How The Pill Will Change Your Game

In response to my request for information about the Pill and how it influences female mate choice, Chase Amante writes:

Hey brother,

Just browsing your blog and saw this. I’ve done some research on this before; have a very recent blog post up on it now, referencing a trio of studies on attraction and the pill (including one just published by the Royal Society on the 12th).

The post’s here:

http://www.girlschase.com/content/whats-best-way-pick-girls-get-ones-looking-you

If you want to head over to the abstracts yourself, they’re here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/10/rspb.2011.1647.abstract

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/3/203.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X05002564

Fascinating stuff when you dig into it.

Best,
Chase

So now we have our answer. Basically, what all these studies boil down to is the following: Women on the Pill are put in an artificial state of non-ovulation, which influences their mate choice selection criteria so that they prefer soft, herbly beta provider males throughout their entire monthly cycle and into perpetuity. In other words, women are being brainwashed by the Pill.

The studies are filled with data that support the obvious conclusions we can draw from the central thesis.

– When women in LTRs or marriages go off the pill they will suddenly find their beta boyfriends, whom they met while under the influence of the Pill, very unattractive, for reasons which they cannot articulate except in the loosest female terms like “we grew apart”, or “I just don’t feel it anymore”, or “he stopped being attentive to me”. Surprise divorcerape follows. Corollary: Men whose GFs or wives go off the Pill need to be EXTRA WARY of possible infidelity.

– Women who don’t take the Pill will be more receptive to same night lays with high value men (that is, men who display “social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness”) during the ovulatory week of their cycle. Game will help you identify these women and quickly lead them to sex.

– Committed women on the Pill will be less likely to cheat on their boyfriends.

– Committed women not on the Pill will be more likely to cheat during their fertility windows.

– Women not on the Pill will go out more to social venues when they are ovulating, driven by a mysterious vajlust to meet men.

– Women on the Pill tend to become Netflix kinds of girls.

– Women not on the Pill will flirt more with men during ovulation. Boyfriends of these women will jealously mate guard until the ovulatory threat has passed.

– Women on the Pill will be less receptive to cocky/asshole alpha game, if they are in committed relationships. But they may be more receptive to beta provider vulnerability game.

– Women in relationships with betas or lower value men will be more dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill. Women in relationships with alphas or higher status men will be less likely to be dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill.

– Average looking women not on the Pill will get a chance to experience the thrill of a jealous boyfriend when they are ovulating. Hot women will be with alphas who never get jealous. Ugly women will continue to be ignored.

– Women on the Pill will be more (sexually) appreciative of a beta’s resource investment. Women not on the Pill will be turned off by betas attempting to buy their love.

– A woman on the Pill will likely have longer relationships with the men she dates. This is probably because she will wind up dating betas who like to cuddle and look at baby pictures with her. A woman not on the Pill will have shorter relationships because she will date alpha cads who can’t be tied down for very long.

– Perhaps most interestingly, and a corollary to the above, a woman on the Pill when she met her partner, who then goes off the Pill, will be MORE likely to initiate a separation/divorce should one happen, even when the chance of a separation is lower for her than it is for a woman who met her partner while not on the Pill. What this means for men is that women on the Pill who then go off it while in an LTR won’t agitate for a break-up; instead, they’ll cuckold the poor beta bastards, resorting to dumping them only when they can’t take their supplication anymore. Women NOT on the Pill will simply choose to leave the relationship to hop aboard the cock carousel for another spin. So in one sense, at least, women who don’t take the Pill are more moral than women on the Pill, as the former would choose to end an asexual relationship or marriage over keeping it alive on a resuscitator and cuckolding on the sly.

So what does all this mean for men? How will it change the application of game?

– If you’re a niceguy beta with zero game, your best shot at sex is finding a girl on the Pill during the nonfertile phase of her monthly cycle who is single and owns at least two cats and two fat friends who constantly remind her by their presence how awful it is to be alone.

– The worst prospect for a niceguy beta is an ovulating hot chick not on the Pill who is just out of a relationship with man who became too beta for her. You may as well tuck your junk between your legs, because that is how seriously she will entertain your courtship attempt.

