The Fempire Shrikes Back

Behold the face of Fair America. Old, tatted up like a common street whore, eyes ablaze with the psychosis of having spent too many years on the cock carousel and in the working world of men with nothing to show for it, and a Very Fake Smile belying a deep well of spinster soulpain.

The reader who emailed this photo explains,

“educated” american female.  She’s a medical doctor, tired, old, used up tatted, and single. Look at the “you go grrl” comments

We have beautiful women. They’re just using them up and burning themselves out on a career

The social media revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the female sex. The dopaminergic addiction to internet “likes”, and the irresistible compulsion of undersexed beta males to stroke the online egos of bangable girls to pathological tumescence until they’re so deluded to the nature of male sexuality and the inevitability of the Wall that they can no longer perceive a future of sexual invisibility that is the fate of all women, has accelerated the trend toward later marriages and the growing demographic of childless spinsters full of regret for all those eggs lost in time, like tears in rain.

A generation of Forgotten Furies is the tragic detritus of Facecock and Spoogle and Twatter.

Nasty Womanhood, Inc — a wastrel horde of aging pussyhatters and manjawed lawyercunts — now roam the land like lepers, rattling a dusty vagina for a pence of penis and begging for romantic handouts from men who long ago looked past them to their younger and less careerist competition.

The Fempire Shrikes Back, but this episode doesn’t end with Darth Vajeen’s victory over her UGH JEDI WHITE MAN secret crush. Instead, it ends with her sulking back to read 50 Shades of The Force and diddle her dying bean in a grrlaxy far far away.

Read Full Post »

Where Men And Women Meet To Find Love In The Current Year

Rod Dreher, Über-Poseur Pussy-Pedestaler Christcuck Cuckstian Cuckstraordinaire and advocate for the Craft Brew Selfie Option, linked to a Free Northerner blog post (and tangentially to this rumble abode) to explore the reasons why young Christians have stopped meeting their potential spouses at Church.

I’ve discussed the same interesting dating market changes underlying the graphic Dreher featured at his blog and highlighted in this older CH post (with correct attribution along the margin of the graph, so the spergatroid dreher commenters can quit their bitchin’….and fyi, readers email unattributed jpegs to me all the time, so if I post a few without PROPERLY linking the source you can sleep soundly that the oversight wasn’t intentional).

Excerpted from that CH post, remarking on the sexual market changes to women and their place in it caused by the rise of bars and online dating as the primary mediums facilitating courtship:

Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy [ed: thirsty] men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.

This is coming at the change from the angle of women’s egos, and how their over-inflated and over-stroked egos will be a barrier to love and marriage. But there are other ominous portents in the major changes to the way men and women meet.

As you can see from the graph, every avenue for meeting the opposite sex is down over the last twenty years, except one. The percentage of couples who met through college is down (partly a result of college becoming 60% female-40% male). Couples who met through family is way down (continuing a long-term trend). Couples who met through Church is down (and almost near zero). Couples who met through work is way down (and likely to hit rock bottom after this #MeToo sex panic burns itself out).

The majority of couples still meet through friends, but that too is on a downward trend, set to be eclipsed soon, if the trajectory holds up, by restaurant/bar, which is the only meeting place that is upwardly trending. Couples who met through online dating appears to have leveled off. This might be a temporary lull as privacy and security issues are worked out, but I suspect it’s the calm before online dating takes a nosedive as a matchmaking facilitator. I predict this because it has dawned on women that men use online dating as a sex supplement to their “real” dating lives, and it has dawned on men that women use online dating to hide their physical flaws (fat) and to aggressively filter out any but the top 5% of men in looks (which is an unstable selection filter utterly divorced from the reality of what women want in men, and which means that exclusive online dating will end badly for women’s romantic hopes of commitment with a good man).

Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser.

What does the massive and radical change in the way men and women meet each other mean for Western society? Can we glimpse the ropey contours of our future Jizztopia?

Relevant, from that older CH post,

This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.

Church won’t be restored as a meeting place for singles any time soon, barring some unforeseen seismic shift in attitudes toward religiosity and patriarchy (the two go together when both are healthy).

Neither will college, as long as it remains a warehouse for aggrieved Diversity and intellectually mediocre but conscientious girls, and antagonistic to young White men. Feminist cuntsent culture is turning campuses into anhedonic deserts.

