Archive for the ‘Fashion’ Category

Welcome to AndrogyNation, where women are turned into feminist lackeys and start to comport themselves in ways that betray a venomous loathing of natural male desire. Exhibit A: Jennifer Lawrence post-locks:

Still smashable, but here she is from a bygone era with long hair:

499 out of 500 doctors of love agree… so much hotter.

Boycuts optimize the looks of vanishingly few women. The best you can say about a woman with short, cropped hair is that she looks almost as good as she does with long hair. Audrey Hepburn was a classic representative of the ingenue who looks impishly sexy with short hair. But long-haired photos of Audrey prove that she looked even better with her tresses out and about for a playful romp.

Given the near-universal preference of men for longer-haired women, it is then a mystery why women chop their hair off. Don’t women want to please men? They do, but cultural and sex ratio shifts can influence how weakly or strongly women feel the need to appease the sexual preferences of men.

The last period short hair styles were widely fashionable on women (as well as flapper dresses which concealed the female form) was the Roaring Twenties, a time of feminism, suffrage, intensified status striving, and growing wealth inequality. Sound familiar?

A social milieu in which protector and provider beta males economically fall behind, home and hearth become secondary considerations to riding the cock carousel, and status whoring among women reaches a crescendo is also a milieu wherein women don’t feel much need to look and behave in the demure feminine manner that is attractive to men. We are again ovaries deep in that androgynous America zeitgeist, one defined by masculinizing women and feminizing men. Expect it to get worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

Avowed feminists loathe male desire because most feminists are ugly and resent that they aren’t the objects of male desire. These loudmouthed bitterbitches drag normal women in their wake, and a general antipathy toward men and men’s sexual preferences, already pushed in motion by larger social forces, coalesces as malign media propaganda and institutional lunacy.

Read Full Post »

This isn’t the first CH style post, but it is the most scientifically validated. The optimal color coordination is only moderately matched.

Fashion is an essential part of human experience and an industry worth over $1.7 trillion. Important choices such as hiring or dating someone are often based on the clothing people wear, and yet we understand almost nothing about the objective features that make an outfit fashionable. In this study, we provide an empirical approach to this key aesthetic domain, examining the link between color coordination and fashionableness. Studies reveal a robust quadratic effect, such that that maximum fashionableness is attained when outfits are neither too coordinated nor too different. In other words, fashionable outfits are those that are moderately matched, not those that are ultra-matched (“matchy-matchy”) or zero-matched (“clashing”). This balance of extremes supports a broader hypothesis regarding aesthetic preferences–the Goldilocks principle–that seeks to balance simplicity and complexity.

Excessively color matched people look try-hard and dorky. Color clashing people look unkempt and imperceptive. The sweet spot is looking like you took some care to put yourself together, but not too much care. You look good in the whole, but glimmers of rebellion and inattentiveness adorn your aura. You might call this fashion rule the sartorial equivalent of the Careless Aloof Asshole attitude.

Interestingly, the color scheme that is most fashionable to the human eye is a metaphor for the social scheme that is most attractive to the female heart. Ambiguity is chicknip. Women neither want socially awkward (socially clashing) men, nor romantically obvious (sexually try-hard) men. Women love most those men who are smooth talkers acting on a boldness leavened with a plausibly deniable doubtfulness of intention.

Push-pull. Hot/cold/hot/cold. Good advice in matters sexual and stylistic.

Read Full Post »

Another assembly-line lib tart crudely trying to impersonate a frat bro crossed with a flaming gay man wrote an article titled “Fashion mistakes women despise about men“. The definitiveness of the sartorial errors aside, “despise” strikes one as an unusually strong word to describe how women feel when they see a man with an undershirt poking out of the top of his button-down. Women despise supplicating beta males; they joke amongst their friends about poor fashion taste.

But in the spirit of the day — Be All The Cunt You Can Be — here’s the CH version:

Fashion Mistakes Men Despise About Women

it’s not a curtsy, it’s a girthsy


Read Full Post »

Peacocking — the art of dressing ostentatiously to attract positive female attention — has been a staple of game theory for a long time, ever since Mystery proved in-field that gaudy outfits were like flames to moths.