– As C. Amante mentioned in his post, hot ovulating chicks who are natural (sans Pill) will make pilgrimages to clubs, bars and Las Vegas to meet new men as if they were sex Meccas, and they will do so with or without a cluck of hens in tow. A hot chick alone in a bar on a weeknight is virtually guaranteed to be ovulating and hungry for cock. You want to target these spots for increased odds of quick, easy sex.

– It is impossible to efficiently sort out natural girls from Pill girls during the daytime, so day gamers will have to judge which girls are ovulating and horny according to other criteria. Subconsciously recognized odors may help. So will watching her body language for signs that betray unobstructed ovulation, such as hair twirling, leg crossing and uncrossing, heel dangling, and self-caressing.

– As Amante also noted, a chick who is really flirting with you during the day time is a virtual lock to be ovulating and off the Pill.

– If you think a girl is not on the Pill and is ovulating, you want to physically escalate sooner rather than later. Such a girl will become bored with a man who doesn’t make an early move on her.

– A girl on the Pill will be a breeze to talk with if you are a game-less beta, because she won’t bother with any of that messy flirting, teasing or shit testing that so vexes betas. Her non-ovulatory state ensures that she will be a pleasant chat partner who likes talking about puppies and food, and who thinks penises are icky.

– A girl who is not on the Pill and is ovulating will want sex fast, and she will want it hot, so she will shit test you hard in hopes of quickly uncovering whether you are an alpha worth fucking or a beta worth rejecting. If you talk about puppies with her, she will laugh in your face.

Maxim #20: The meaner a girl is with you, the likelier she wants to fuck you.

Corollary to maxim #20: The nicer a girl is with you, the likelier she thinks you’d make a great eunuch friend.

Things are really going to get interesting once there’s an oral contraceptive for men. Or is that, too, part of the masterplan to emasculate the Western male?

Read Full Post »

The Four Month Flake

Whoever says flaking doesn’t work on women has no experience giving it a go. Do you think the modern woman has so much self respect that she will balk to give a flaky man a second chance? Ha. It is to laugh. She will not only entertain the thought, she’ll eagerly anticipate the excitement such a feckless man will infuse into her dull, rudderless life.

A girl of about 27.5 years of age and glittering auburn hair tromped off a SWPL bus, (which route taken drives carefully within the confines of SWPLland, like some zoo safari jeep rumbling on paved roads behind electrified fence holding at bay a lone, bored cheetah licking his nuts a half mile away. The thrill!) I happened to be walking by with a load of bruised vegetables from the corner farmer’s market when the usual urge, normally stifled by officehive feigned sterility, propelled me to approach and gauge her buying temperature.

“Hi.”

She snaps her head in my direction. “Hi.”

Good start so far.

“How was your ride on the Disney bus?”

Quizzically: “What?”

“The Disney bus. That’s what everyone calls it. Feels like a fun Disney ride through a magical neighborhood.”

“Wow, that’s the weirdest thing anyone’s said to me today.”

“Just today?”

“Ok, maybe this year.”

“That’s more like it.”

A pause to digest. “For your information, the ride was not so great. There was a couple arguing next to me.”

Score! Any girl who would run with this patently absurd discussion topic was the kind of girl straitjacketed by little moral or sexual restraint. “Oh, that’s too bad. Next time ask for your money back.”

We talked for ten more minutes, as it serendipitously turned out she lived two neighborhoods over. (Demarcations subject to revision without prior notice.) In a land grab of impudent proportions, I cut us short with a quick rejoinder to give me her number so we could talk another time. She keeled backward a bit, regrouped, then smiled as she read them off to me. I do not test girls’ numbers by calling or texting them on the spot; it betrays insecurity.

I didn’t call her until four months later (no need to explain the banal reasoning for my flakiness). Unsurprisingly, I got her voicemail. I spoke:

“Hi. It’s [Name redacted, or IgnatiusJReilly if you prefer]. It’s been a while since we met. Call me.”

No benefit would accrue to me by leaving a lengthy, or even not so lengthy, explanation why I waited four months to contact her. What kind of man offers excuses to a woman he has yet to sexiate? Excuses which are really camouflaged apologies — verbal blurts, as we all know, which are a defining characteristic of the beta mindset. A long-winded backstory would only present to her a platter-full of extraneous, lurid detail for her to quickly dismiss my terse entreaty as she basks in the glow of having gained hand.

A wise man feeds the hamster just enough pellet to make it hungry for more. Too little, and it remains unperturbed from its hamster ennui. Too much, and it lumbers away to sleep off a sated stupor.

As expected, she did not return my call right away. No, she waited twenty minutes.

“Wow, I’m surprised you called. You’re lucky I remember you, or I wouldn’t have called back. You were that guy from that day at [X], who said something ridiculous about [Y]?”

“Yes. And of course, I wouldn’t have called if I didn’t remember that either.”

“Four months is a long time to wait. Is that part of your game plan?”

Despite your inclination to do the opposite, it’s best to fess up the truth when you are conceding an obvious transgression on your part. The trick is to present just a hint of the truth; enough to quell her BS radar, but not so much to give her ammo to legalistically argue points of contention until her pussy has dried up like a slug under a mineralstorm of Morton’s.

“For personal reasons I won’t get into, I couldn’t call you at the time. I’ll leave it at that.”

“Guess I’ll have to accept that. So now you want to see me.”

“I hope it’s not too obvious.”

“It is. But I’ll take you up on it.”

Over drinks later, she said it was bold — even ballsy — of me to call her after four months of blowing her off. I said it required no balls at all, only desire. I told her she seemed the type to throw away the rulebook. She was pleased with this assessment.

There is a maxim somewhere in the archives. Seduction is the art of co-opting a woman’s tools of the trade, and using them against her, for a woman loves nothing more than a man who “gets it”, and what man gets it more than a man who understands that women need exactly what they dish out? Men would be well-advised to turn the tables on their quarry and flake on them every once in a while. It’s the stuff of legendary romance.

Read Full Post »

The Benefit Of Losing Your Cool (Sometimes)

A reader asks:

I got mad at my girlfriend of a year earlier today for something she did, and after I was cooled off I talked to her about it and everything’s good now, but at one point she said “this is why you’re scary sometimes…these rash reactions and the leaping to conclusions…” and I’m not sure if that’s to be taken as a good thing or a bad thing? Could you give your opinion on this?

A good thing. Unpredictability and volatility are male attractiveness traits, in measured doses. (Too much of either and she’ll begin to devalue you as someone who has no state control.) Losing your cool — as long as you do it infrequently — will keep a woman on her toes and her hamster at full throttle, which translates to long-lasting desire for your attention and love. And rumblestick.

Women’s greatest horniness lies in anxiety.

Read Full Post »

The Pill And Female Mate Preference

This blog has touched upon the effect that the birth control pill, now a fifty-year-old institution, has on women’s attraction mechanism. However, the studies examining the matter don’t seem to agree. I have read, (and experienced), contradictory evidence that supports both theses that women on the pill prefer niceguy betas or badboy alphas.

Does anyone have clear, updated information on this topic? It strikes me as one of major importance in any discussion about changes in Western female temperament, mating preference and even looks. Not to mention, the pill may cause changes in men who have to drink the water that is now polluted with estrogenic compounds. The subject deserves more rigorous science than it is currently getting. Naturally, it’s understandable why feminists would be loath to broach the subject, but that’s no excuse for the paucity of corroborating science by non-feminists, aka rational people.

UPDATE

JR writes:

I don’t know of any recent scientific studies, but you only have to think rationally in order to shed light on the topic. Unless the pill has in fact affected women’s biochemical processes, it stands to reason that they have reverted back to a more or less ‘pre-cultural’ preference for ‘alpha males’ of the crudest variety because the pill has freed them from considering the potential negative consequences of sexuality.

The female preference for alphas is basically a given, so the only question is: are there artificial forces preventing them from chasing them constantly?

This is a good point, and one that’s been discussed before. The pill exerts a psychological and a physiological effect on women. How much emphasis to give each effect is up for debate (though I tend to agree with JR that the psychological influence is just as strong as the physiological influence), but that there is an influence seems to me unassailable. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature without some kind of blowback.

Note that the psychological conditioning caused by the pill is not limited to just the pill; condoms and other forms of prophylactics would have the same mate choice conditioning effect as the pill, if not to the same degree. The difference with the pill is that it alone could seriously fuck with the physiological engine of female mate choice.