Family? Age of first marriage is later than ever, fertility is down, single mommery is way up, miscegenation is up, and families are geographically and socially atomized to the edge of becoming total strangers with a shared genealogy. Family will continue its downward slide as a matchmaker.

Meeting as coworkers? MEEEE TOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Nope, the days of the corporate office as informal imprimatur of marital proposals are past us. The future is the increasingly rare (and risky) after hours bang in the janitor closet.

Social media, video gaming, porn, and the attendant isolation are undermining the service of friends as the primary means of bringing people together for the making of loves. It’s possible friends can come back as the major matchmaking vector, but I wouldn’t count on it happening until Generation Zyklon matures, and by that time it will have assumed a much different pallor than what it has been for most of the last sixty years.

Online dating is stagnating. I predict it will crash further, for the reasons noted above.

Restaurant/Bar is the new Family/Church, and given that post-atomization friends mostly meet offline at bars nowadays, these venues will also be quasi-dating services run by close friends and acquaintances. The upward trend should continue.

Anything new on the whoreizon?

Clubs.

SWPL shitlibs shudder at the thought because clubs imply exclusivity (as well they should…no club is worth the membership that doesn’t have exclusionary practices), but they’ll have to get over it or just admit that their preferred venues are de facto exclusive clubs. How many blacks and browns do you see at craft breweries? Artisanal distilleries? Shooting ranges? Bowling alleys? Painting classes? Wineries? Art shows? You get the idea.

As Diversity scours at our communality and social bonds, expect to see implicitly White (or nonWhite) clubs re-emerge as forces of social glue and romantic promise. If Gen Zyklon is real, this movement will be helped along by a renewed support for the principle of free association.

One more possibility that I don’t think is a positive development: ideology will loom larger as a requirement for meeting the opposite sex. I hate this trend, because it elevates the abstract (pussyhattery) above the concrete (blood sugar sex passion). What this portends is a dire future in which ideologically oriented clubs and venues become the dominant medium by which people meet and pair off. After that happens, it won’t be long before Civil War 2.

I’ll end this post with a comment pulled from Dreher’s post, by Tex Austin:

Historians will one day seek to unravel the mystery of how, in our present unsustainable cultural moment — rife with contradictions as it is — a corner of the blogosphere intended to help hapless “betas” learn how to “bang HB 9’s” morphed into the source of the most convincing arguments for traditional sexual morality.

That said, I never thought I’d live to see Rod link to Heartiste!

Why wouldn’t he? I’ve had nothing but the moloko plus of love for Rod! Who was first to praise Rod for standing firm with Trump and for recognizing the yuge shift in the political and cultural landscape that Trump’s rise represented?

Rod is an hero to me. A true Instagram Christian. A man for the times.

Read Full Post »

Niceguys Lose, Nicegirls Win

The topic of this post comes via a 2014 study, so it’s possible it may have been written about already here at the Chateau. Regardless, it’s good enough to write about again and educate the newbs who are always stumbling into this coven of lovin’ and wondering with wide open eyes and whiplashed brains just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Often it is claimed by catastrophically bitter feminist cunts that men love bitches such as themselves as much as women love jerkboys. This is a bluehaired lie. And now ¡SCIENCE! has arrived on the scene to ONCE AGAIN (i will never tire of this) gorge on the CH knob and validate my anti-feminist worldview: men don’t like crazy bitches unless those crazy bitches are sexy and willing to go all the way right away. What men like when they have their choice of vixens are nicegirls. Nice, feminine, natural hair-colored girls.

Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men.

[…]

The study examined burgeoning sexual interest and the participants’ feelings on the possibility of long-term dating with their new “partners,” and how those connected to their perceptions of a personality trait the study calls “responsiveness.”

In the study, responsiveness is defined as a characteristic “that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship.”

Responsiveness, AKA appeasement. To put it a nicer way: approval seeking. To put it a psychotherapeutic way: External validation. To put it a PUA way: outcome dependence.

But it’s not as important of a factor when you first meet someone, according to the study. “Our findings show that this does not necessarily hold true in an initial encounter, because a responsive potential partner may convey opposite meanings to different people,” stated Birnbaum.