But peacocking has been controversial from the start. Some players thought it looked try-hard, and whatever initial impression was made on women would dissipate soon after. Some thought it would invite antagonism from other men. Still others argued that too much peacocking made a man seem unattainable and this was ultimately self-defeating to his goal of getting loved.

All these were plausible objections. CH has long been on record for finding a peacocking “sweet spot” — unique, but not too outrageous, and accented with peacocky accoutrements. The goal should be to stand out without looking like a dork completely out of his element.

Thankfully, the ❤️science❤️ is rolling in to help clear the confusion on this perennial topic. One important result emerges from the latest slew of studies: Context, and self-confidence, matter.

Anyone who has felt like the odd duck of the group can take heart from new research from Harvard Business School that says sticking out in distinct ways can lend you an air of presence or influence. […]

Less work has focused on what others think of those who try to communicate that they are different or worthy of attention. Efforts to be different are interesting because humans are wired to conform and be part of a group.

In a series of studies published in the Journal of Consumer Research in February, Silvia Bellezza, a doctoral student, and two Harvard professors sought to examine what observers thought of individuals who deviated from the norm in the workplace and in a retail setting. Some of the work was conducted in the lab on students. Other studies took place in the community and involved passersby or attendees of a seminar. Most of the studies included about 150 participants. What they found was that being a little different can socially benefit people—in some situations.

The following parts of the experiment were heavily context-dependent:

In their first study, they asked shop assistants and pedestrians in Milan to rate what they thought of people who walked into luxury stores wearing gym clothes. The subjects also rated those who wore outfits typically considered more appropriate, like a dress and fur coat.

Pedestrians were more likely to think that a well-dressed individual was more likely to have the money to buy something in the store. Shop assistants thought the opposite. Those more familiar with the luxury retail environment were more likely to assume that a gym-clothes-wearing client was confident enough to not need to dress up more, and therefore more apt to be a celebrity making a purchase than someone wrapped in fur.

The same pattern emerged in subsequent studies conducted in other settings: Students afforded more respect to a fictitious bearded professor who wore a T-shirt than to a clean-shaven one who wore a tie. Candidates entering a business-plan competition who chose to use their own PowerPoint presentation background were tabbed more likely to win than those who used the standard background.

Lesson: You don’t want to look like every other button-down, jeans-wearing dude. The safe play won’t get you much negative attention, but neither will it earn you much positive attention. You have to dress with deliberate “social risk amplification” in mind. In the courtship arenas of bars et al, you should strive to look like a man who has nothing to prove and isn’t concerned with people’s expectations.

But, there are limits to the effectiveness of nonconformism:

There are boundaries to the benefits of looking different, the Harvard work showed. If an individual was viewed as accidentally out of sync with everyone else, such as mistakenly wearing a red bow tie rather than black at a formal event, that erased positive feelings about him among those surveyed. Those opinions only improved when the survey group believed their contrarian acted differently on purpose.

“In order to think that the person’s a big shot, you have to understand that the person is willingly engaging in this nonconforming conduct,” Ms. Bellezza says.

One reason Mystery’s peacocking worked so well was because his attitude and the context within which he operated (nightclubs) conveyed intention. No woman would assume he “accidentally” wore a feather boa. He wore his flagrant peacocks’ attire with purpose. That is, he owned it. Contrast is king, but only when overconfidence is co-king.

There’s one more important caveat:

In addition, the environment must give cues that suggest a person’s talent or wealth. Standing in the front of the classroom or walking confidently into a luxury store already imply some level of belonging. But when an observer didn’t know whether the person they view is part of the group, eccentric dress was seen as a negative, according to the researchers.

Peacocking has to be framed. If you’re a newbie to game dressed in Victorian coat, spats and Celtic pendant, but carrying yourself with the body language of an anxious and uncertain man in a roomful of strangers, you will signal too much outsiderness. You will be shit tested and ostracized as a dork. Your already weak frame will be smashed to smithereens.

The solution is 1. peacocking only in the company of people who are already familiar with you (social proof) or 2. tempering your flash in the company of strangers so that you don’t unduly alert any of them to your outsider status.

