see a lot of men shooting themselves in the foot. It’s a wonder the species manages to propagate itself, but male persistence — and relatively faster female aging out of sexual viability — sometimes conspire to get a woman to open her legs.

I remember a while back I had taken a couple of E tabs with a female friend. We spent a sleepless weekend hanging out and elevating our mental states. The E tabs pranked my brain into loquacity. I talked and talked. Verbal diarrhea. So did she, but she had not reacted to the pills the same way I had, and she hadn’t consumed as much. As a result, her awareness of presence was sharper than mine. Toward the end of the weekend bender, pre-withdrawal, her demeanor had changed. She was zoning out, and crabby. Everything seemed to rub her the wrong way. Only in hindsight did I hit upon the reason for the change in her temperament. She was driven to peevishness by my excessive talking.

Women may say they want a man who shares his feelings, and who tells her things about himself, but the truth — as is often the case at the disjunct between women’s words and actions — is that women love laconic men. Men who don’t say much. Men whose default programming is to shut up rather than open up. When these men do deign to speak, women hang on their words.

Women want an EF Hutton man. When EF Hutton speaks, women listen. Be an EF Hutton man.

The next time you’re on a date, remind yourself to stop talking. Step outside the moment for a second and, like a third party observer floating off to the side, focus your mind on the interaction. Listen to yourself. Are you a blabbermouth? Apply the brakes to your brain. Let it cool off. Lean back and allow her to engage you for a change. Her hindbrain will thank you.

Read Full Post »

Fooling Golddiggers

Men universally overestimate the importance of money to attracting women. This is probably so because the relatively chaotic, amorphous nature of psychological game is harder for men to comprehend than is a hard objective metric like money. It’s much simpler to say to a man: “First you make the money, then you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women.”

The problem with this plan of action is that, one, it’s highly inefficient, and, two, most women — and this includes hot women — aren’t aroused by a man with money nearly as much as men think they are. Women are attracted to an alpha attitude — AKA game — which can be correlated with money. But money is not a necessary condition for embodying the alpha attitude. There are easier ways to attract women for sexual congress and loving LTRs than slaving for years in a corporate gig saving every penny to afford a monster mortgage or risking prison in the drug trade.

Furthermore, there is this misperception out there that money automatically equates to power, which is something that girls do indeed find very arousing in a man. But we all know souped-up IT and finance nerds making well into the six figures who struggle with their dating lives. Power is more a state of mind, or a will to attitude, than a blessing that flows from big bucks. The shiftless badboy with the motorcycle and smirk has more power over women’s hearts than the well-paid CFO who sucks up to women by throwing free meals and unearned gifts at them.

Naturally, all else equal, having money will help your pickup more than not having money. But the “all else equal” is the key qualifier. If you are looking to get more bangs for your buck, so to speak, working longer harder hours to amass bank is not the way to do it. When you realize that most women worth fucking don’t care all that much about how much money you make, you understand that the road to gratification leads away from the path laid down by conventional wisdom.

As long as you make a decent living (i.e. don’t live in a cardboard box), have a car (unless you reside in the heart of a major urban center or lead a traveling lifestyle), have some stylish threads, and keep a clean, cared-for home, the money factor evaporates for all but the most die-hard golddiggers. Remember, a man’s ambition is one of the traits women love. Whatever financial reward he has earned from his ambitious undertakings is almost irrelevant, like icing on the cake.

Maxim #49: Waving a roll of benjamins at a woman will not give her tingles. In fact, it will often do the opposite.

But this post is about that small minority of femme fatales who are dedicated golddiggers. They exist, especially in feverishly status conscious enclaves, and it’s in your interest as a man to smoke them out early and take advantage of them before they have a chance to take advantage of you. Once you get good at fooling golddiggers, you can corral them into loving relationships with you that monopolize many of their prime years, leaving them splintery husks on the downslope hustling pasty-faced betas with nothing but credit card game, while memories of you haunt their dreams.

None of the below tips are an acceptable substitute for tight game, but they will add to your aura of mystery and captivate golddiggers on the make for a sugar daddy.

• The ATM receipt ruse.

There are services that will print up authentic looking ATM receipts with large dollar amounts. Leave a crumpled one lying around your place. She will notice it. (All women notice the smallest details of the men they date. It’s encoded in their DNA.)

• Ditch the car for a boat.

If you live in a place where it is acceptable to be car-less, you can substitute with a boat docked at the nearest marina. Sailboats earn doubleplusbonus points, and are often cheaper than new cars. Since cars are de rigueur among all classes, they don’t stand out anymore as markers of taste, unless you go luxury. But a cheap boat will open the golddigger’s cash register heart.

• Fake Ivy League diplomas.

There are places where you can get these. Hang prominently on your wall. Ivy degrees and money are practically synonymous in the whore’s mind.

• The expensive suit ruse.

If you are going to spend money, spend it on a couple of expensive suits. Clothing style is a relatively cheap way to signal wealth, and will often fool golddiggers into bed with you for at least a few months.

• Housing amenities.

Can’t afford that 2,000 square foot apartment in SoHo? No worries. Get a smaller place, but make sure it has one or two stand-out amenities, like a Sub-Zero fridge or exquisite molding along the ceiling.

• The cubic zirconia ruse.

Buy a pair of cubic zirconia earrings. Leave them somewhere in your bedroom where a golddigger will see them. When she asks, explain that you gave those diamonds to a former lover (“former lover” always sounds better than “ex”) who returned them to you when you broke up, because she couldn’t bear to wear them anymore. Women, despite their insistence, really cannot tell the difference between a real diamond and CZ, especially in your dimly lit, Quagmire-esque bedroom. This ruse is particularly effective because it pushes three buttons — the money button, the preselection button, and the “ambiguously available man” button.

• The signed work of art ruse.

Buy a cheapo print, say of a Miro, and sign his name on the bottom in his signature style. Tell her you collect original works of art, and Miro is one of your favorites.

• Always pay with hundreds.

This is kind of cheesy, but golddiggers are a cheesy lot, so they deserve it. Great for getting her to buy things for you. “Hey babe, I only have a hundred. Could you spring for me on that pack of gum?” As all Chateau guests should know by now, getting women to buy you things alters their perception of you to a higher value man, because they certainly wouldn’t buy things for a lower value man.

• Keep a safe in your place.

Who knows what’s in that safe? Jewelry? Bonds? Cash? Guns? Back copies of Playboy? Her pussy squirms with the possibilities.

• Learn how to decorate.

You don’t have to spend an arm and a leg to properly decorate your pad. Why should a decent decorating job impress golddiggers so much? Because most men have no idea how, nor any inclination, to feng shui the shit out of their homes. When you do, you set yourself apart from the bachelor masses.

• The vacation home ruse.

Put a framed photograph of your “country estate” or “beach house” on the wall. She doesn’t have to know it’s just a random photo you took of someone else’s house.

• The stock market player ruse.

Always keep a stock market display on your monitor. She’ll think you are a big money risk taker.

• The overseas business trip ruse.

Every couple of months, tell your newfound golddigger lover that you will be away for two weeks on an “international business trip” which you can’t talk about in detail. This serves the dual purpose of stoking her curiosity and giving you a break to pursue other girls for fun and profit.

PS: I don’t do any of the above things, because I’ve had no need to (unless I’m doing it for my own amusement). I’ve had no trouble meeting attractive girls who weren’t blatant whores pimping for financial support. The few times I’ve dealt with genuine golddiggers, I had some fun with their expectations, and they — I’m sure to their surprise — loved having the tables turned on them.

Update:

“Silver Fox” comments:

Grifter bags 2500 Women

I can attest to this; I bagged 6 models in 2001, when i was an unemployed i-banker for 18 mos. Meanwhile as a multi 6 figure employed banker I avgeraged 1/yr.

Just said “I am a consultant”…followed with silence and direct eye contact/

Avg women cant tell if you work in mailroom or boardroom at Goldman Sachs.

Silver Fox is right on two counts. It’s often the grifters with game who score more pussy than the workaholic ballers. And women really can’t know exactly what you do in the office. Unless she shows up at the front door of your building demanding entrance, you can keep her in the dark about your “boardroom” job for years. Women are extremely gullible on these matters because they *want* to believe you are the king of the world you slyly hint that you are.

Read Full Post »

Women’s Standards Crumble Easily Given The Right Incentives

Maxim #39: A woman’s standards are like a house of cards: kick out one from the bottom and the whole edifice crashes down.

I was mingling with some friends, a mixed group, when one of the girls — 7.5, ~0.75 waist-hip ratio, lithe, A cups, mid-20s (because this info is vital to any discussion) — piped up about her standards in men. She went on for some length describing the kind of man she would deign to date. (She is single.) Now based on looks, age and lack of sprog baggage, she has the sexual market value to make some weighty demands. And she knew that on a logical level. Her 463 bullet point checklist she recited was quite impressive in its detail:

• worldly and well-travelled; must have been someplace besides Europe
• athletic; football or lacrosse player at a Div 1-A school preferred
• spontaneous
• generous; must have done volunteer work at some point in life
• Cute but with a rugged edge; a cross between Orlando Bloom and Christian Bale
• good conversationalist; can speak intelligently on any number of subjects, but especially film history
• stylish; not a J. Crew guy, but more like a Banana Republic-slash-Marc Jacobs guy
• muscular, but not too beefy; deltoids must be developed to bulging perfection
• tall, but not more than 8 inches taller than her
• a connoisseur of fine wine
• shuns video games

This was not the full list. It is the list I could remember for this post. Two weeks later, we all met again, and this time she was with a man, someone she had just started dating. He was:

• a full-time bartender
• a local who has never left the country (yes, he admitted this, with some pride)
• dressed in jeans and a button-down
• a couple inches taller than her (average male height)
• a state school grad
• tattooed
• a very chill, amiable guy; you could see yourself having a beer with him
• not particularly built, but not fat either
• better than average looking, but no Christian Bale
• socially savvy, but not intellectual
• confident
• a big video gamer (we discussed the finer points of the Kinect)

I hope you can see where I’m going with this. What she claimed were her inviolable standards and what kind of man she actually dated were very different. And she seemed oblivious to the disconnect. Bless her cutie pie hamster.

This isn’t the only example of a woman’s standards not being worth the mental paper they’re written on. I’m sure we’re all acquainted with the online spectacle of average-looking, and even ugly fat chicks, pumping their dating site profiles and Craigslist personals full of demands that would make a princess blush. But oh how quickly those standards evaporate when the harsh klieg lights of reality intrude!

A woman’s standards, however emphatically and insistently declared, are more like a fantasy dating team: free of the constraints of market barter, she happily indulges in a little of the ol’ ultradelusion. That is, if you ask a woman her standards, you will never —

and I mean never

— get an honest and realistic answer from her.

This is because women are, on the whole, incapable of accurate self-assessment. A woman’s prime directive in life is to sell herself the moon. A man’s directive is to sidestep paying her inflated price for that moon.

Given the right incentives, every woman’s standards will wilt into accommodation. And by incentives, I mean everything from the sex ratio to her actual sexual worth to the subversive level of game the man plays. A single, smart 60 year old woman, financially well-off and occupationally accomplished, can demand in the most florid and haughty language a sophisticated and wealthy man all she wants, but where the rubber meets the road she will jettison most of her ridiculously unrealistic standards for an average old schlub who tickles her pink because he managed not to fall asleep during an hour long dinner date with her.

And the hot young babe who wants the Hollywood caricature? Well, as we can see by the above anecdote, (played out millions of times over across this great land), if the guy is cool, aloof and has game, and maybe has the sort of conventionally low-status job that puts him in direct contact with lots of competitor women, our 463 bullet point heroine is gonna shred her list of demands like so many Vince Foster papers. (Why couldn’t the verklempft fag leak those cables?)

That’s the meaning of Maxim #39. If you have game, that is like pulling a card from the bottom of her stack of standards; she will quickly forget all about the cards on top that you aren’t holding.

Now women, being constitutionally hypergamous in a way that relatively more indiscriminate men aren’t, will by nature have more and higher standards than men, and will more often than men attempt to satisfy those standards. This leads to the laughable phenomenon of single mid 30s lawyer chicks futilely chasing after the same kind of guys they did when they were in college, except this time around the guys aren’t even bothering to give them the gratification of a pretend commitment.

But this shouldn’t dissuade you from recognizing a very important truth — for all their bluster and trumped-up demands, women will surrender rather easily to a dude with a righteous tattoo.

Read Full Post »