Read Full Post »

Another Game-Validating Scientific Study: Make Decisions, Get Laid

It’s been said before on this blog that women are turned off by men who don’t take charge, and are particularly contemptuous of men who relegate the decision-making process to them. Women, contrary the bleatings of the feminism lobby, are more sexually attracted to men who remove some of the need for female independence.

Well, chalk up another scientific validation of a CH game concept: Women who make more decisions have less sex.

A new study published in the Journal of Sex reports that the more decisions a woman makes on her own, the less likely she is to have sex.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University arrived at these results after they surveyed women from six African countries about how intimate they were with their partners. They focused specifically on the last time these women had sex “as well as who had the final say on decisions ranging from healthcare to household purchases.” For women who answered that they were in control of such decisions, researchers found they had less sex and more time had passed since their last encounter.

The usual caveats about racial population group differences apply, but the general finding is, in my observation, applicable to women from all racial backgrounds. As women take control of more of the major decisions in a relationship (or in their lives in general), their ardor for their male partners (or for men in general) decreases.

Here’s the money quote:

Not only were these women having less sex, but “the findings showed more dominant and assertive women had approximately 100 times less sex.”

To bring this closer to home, dominant and assertive Western white women probably have higher testosterone levels than normal women, so there is a good chance they are sluttier as well. It may therefore be the case that women who make a lot of decisions sleep around more. But does that necessarily translate into more sex for them than for women who are in more gender polarized, satisfying relationships with dominant men? No. Within relationships of a given matchup, it could very well be the case that less assertive (read: feminine) women have more sex with their dominant male lovers than more assertive women have with their indecisive beta male lovers. Assertive, dominant women — you know the type, lawyercunts to a T — when they aren’t lashing the whip upon the flayed backs of their beta provider suckups, are studiously avoiding having sex with them. These types of women get more emotional satisfaction out of nagging and berating and using their betaboys than they do out of fucking them.

(And what do the betaboys get out of these relationships? Well, they get a woman. Sort of.)

I think we’ve all scratched our heads and wondered why a particular domineering woman with a high-flying career had a schlubby, charmless milquetoast for a boyfriend or husband. You may rest easy as order is restored to the universe, because a lot of these odd pairings hide demented secrets of sexual aridity and pathological nagging. And now science has shed light on the phenomenon with evidence confirming conventional and PUA wisdom that dominating women really do have less sex than their sweetly submissive peers.

As the reader who emailed this study wrote:

“Has science EVER gone the other way on Game? [Ed: No.] Has msm EVER failed to spin even the most egregious bullshit about female psychology into a positive for women? [Ed: No.]

The advice for men: take decisions away from your woman, take the punch out of her dominant streaks, and you will be rewarded with 100 times more sex.”

You got it.

I’ll relate a pleasant little story from my own life. As my propensity in moments of self-amusement tends toward the satisfyingly manipulative, I have dabbled in the perverse arts of anti-game just to witness and enjoy the predictable reaction it induces from a girlfriend. So this one time, in band camp, my girl asked me what we should do for the evening, and instead of my usual tack of offering a couple suggestions (but not more!) and announcing with royal decree which one I would prefer and she should also prefer, (absent any severely allergic disagreement on her part), I hemmed and hawed and diplomatically dodged “I don’t know” and “What do *you* want to do?” and basically foisted the decision-making process entirely onto her. Priceless to the point of caricature, the expression on her face spoke a million words. And none of them flirty or sexual.

There are some primal forces of nature that were never meant to be meddled with.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks: Norwegian Terrorist Gets Love Letters In Jail

Emma the Emo writes:

That Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is getting love letters in jail now, after killing over 70 people, most of which are teens. Psychologists theorize that women want to save/heal him somehow. If they wanted to save and provide emotional help, they could instead write letters to the victims who survived. There is no point in saving a murderer like that, it’s too late, and just gives men more reason to become murderers.

Emma is right. If “saving” or “healing” broken men was the prime motivation explaining women’s lust for assholes, then we would see women saving and healing all those unfortunate victims of a psychopath’s rampage. Not to mention, there are a lot more beatdown betas who are in need of saving via pussy therapy than there are happy-go-lucky alphas.