Body language, as usual, is key here. The stronger — i.e., more alpha — your presence, the easier it will be to stand outside the crowd dressed in odd or inappropriate clothing. The irony of successful peacocking is that you have to act like you belong to afford the social risk of dressing like you don’t belong.

Maxim #42: Contrast in how you dress is received better by the group when you are socially proofed.

Corollary to Maxim #42: If you peacock, don’t wait long to befriend the group. Peacocking should be framed as “This is totally normal. The problem is everyone else’s weirdness about it.”

There are times when communicating high rank and competence becomes more important, such as during a shake-up in management at work. Signaling one’s place in a group reduces uncertainty, but sometimes the goal may be to fit into the group, and sometimes to signal that one is a high-status person in the group, says David Dubois, a marketing professor at Insead in France and Singapore.

Given the strong female predilection for higher status men, signaling high rank within a social milieu is more crucial to seduction success than is signaling group membership. You can dress conservatively and fit in, and you’ll make lots of asexual friends that way, or you can dress a little crazy and attract women intrigued by your handicapping boldness.

Dr. Poole’s best practical advice: “Don’t talk a lot if you have high status. People will assume you’re competent and when you talk, they will listen to you.”

Poon Commandments V and VI.

Mystery’s peacocking was not a superficial ploy. He thrived on negative attention from women because he knew that it was simpler to attract an antagonistic woman than it was to attract an indifferent woman. He knew he had the game cattle to go with his furry hat. This latest series of studies examining peacocking may overlook that calculation: Eccentric dress to provoke negative social appraisal as a means of accelerating courtship.

The Bottom Line

Don’t peacock until you’ve improved your body language and have learned how to talk to women confidently and handle the inevitable shit tests you’ll get when you start dressing in a unique manner. The clothes alone won’t make you a player. If you peacock, don’t stand around waiting for women to notice your courageous sartorial ensemble; approach promptly, and act like there’s nothing unusual about how you’re dressed. Remember that a major goal of peacocking is to provoke negative attention which, in women, is a direct pipeline to their sexual interest. If you struggle with negative attention, don’t peacock. You don’t need to go full-body peacock to raise your relative in-group status; subtle cues of risk-taking alphatude — jewelry, tattoos, shoes — can work just as well if the social context is skewed toward a conformist, bland dress code.

Read Full Post »

Peacocking — the art of wearing outrageous ensembles and eye-catching baubles — is much-maligned, both within and without the seduction community. Nowadays, when people hear the word “peacocking”, they scoff as their minds race to images of pickup artist Mystery and his gigantic furry hats, eye liner, jumbled bracelets, and Victorian long coats.

sure he looks ridiculous, but are you banging girls this hot?

sure he looks ridiculous, but are you banging girls this hot?

CH is on record as agnostic on the effectiveness of peacocking, at least as the term is conventionally understood. My impression is that there is a high risk that an improperly balanced effort to peacock will more harm than help a man’s pickup cause.

But in point of fact, I do peacock, if not nearly to the extent that pre-fatherhood Mystery did. My clothes won’t make me an automatic focal point at social events, but neither does my style ape the drabness of herbwear. I prefer styling myself with hints and suggestions of a free spirit residing within.

Into the cacophony of ridicule hurled by naysayers at men dressing like fops comes scientific evidence, albeit indirect, that peacocking will make a man more attractive to women.

Recent research has found that people with so-called “dark” personality traits are more physically attractive than others. […]

Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strube of Washington University in St. Louis were interested in looking at the relationship between physical attractiveness and people’s tendencies towards narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. They wanted to find out whether these three traits, referred to as the “dark triad,” are associated with a greater ability to successfully enhance one’s physical appearance.

To test this idea, they invited 111 college students (64 percent women) into their laboratory. Each student was photographed soon after they arrived.  Then, after taking this initial photograph, each student asked to change out of their own clothes and put on a pair of gray sweatpants and a t-shirt.  Women were instructed to remove any makeup, and anyone with long hair was asked to pull it back into a ponytail. The students were then photographed in this more natural state. Holtzman and Strube showed both sets of photographs to a group of strangers who rated them in terms of physical attractiveness. By comparing the attractiveness ratings of the dressed-down and dressed-up students, the researchers were able to determine how much each student was able to make themselves more appealing through flashy clothes, makeup, accessories, etc.