Overly responsive suitors can be perceived as manipulative suitors. Have you ever been creeped out by someone trying too hard to please you? That’s your mind-body axis telling you to distrust that person. This is particularly true for women and responsive men, because women have to be more on guard for men who just want to get them in the sack fast, and will tell those women whatever they think they want to hear to win their affection. Men, in contrast, don’t have to guard against responsive women because fast sex is an equally, if not more valuably, prized achievement as a committed relationship.

The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

Nicegirls are more feminine than crazy bitches, and men prefer feminine women. Why would men perceive nicegirls as more feminine? Maybe because those girls aren’t busting their balls for propping up the patriarchy. Also, the default posture of women toward unfamiliar men is one of neutrality bordering on contempt. The responsive nicegirl therefore stands out as a real romantic prospect in a sea of resting bitch faces. And niceness is just more estrogen-y, which looks, sounds, and smells SO MUCH BETTER to men than does the caustic testosterone-y gogrrlism of your typical urban slore.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

You have to attract women before you can have a relationship with women. Jerkboy attitude is necessary if not sufficient to lock down a quality (read: hot) nicebabe. The opposite is true for women: a bitchgirl attitude will make it harder for them to find a quality man.

The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.

Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable.

And yet every couples therapist in the degenerated West advises the opposite: that men should be MORE responsive and attentive to women. How many relationships would be saved, and lonely men and women rescued from romantic failure, if the Chateau was the only couples therapist in the world? I give and give and give, like the humanitarian I am, and yet all I get is grief from the gatekeepers of socially approved discourse. It wounds me deeply!

The third and final study presented in the paper sought to test specifically whether the mechanism by which “responsiveness” motivated individuals to pursue relationships was, in fact, sexual arousal. To do so, they replicated the second study, but added a specific measure of sexual attraction. They then found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal among men. That, in turn led to greater desire for a relationship.

The petaling pussy is always more enticing than the dormant pussy, all else about the pussies equal. Male arousal is primed for action when the pussy is within jizzing distance. (Female arousal is primed for action when the pussy has to close the jizzing distance.)

While the studies shed some light on why men find responsive women more sexually desirable, Birnbaum explains that researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.

“Women may perceive a responsive stranger as less desirable for different reasons,” said Birnbaum in a press release. “Women may perceive this person as inappropriately nice and manipulative (i.e., trying to obtain sexual favors) or eager to please, perhaps even as desperate, and therefore less sexually appealing. Alternatively, women may perceive a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.”

All of the above, but mostly for the reason I’ve described at this blog: responsive niceguys betray a lack of romantic options, and since female desire is holistic rather than primarily visual as it is for men, a man without romantic options is very unsexy to women, who will assume his desperation is evidence of weakness and deficient character. Chicks dig non-responsive jerks because any man who can afford to be a jerk with women must have his pick of the clitter. And every woman wants to be the one who snags the man who can have any woman. Not to mention, a man successful with women will pass on his pussy-smashing genes to her sons (sexy sons hypothesis).

The hierarchy, from most romantically valuable to least romantically valuable:

• Jerkboys (desired by all women, for sex and love, rarely dumped)
• Nicegirls (desired by all men, for missionary sex and love, not as rare as jerkboys)
• Bitterbitches (desired by some men, for kinky sex, if she looks hot)
• Niceguys (desired by no women, except Wall victims, cougars, and fugs. as common as cat dander)

***

Anonymous objects to one implication of this study:

Kind of disingenuous. Nice girls win IF they are attractive. When feminists or women in general complain of men liking crazy women, it’s usually in comparison to average/ugly women. I used to complain of this in high school. I used to say all the guys like the crazy/mental girls. The real issue was they liked them because they were hot. The craziness was just extra.

No doubt the crazy bitches who get a lot of men have to be very hot to compensate for their shitty personalities. But nicegirls win against bitches when matched for looks. I would bet nicegirls even win when they are one SMV point lower in looks. Bitches only “win” when they are significantly hotter and sluttier than their nicegirl competition, but since there are at least as many hot nicegirls as their are hot bitches the point is moot, and we’re back to the original conclusion: nicegirls win, bitches lose.

The one countervailing factor that bitches use to their advantage is sluttiness. Nicegirls don’t do slutty, so they will lose the men just looking for an easy lay. Bitches can compete more effectively against nicegirls by advertising their willingness to fuck without strings attached. This is a potent defensive tactic, and one reason why women are the primary slut shamers in society.

Read Full Post »

Tinder As Testimonial Of Psychological Self-Deception

Spot the Tinder Fail:

What’s with all these women who have men hovering near them in their Tinder profiles? Answer: Classic female projection. Women are more attracted to preselected men (i.e., men who have other women interested in them) and assume that men must be the same way and desire women who are surrounded by men. Wrong!

A reader (@jimwva) agrees, noting that psychological projection isn’t a sex-specific cognitive bias,

Many, if not most, young men and women assume that what attracts them is also what the other sex finds attractive. Huge mistake. Many never catch on.

He’s right, men do the same thing (although not as frequently nor earnestly as do women). For example, men project their attraction to female beauty onto women, falsely assuming women wouldn’t willingly fuck rich and powerful men who aren’t handsome.

The same reader adds,

Lower projection frequency among men I would attribute to their own fewer areas of interest in women (1. Beauty 2.Feminine personality 3. Beauty 4. Youth 5. Beauty…∞Beauty). With more areas of attraction to men, women have more to project.

Good point. Also, men are less prone to projection because men have to take the initiative to find love and romance, which means they are handed lessons on the reality of female nature on a regular basis that constitutionally passive women don’t learn about men. A man who ignores sex market reality will go to his grave incel. Women can afford to ignore reality.

More precisely, women can afford to ignore reality while young and pretty and men are eager to appease them and supplicate to them, essentially hiding the seedy underbelly of the sexual market from women. As women age, their reality-avoidance can doom them to childless cat lady status. There’s no blissfully ignoring the approach of the Wall.

***

Sheer lunacy is single moms scattering droppings of their mystery meatball bastards in their Tinder photos, (some even cajoling men with the “reward” of becoming an “insta-daddy”). Nothing says “firmly grounded in reality” like women who think men want to raise the bastard spawn of other men. Maybe some of these women are super sluts who use their illicit sprog as advertisement of the women’s desire for NSA sex. The single mom figures that no man who takes her up on the tacit offer of no muss no fuss fornication will bother teasing her with the promise of commitment, so she has no worry that he might break her heart.

Read Full Post »

Old School Strong, Silent Dad Game

A hilarious field report from Ironsides, about his dad meeting his mom,

According to my mother, my dad’s entire conversation during most of their first date consisted of one word: “Hello.”

They did go out to eat, while she chattered away and he remained absolutely silent, after which he drove her back to her parents’ house. He didn’t open the car door for her.

This apparently intrigued her enough so that she thought ‘I’m not getting out of this car until he asks me out again.’ They sat there silently for several minutes until my dad said, “Let’s go out next week.” That completed his entire verbal effort for the evening.

Considering that they’re still married a number of decades later, the strong, silent approach apparently worked.

Postscript: they actually DIDN’T go out the next week. My dad’s uncle, who he hadn’t seen since before he joined the Army, came to the state and stayed for two weeks. Since he was about the only close-ish relative my dad liked, they spent the time chewing the fat, going out shooting, etc., and my dad didn’t call my mother back at all until his uncle left. She says by the time he did call up, she was in an absolute frenzy to hear from him.

I don’t even think this was particularly deliberate on his part, just the way his personality was at that point; I’ll have to ask him.

One part dread, one part jerkboy, one part challenge, one part scarcity (aka abundance mentality). And all of it subcommunicated with an economy of words. Ironsides’ dad followed the CH Poon Commandments before they were written down for the masses.

One thing you’ll notice if you date a lot of women is that while women are chattier than men on average, some women are chattier than other women. For the loquacious ladies, letting them blab while you laconically punctuate their verbosity with occasional pithy insights or sexy innuendo is just the balance that those women need. (Don’t try to out-gab a gabby woman, because she’ll never let you and she’ll get annoyed, draining the sexual tension from the date.) For less garrulous gals, you’ll want to speak more, to rev up the conversation before it stales out.

Read Full Post »

How To Know When A Date Is Heading South

It’s a good skill to know ASAP during a date if a girl’s interest in you is flagging, so that you can turn it around before her vaj has completely folded in on itself and disappeared into a Labiarity. The interim between inquisitive petaling vaj and inimical imploding vaj is shorter than inexperienced men realize. If you sense a perturbance in the whores, you have to move fast before their thermal intrusion ports seal up.

Most men (by definition betas) don’t lose the girl at the first meet. The stone cold approach rejection is more exception than rule in the annals of unclosed deals. Given that men don’t approach nearly as many women as they are capable of approaching, it falls on the first or second date with the few women he does manage to sufficiently pique to really test a man’s seductive prowess and ability to identify when a girl is fawning or fading.

The fact is that most men lose the woman sometime between getting her number and the second date, before sex has bound her fate to his and colored her judgment in his favor. The majority of scuttled attempts at sex occur when the man loses his veiny hold on a woman’s imagination while on a date, when he has to be on top of his game for a few hours. Many such cases! He’s flying high after swapping grimy late night texts for a meet up, goes on the date two days later, starts to get nervous as the hour wears on and the convo stalls and she still hasn’t signaled him to kiss her, and then the whole enterprise unceremoniously ends with a platonic “I should get going” and he’s alone at home wondering how and when he blew it.

The first step to solving this problem is knowing when you’re losing the girl. That furrow won’t stay unfurled for long. Once you can tell when a girl has JUST started emotionally sheathing, you can make powerful adjustments on the fly and prevent the dreaded Desiccating Date. It’s the Game equivalent of inserting a screw jack in her limbic node and keeping her dendrites moistly parted.

So here is my shiniest slickest pellet of wisdom. The first sign that your date is drifting into anhedonia is when she’s looking sideways. If her head has swiveled and her dead gaze has alighted on the surroundings (or worse, on another man), your star is falling fast. If she’s propped her chin in her hand while looking sideways and is heavily sighing, cut your losses, there’s nothing left you can do for the nookie.

You can see this phenomenon play out with other couples, if you happen to be in the vicinity as an impartial observer of Human Cringe. (I can identify first dates with a 99% accuracy rate.) The girl will be looking sideways while the beta will be straining hard, in body and verbosity, to recapture her devoted attention. Usually this means he’s leaning out way over the table they share and jabbering painfully desperate chit chat about nothing interesting, sensing in his bones her rapid retreat, and resorting to ever more unattractive supplicating, try-hard beta male ploys to reverse the trend. Worst is when her eyes momentarily dart back to look at him as he’s on the verge of an anguished appeal for her input, only to quickly look away again and locate a speck on the window as a convenient distraction from the horror.

The correct response to the sideways girlgaze is the opposite of what most men do: instead of trying harder to reach her, you put less effort into reconnecting. Her sideways gaze is your cue to flirt with other women, such as the waitress, or a passing rando. Miraculously, her wandering oculars will spring back to you, peripherally offended and yet enticed by the gauzy apprehension of your aloof and indifferent ZFGness. It’ll amaze and astound how quickly a girl’s interest reignites when presented with the possibility that the man she had begun writing off has legitimate competing objects for his affection.

If that fails, the next best solution to the sideways gaze is ending the date before she’s had a chance to end it on her timeline. Nothing screws with a girl’s overstuffed ego more than robbing her of her female prerogative to establish both the beginning and the end of a date.

Read Full Post »

Social Media, Dating Apps, And The Decline In Millennial Sex

Millennials are having less sex than previous generations, according to research by the CDC and other outfits. This is likely bifurcated survey data (i.e., the number of sexually inactive soyboys and fatty bluehair Millennials has increased over previous generations but a sizable minority of bubbly babes and trumpening chads are going hog wild). Call it the 80-20 Piece-of-ass Principle of Female Hypergamy. Nevertheless, an explanation is out there, and it’s missed by lots of people because it seems so counterintuitive. Doktor Jeep comments,

So with all the dating apps and simpery at its peak, women get their validation with a swipe – post some cleavage on social(ist) media and get scores of likes by the thirsty hordes – this explains why (mainly white) teenagers are having less sex than previous generations.

The great paradox of social media and dating apps which were intended to facilitate hooking up and relationship formation is that the technology leads to LESS sex because, as the good Doktor noted, women get their egos stroked so thoroughly by thirsty swiping betas, they don’t need their kittens stroked.

How utterly ironic that the very tech that was supposed to usher Sexual Liberation 2 has instead flattened the romantic landscape into a dreary chafed handscape. The Whoring 60s, 70s, and 80s have given way to the DVZ: Devirilized Zone. Chicks get swamped with empty anhedonic come-ons and the mass of thirsty betas drains their energies into porn and their dignity into Tinder aka chick crack.

A stroked female ego is a dormant female libido.

A sapped male libido is a debased male ego.

Read Full Post »