Which of course puts the lie to the feminist and mangina explanation for women’s attraction to jerks and thugs. While the savior complex may explain, in part, women’s craven desire, it is not the primary or sole explanation, or even a very important one. As everyday observation to those with the eyes to see demonstrates, the primary motivation is women’s love for unrepentant, rule-breaking assholes. That is the elemental, core female hindbrain algorithm that governs all other lustful dispositions and is the catalyst for her mate choice decisions.

Women love assholes because they are assholes. Because it inspires in women those emotions that most delight their pleasure centers. And that, based on the reaction it engenders from civilized men and women alike, is the truth too scary to contemplate.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks: Prison Tryst Edition

If you’ve been in a comfortable relationship for a while, or your game is so tight that you can steal girls from jerks, or you and your wife share Hallmarkian duties raising your children, you might forget the true nature of women and the crass biomechanical processes that motivate their loinlust. Which is why a helpful reminder every so often is just what you need to keep your mind focused.

Okla. warden’s wife convicted of aiding escapee

The wife of a former Oklahoma prison warden who disappeared with a convicted murderer only to be found living with him in Texas nearly 11 years later was found guilty Wednesday of helping him escape.

Jurors visited the prison grounds where Bobbi Parker, 49, had lived with her husband, then returned to the Greer County Courthouse and determined she left willingly with Randolph Franklin Dial in 1994. Parker did not testify but after being found living with Dial in 2005 insisted he had kidnapped her and threatened to harm her two daughters if she tried to escape.

Yep, women can’t get enough of that asshole vibe. So much so, that they’ll even leave a man whose occupation — prison warden — suggests authentic asshole, to be with an even bigger asshole — a convicted murderer. Talk about hypergamy. Maybe a new term should be coined for women whose hypergamous instinct for assholes causes them to go downmarket for the thuggish dregs of manhood: Masochamy.

Of course, in the evolved, frontal lobes of their brains, women know that society frowns upon their unquenchable attraction for assholes and douchebags, so when they are caught out in the act of fulfilling their fantasies they revert to stand-by female moral expedience by doing what they do best — laying the blame with the man. In this case, Bobbi Parker claimed her killboy lover had kidnapped her and threatened her two kids if she left his erotic embrace. Naturally, it’s a lie, which is exposed rather humorously in the article.

Dial died in 2007 at age 62, but until his death he backed Bobbi Parker’s version of events: that he drugged and kidnapped her, then kept her from calling police or her family by threatening to harm her family — even after he suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized.

Yeah, real hard to get away from a man laid up in a hospital bed with an ailing ticker. Funny how women have none of these troubles leaving betas who cease turning them on.

The real victim in all this is the jilted prison warden hubby who, through no fault of his own, found himself on the receiving end of a woman’s runaway lust for badboys. I guess managing a prison filled with some of the world’s worst alpha scumbags wasn’t enough to sate her vagina’s yearning. A woman’s cross to bear, ya know?

Unlike the specious claims made by feminists and their beta suck-ups, you will very rarely see the gender opposite happen in real life — it’s a black swan event indeed when a man leaves his hot wife for a female convicted murderer to help her escape prison and live with her for ten years. Men simply aren’t wired like women; for men, it’s looks over everything. For women, it’s attitude over everything.

Nor are feminists correct when they say that women are really attracted to the fame of high profile murderers, and not the embodied asshole attitude. Sure, that contention may be true for a select few cases like Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, but most cases of women seeking the meaty intrusion of jailbirds are like this one where the convict is not famous, but just another filthy turd trapped in the bowels of the prison system.

As any person involved in the legal system will tell you, the stereotype of women loving inmates is so common that hardly anyone notices anymore. Well, this blog will make sure the noticing never stops.

Now, not every women will swoon for a swindler or murderer, but all women possess an irredeemable attraction for men who are at least a little more asshole than the men within their social milieu. Bobbie Parkers spread for inmates, while Hillary Clintons spread for narcissistic manipulators. It’s a difference of degree, not kind.

Just a little helpful reminder should the swoon of romance ever take your eye off the ball.

UPDATE:

Here is a photo of the two lovebirds. Sez it all.

Read Full Post »