Next Holtzman and Strube assessed the students’ personalities and their tendencies towards narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. They asked the students to rate themselves and to provide email addresses for a few of their friends so that the researchers could ask them to provide ratings as well. This combination of self and peer ratings was used to calculate a final set personality scores for each student. Furthermore, the students’ ratings on narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism were combined into create a composite “dark triad” score.

The dark triad score was positively correlated with their “dressed-up” attractiveness – a finding that mirrors previous findings. However, the dark triad score was not related to ratings of physical attractiveness in the dressed-down photos. In other words, people with dark personality traits are not seen as more physically attractive than others when you take away their freedom to wear their own clothes and makeup. People with dark personalities seem to be better at making themselves physically appealing.

The findings reinforce previous research showing that narcissists are more popular than others, literally at first sight.

People who are best at making the most of what they’ve got — a talent which can be accurately described as peacocking when applied to physical presentation — are very attractive to the opposite sex. Take away their ability to peacock, and suddenly they are not so attractive anymore, at least as measured by the pre-interactive appearance they radiate during first impressions. And those people who possess the “dark triad” personality suite are the most skilled peacockers and manipulators of others’ perceptions of them.

Keep a few points in mind about this study.

1. The researchers examined the physical aspect of people with and without dark triad personalities. This study says nothing about the charismatic pull that dark triads have over others beyond their physical appearance; what might otherwise be called dark triad game. Other studies have found that dark triads exert great attractive influence on others based on the strength of their charm and narcissistic self-regard as well.

2. The facial good looks or lack thereof of the study participants were irrelevant to its conclusions. Those dark triad students were the same, as far as facial bone structure is concerned, in both their self-constructed and “natural” photos. So it was not their facial shape that made the difference in people’s opinions of their attractiveness between their peacocked and natural photos. It was how they chose to dress and present themselves that made the difference in perceptions. The “only looks matter” trolls will have to search elsewhere to find a tool to massage their prostates.

3. This study is good news for average-looking men: you can bump up your raw physical attractiveness to women by adopting a more avant-garde style of dress and comporting yourself with the mannerisms of a sociopathic megalomaniac. And my personal observations confirms this: I know a few gnarly-looking men who are catnip to women because they dress like creations from a fantasy novel aimed at women. Even my perception of their objective looks is fooled.

Remember that a man’s “looks” encompasses far more variables than does a woman’s looks. Women get significant boosts to their beauty rating from wearing makeup, an augmentation which directly alters their facial countenance, but men get boosts from an assortment of lifestyle changes, including dress, body language and facial expression. This is because women rate a man’s “appearance” using a more holistic algorithm than that used by men when they are rating a woman’s appearance.

Before any of you haters, trolls, or robotic spergs comment here, I suggest you read this post. If it is clear to me you have not read that linked post, you will be summarily cast into the hellfire of Mount Dork. You’d probably enjoy that, wouldn’t you?

Read Full Post »

Half Sigma has a post up profiling buyers of Apple and Android (concluding that most Android buyers are more frugal than Apple buyers.)

Android buyers may be more frugal, but it’s not because they have less money to spend than Apple buyers. The reason Apple is the elite/SWPL/hipster smartphone and tablet and laptop of choice has to do with the preferences of women. As a commenter over there wrote:

“Maybe iphones appeal to women shoppers, but the sophisticated users I know prefer the Galaxy S III or the Nexus 4.”

Apple vs Android is less about SWPL vs prole than it is about women vs men.

Firstly, proles aren’t Android customers. Most proles don’t have service plans and are still using dumb phones. Android customers are well-paid STEM men, typically younger, and often married with small kids. They are the type of men who are out of the dating market, either through marriage or nerdery. They love tinkering with gadgets and discovering multi-use purposes for them. They are numbers people, and have a natural aversion to spending more for something than what it is worth according to dry calculations they make in their heads. In other words, the core Android base are left brain thinkers who better appreciate value and function and are autistic to the appeal of pretty packaging, ergonomics and intuitive GUIs.

Devoted Apple customers are single women and the men who hang around a lot of women, like salesmen, players, scenesters, and marketers. Apple customers also include older buyers who are intimidated by rumors of non-Apple products being harder to navigate. In other words, the core Apple base are right brain thinkers who better appreciate form and are scared of advanced techie functionality (or more precisely, techie functionality that is not sufficiently concealed under a soothing layer of bubbly icons).

Apple enjoys lavish profitability because women are the primary purchasers in any modern, slowly decaying Western society. Since form has higher status than function in such late-stage societies, and since women are the drivers of trivial status whoring competitions, Apple — which, justifiably, represents the ultimate in high status tech aesthetic — owns women’s sympathies. And from this, Apple owns a significant chunk of men and their dollars.

Read Full Post »

If you follow the conventional wisdom closely, (or just leave your apartment once in a while), you’ll come under the impression that a good sense of style is more beneficial to women than it is to men. Women are the ones who lacquer themselves in lotions potions liners and rouges, spend exhorbitant amounts of green on fashionable attire, and coif their hair to perfection down to the last flyaway strand.

Men, in contrast, are the ones who throw on a pair of jeans and an ill-fitting button-down.

Now, the CW makes some sense, at least in the big picture. Women, being the sex whose primary attractiveness derives from their looks, would want to focus on maximizing the display of those looks. Men, whose primary attractiveness derives from status and attitude, don’t get as much SMV bang for the buck from ken dolling themselves up. But I’m here to tell you that for some men, particularly ugly men, style can play a huge role in boosting their perceived attractiveness.

Maxim #77: The role of style in diverting attention from male ugliness is severely underplayed by most ugly men.

I was at a party and noticed down at the other end of a long hall a small congregation of girls swirling around one man. I stepped closer to check out the scene, and if any of the girls were ones I knew. I didn’t know anyone, but I did notice the guy, and he was one ugly-ass mofo. Bug eyes, big ears, blotchy skin, beak nose, and horrible teeth, some of which were snaggletooths jutting out at angles like broken glass.

Now I’ve been around long enough that the sight of an ugly man holding court with one or more hot babes is nothing surprising to me. I know a man’s can-bang attitude can compensate for poor facial structure genes. But I also know it can only compensate so much. There has to be something else that distracts girls from the ugliness. And in his case, it was his flashy style.

He was decked out in what looked like Italian shoes, a fitted metallic gray suit, red socks, vest, blood red tie with some sort of iridescent pattern, and big tortoise shell designer sunglasses. He sported a very minor fauxhawk, and was well-tanned. He was a skinny white guy, average height. He smiled like he knew he was the go-to guy at that party. I could have sworn he had a gold cap on one of his miserable teeth.

No homo here, but I have to tell you, the combined sight of the girls swarming around him like he was a maypole (manpole?) plus his impeccable dress played with my powers of observation. The ugliness that assaulted me at first began to dissipate, and suddenly I was looking at a guy who left me with little doubt he knew how to seduce women. Now imagine that perception-warping power quadrupled when used against women, who are after all the sex with the more easily manipulable acumen.

Great style — the kind of style that says you are confident enough to outshine other men and that you have exquisite taste for the finer things in life — is ugliness-reducing. If you are an ugly man, you WILL become less ugly to women if you dress like you’re a leading man. Coupled with game and a totally un-self-conscious attitude, girls will not even notice they are falling for a troll.

NOTE: Does not work for women. Ugly women can maybe… MAYBE… add a quarter point to their rank with good style, but unfortunately for them men are so piercingly attuned to women’s facial features and body that not even the best tailored fashion can alter the trajectory of their target designators. Ugly men have options that ugly women do not.

If you are an average-looking man, the right style will help, but you won’t see as much of a benefit from it as the ugly man. There are diminishing returns to dressing to excess. If you are a good-looking man, you are almost better off *downscaling* your style, so that you don’t intimidate girls into thinking you’re unattainable. Very good-looking men with game who also dress with flash should focus on 9s and 10s, because those will be the only types of girls who won’t give such a man undue grief for making them feel like he is out of their league.

I later learned the ugly guy worked for Prada, and he was wearing one of their suits. I also learned something which only one other person knew at that party: he was bi. Those girls smitten by his style and charm were in for disappointment, unless they like to share.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: