Would You Intervene To Help A Woman Getting Abused By A Lover?

OneSTDV has an interesting post up about an ABC TV show which conducted a social experiment to determine if strangers would help an obviously beaten woman in a public restaurant when her violent boyfriend shows up. Actors played the roles of the abused girlfriend and the abusive boyfriend. A bunch of clackety clacking hens over at Feministing clucked up a storm when two of the pairings demonstrated a contrast in how the public responded to the bruised actress in distress. In the first mock scenario, the woman was dressed conservatively. A white knight rushed to her defense. In the second mock scenario, the bruised woman was dressed sluttily, showing lots of cleavage. No one stepped up to help her, men or women. The fembots harrumphed that this proves that people perceive slutty women as “asking for it”.

OneSTDV’s explanation was this:

I disagree. I’d wager the different reactions stem from a lack of respect commensurate with the girlfriend’s sexual openness. The other patrons’ responses reflect the existence of a number of indicators of status and class. Provocative dress implies a sexual luridness most middle aged persons find deplorable.

OneSTDV is closer to the truth here than are the fembots, although their competing explanations are not that different and could be mostly semantical. A woman perceived as low class because of slutty dress evokes a general feeling among onlookers that she is “asking for it”. The perception of low class leading to a belief that she is complicit in her suffering is not a broken path of reasoning. People of each sex do judge sluts more harshly because there is a human tendency to withhold empathy from losers who can’t even respect themselves. Naturally, a fembot would screech “why is dressing like a slut synonymous with being a loser?”. Not every slut is the female equivalent of the emotional tampon beta male loser, but the parallels are striking. Both must barter their most precious resource to get any attention from people of the opposite sex they most desire.

To answer the title of this post, I would not intervene to help an abused woman. My thinking on this is crystal clear: she chose to be with the abuser. I know that any help I may offer would be for naught as the next day she would run back to her thug lover for more of the same flirty flurry of blows.

There’s a lesson here. You can’t get something for nothing. If women want the assistance of white knights, they need to behave in a manner that is indicative of women who deserve the help of white knights. Which means not choosing and sticking around with Joe Uppercut as the welts accumulate so a pussy itch can be satisfied. And it definitely means not having a kid with him.

Rihanna balked.

Read Full Post »

Dating Traps

Occasionally, after you have been dating a girl for a few weeks, she will ask if you are seeing other girls.

This is the worst sort of beta bait because it is so innocuous sounding. What man wouldn’t want to reassure a girl he is dating that she’s the only one for him? Most betas will chomp down on stinky bait like this so hungrily that it will cause the girl to second guess whether she is high enough in dating market value that she can safely leave the guy for better prospects.

BETA: Nooo baby, I’m not dating anyone else. I wouldn’t even think of dating anyone else while I’m with you. I really like you. All I can think about is you. [Gentle shoulder grab and big, wet eyes.]

GIRL’S SUPEREGO: Oh, that’s good to hear. [GIRL’S ID: Tool.]

Your job, as a man who routinely dates quality women, is to never let her ego convince her that she is too good to be dating you. The best way to do this is simply to not fail her status ascertaining shit tests.

Beta bait and shit tests are similar concepts with some notable distinctions. Shit tests occur with the most regularity and intensity during early game, and at times when the relationship is on the skids. They are normally loaded up front to help the girl quickly take the measure of your alphaness. Beta bait happens at any time while dating a girl, and are spread out evenly in a relationship as a sort of low level boyfriend diagnosis script.

Shit tests are more obvious than beta bait, and thus easier to pass for men with excellent awareness of female hypergamy tactics. A shit test can be quite bold and shocking to newb ears and thus scare off lesser men, but the inveterate player always operates with the frame that shit tests and other assorted confusing and bitchy female behavior are an opportunity rather than an obstacle to demonstrate his mate value. A girl who is giving you shit is a hell of a lot closer to sex with you than a girl who is indifferent to your existence.

Of the two, beta bait is by far more dangerous than shit tests. If you fail a shit test, you move on to the next girl within your field of view. Your pain is over quickly and time is saved for mining new whore. But beta bait is subtler and more insidious; you may not even recognize you’re being baited until she’s screaming “HALF!” and the kid suddenly doesn’t look like you anymore.

But what truly makes beta bait so devilish is that the girl doesn’t even have to know she is baiting you. In fact, it is a mistake to think most girls are aware of their hypergamous status testing. Some are, particularly the heavily made-up club regulars who delight in frustrating men with sassy snark pulled from a crib sheet of well-worn bitchitudes. (I remember this one girl who used to say “take a picture, it’ll last longer” to just about every man she caught checking her out. I wonder what her line will be when she’s 35? “Take my picture, please”?) But most girls aren’t aware of how their female nature operates. To a girl, tossing out beta bait is as unconscious an act as a man chubbing out when admiring a perfectly rounded ass.

It doesn’t matter whether the bloody chum slips off the boat’s deck unsupervised, or if it’s tossed into the water with joyful gusto; you must resist biting into it regardless how tempting it is. Shit tests have less room for error. You fail the first shit test and you may as well write her off. In contrast, beta bait isn’t pass or die; you can safely take the bait occasionally without dooming your relationship, but you should aim for a pass rate of 75%. Once you start latching onto beta bait 50% or more of the time, your days as a man she desires to fuck are numbered.

Back to the original scenario, here is an example of how to resist the bait:

HER: I dunno… maybe. But if we do this I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.

ENLIGHTENED YOU: Naturally. *kiss*

Note here that you aren’t sappily proclaiming your undying loyalty to the girl, while still easing her mind a little that (perhaps!) she is the only one you are dating. When you must give a girl an answer to something that reeks of beta bait, agree with her without *super* agreeing with her, if you catch my meaning. Sexy alpha answers nimbly dance the semantical line between truth, evasiveness, and provocativeness. Succinctness is always better than loquaciousness. Informality always beats formality. Hints are preferable to straight answers. Is this patronizing to girls? It sure is, and they wouldn’t have it any other way.

Read Full Post »

Two Words Women Love To Hear

I was speaking with a woman of considerable savviness in matters of male-female socializing. I wanted to know how to deal with a situation that required tip-toeing the line between candor and deceit. This is the advice she gave me.

ME: So this girl that I think is cute asks me if the girl she saw me with is my girlfriend. I don’t want to say yes and risk blowing my chances out of the water. I don’t want to say no, either, because I know women are more attracted to men when those men are getting love from other women. And a “no” would have been a lie, anyhow. So I was thinking about saying something close to the truth that also leaves the door open for continued flirting and possible future hooking up. Something along the lines of, “Well, we’re going through a rough patch now. Hard to say how it will turn out. We’re discussing a trial separation.”

GIRL BUDDY: Ugh, no.

ME: Why?

GIRL BUDDY: Too much explaining. By the time you’re finished with that I’m thinking “Wow, sorry I asked!”

ME: You got something better?

GIRL BUDDY: Just say, “It’s complicated.”

ME: “It’s complicated.” And that’s it?

GIRL BUDDY: That’s all you need. When a girl hears “it’s complicated”, she gets inside her head guessing about what you mean. That’s the place you want her to be if you want a shot with her.

ME: What if she follows up by asking me what I mean?

GIRL BUDDY: She won’t. Most girls understand that “it’s complicated” is code for “don’t ask me any more questions about it”. And you know girls love mystery, so they’re not going to ruin a good mystery by trying to solve it.

~~~

So there you go gentlemen. “It’s complicated.” Commit it to memory and deploy liberally. With some field practice, I’ve discovered that “it’s complicated” can serve as a useful stand-in for all sorts of scenarios you may find yourself in with a girl. It’s a go-to answer for all kinds of questions, not just the ones pertaining to your relationship status.

GIRL: So are you dating anyone right now?

YOU: It’s complicated.

***

GIRL: Just how many girls have you been with?

YOU: It’s complicated.

***

GIRL: What are you looking for?

YOU: It’s complicated.

***

GIRL: Will you buy me a drink?

YOU: It’s complicated.

***

GIRL: You’re not going to try to stick it in my ass tonight, are you?

YOU: It’s complicated.

GIRL: *swoon*

Read Full Post »

Sexual Experience Is Overrated

For women, that is. Men can never have too much sexual experience.

The following conversation I had with Silverback in the City Zeets will explain why.

~~~

Zeets: I’m pretty sure she’s only been with one other guy her whole life.

Me: Is she a virgin?

Zeets: Not a virgin… technically. But emotionally she may as well be. She has almost no experience with men.

Me: Hard to believe there are women like her outside of rural areas still in existence.

Zeets: She’s a foreigner from [a less developed European country].

Me: Bingo.

Zeets: The first time, she didn’t know what she was doing. It’s like I was back in high school. I tried to maneuver for the kill shot, but she kept her legs shut tight. I had to physically pry them apart. As I’m inching in, she’s squeaking like a mouse. “Ow ow ow”, she’s saying. I’m like, “Uh, ok, you’ve gotta relax here, otherwise this isn’t going to work.”

Me: Then what?

Zeets: Then she’s telling me to close all the blinds and blow out the candles. She likes the room pitch black. I guess it was because she was uncomfortable with me seeing her naked body in the lights. She’s got the bedsheets pulled right up to her chin.

Me: But she has a nice body. Doesn’t she know that?

Zeets: I know, tell me about it, but remember this girl is like a teenager fumbling around in the back seat of a car. She’s self-conscious. She doesn’t know what the fuck she’s doing. Eventually, we did do it, but it wasn’t good. She was too uptight, barely moved at all, and the endless foreplay pooped me out.

Me: That was over a month ago. You’re still with her.

Zeets: Yeah, we’ve done it a few more times since then. I was worried that she might have a weird psychological hangup about sex… maybe a religious thing?… but then it started getting better. She listened to my instructions, and followed orders well. Sex got better. She really loosened up.

Me: She got comfortable with you.

Zeets: Now she’s presenting like a red-assed chimp. She is truly loving in bed, totally getting into it. Sex has gotten even better with her than with some other women who knew what they were doing on the first date. Still need to work on proper blowjob technique, though.

~~~

Sluts may know what they’re doing the first time without much prompting from you, but sexually inexperienced girls who have been allowed to blossom into full, exuberant womanhood under your caring tutelage and by your steady temperament are the true prize, the holy grail.

It is a myth that sexually inexperienced girls are sexually repressed girls. Some are, but most of them are simply choosier than their sluttier sisters. It is more fulfilling to have a girl release with you, than to have her come pre-released by a battalion of men before you.

Read Full Post »

Update: Miranda Kerr Doesn’t Follow Her Own Advice

A reader who requested anonymity sent me some background information on Miranda Kerr.

You probably don’t have many Aussie readers, since they would gleefully point out that Miranda doesn’t take her own advice.

This guy ripped off and lied to her family, just like everyone else around him. Miranda likes the bad boys too.

Search for “Adrian Camilleri” on Google and you’ll find a wealth of shit.

Hey, chicks dig the dark triad.

I wonder if Adrian bought her the right size in between the time he spent stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from her family? Or maybe it was his diligence at finding a babysitter on those nights when he was taking some time off lying to everyone around him? Perhaps he was good at connecting with her… deeply, so deeply… during moments away from being an über douche master of the universe?

Aaaaannd, take it away, commenters!

Read Full Post »

DC Is Not A Chick Mecca

Over at Mexican Annexation, T. “cheap chalupas uber alles” Cowen has a theory on the dating market for men in Washington DC:

I think it’s better to date here if you are male. Government attracts a disproportionate share of intelligent women. I’ve never lived in New York, but there are so many celebrities, billionaires. If you are a guy in New York, there’s always another guy that crushes you on the scale. Here, there are all these politicians but they are really out of commission for the most part — or if they fool around, it’s with interns. You don’t have to compete with them. The people who are really high status are off the market. As a male in Washington, you can be high in status fairly easily without the true very high status competing. In New York or L.A., there are movie stars and directors. Even if a woman can’t be with a movie star, women can still say, ‘Gee, this guy or that guy is not a movie star or a director.’ There’s lobbyists and lawyers here, a lot of them. You can be more interesting than that. This is a great place to live.

Allow me to add my more correct thoughts.

1. Government attracts a disproportionate share of *credentialed* women. While intelligence and credentials are correlated, they aren’t the same. Some of the most boring women I have ever met were multi-degreed widgets freshly pressed off the academia soulsucking assembly line. Some of the sassiest and funniest women I have ever met never had the luck to pay off a crushing student loan debt. And let’s cut the crap about smart women — most men measure a woman’s dating market worth by her looks, her feminine personality, and her willingness to experiment sexually in bed. Her smarts comes in a distant — waaaaay distant — fourth place. There is a place for female smarts, but that place is at an easy to reach lower bound of IQ where she isn’t so much dumber than the man she is with that he finds it insufferable to deal with her continually not getting his jokes and cultural references. Generally, the men who wax eloquent about the romantic charms of female intelligence are nerdos who have an incentive to pump up the one redeeming quality of womankind they can afford to bargain for.

2. NYC is a good example of what happens when a male-favorable sex ratio smashes up against a female-favorable hypergamous culture — the latter usually wins. There are more fertile-age women in NYC than in other cities, but the few male super alphas operate essentially Sultan of Brunei-like harems. Nonetheless, New York is still pretty good for the average man who can survive there, because there are so many cute chicks from which to choose. Betas may have to tolerate banging 7s disappointed they aren’t going to be the next Mrs. Hedge Fund Guy, but on the bright side for them, it beats self-beating.

3. Nobody who is high status is “off the market”. Even marriage is no escape from the sexual market. The divorce revolution is a lagging indicator of this reality. If there’s something to be said for betas wondering about the playing field in DC, it’s that the behavior of conventional alphas there is more constrained by political necessity. There’s a higher price to be paid for a politician caught with two mistresses than for a stockbroker or business owner.

4. Senor Cowen exaggerates the hypergamous calculating of women in NY and LA. There are only a relative handful of movie stars in LA. Most women are not so blinkered to think that sitting out their dating lives in celibacy for years while waiting for a shot at that 0.001% of the local “authentic” alpha male population is an acceptable lifestyle. If you are a man with game — i.e. you have an understanding of psychosocial dominance and how to apply it — you will get laid with hot girls in LA, even those of the monomaniacal actor- and director-chasing variety. Especially with those if you are a skilled liar.

5. I agree that the conventional alphas with pull in DC tend to be boring, and that it is a simple matter to project a more interesting personality in comparison. The guys I used to know in DC who did best with women were, respectively, a bartender, a bike messenger, a real estate agent, a lawyer, and a technical writer. Only the lawyer was what women would describe as a traditional, high status alpha. What did they have in common? Unstoppable confidence. Charm. Balls. There ya go.

6. The widely-cited female skewed sex ratio of DC is a myth. This website neatly explains why. Only if you count all women between the ages of 20 and 64 does DC have a large surplus of women. But what man who isn’t a total loser wants to date a woman who made splat with the wall decades ago? Change the slider on the map to cover the age range of singles from 20 – 39, the years for which women still retain rapidly declining sexual marketability, and you’ll see that every major city in America except for Springfield, MA (5 extra women per 1,000 people) has a surplus of single men. No wonder most bars look like this. However, in DC’s defense, its male surplus isn’t as bad as the male surplus in most big cities.

7. DC girls are not ugly. There are plenty of cute chicks, and even some beautiful ones, gallivanting through the halls of trendy lounges and shamtastic art shows. They might not be as beautiful on average as NY or LA girls, but they can hold their own versus girls in Chicago, Houston, and Seattle. And don’t get me started on Portland girls. Ugh.

8. The best looking women won’t be found in America. For that, you’ll have to travel to Tallinn or Kiev.

Read Full Post »

Spinsterhood, Bastard Children Are Our Future

As if the dark worldview illuminated on this blog could not be more validated, here’s an article about rising rates of illegitimacy, spinsterhood, later marriages, and later births (a quadfecta!):

The number of children born outside marriage in the United States has increased dramatically to four out of ten of all births. [editor: america, fuck yeah!]

Figures show that 41 per cent of children born in 2008 did not have married parents – up from 28 per cent in 1990. […]

Having a child out of wedlock does not carry the stigma and shame it once did, they say. [society wept.]

The study also found that in America there is a declining number of teenage mothers and rising numbers of older parents. [this is a good thing if you like raging autism and a TFR below replacement.]

By comparison, Britain has the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe with 45 per cent of children born outside of wedlock in 2008. [what, you think mickey d’s would be our only export?]

When Labour came to power in 1997, 36 per cent of children were born outside marriage.

The U.S. research, taken from census reports and health statistics by the Pew Research Centre, also outlines a trend of couples in western societies marrying later in life and delaying parenthood until they can afford it. [or being so poor they don’t care about affording it and having the kids anyway. hooray malthusian-idiocracy-welfare state intersect!]

In 1990 only 9 per cent of births were to women 35 years and older and 13 per cent were to teenagers, but by 2008 10 per cent of births were to teenagers and 14 per cent were to older women. [remember: older mothers = fewer healthy children. so while the birthrate is increasing among older women, that doesn’t mean the total number of children they are having is the same as women who became mothers at a younger age.]

‘The demography of motherhood in the U.S. has shifted strikingly in the past two decades,’ the report said.

The share of births to unmarried mothers had increased most among white and traditionally Catholic Hispanic women. [interestingly, the share of new juvenile detention centers and STD treatment clinics increased the same percentage.]

Mothers are also better educated than they were two decades ago. In 2006 more than half of mothers of newborns had some college education, an increase from 41 per cent in 1990. [maybe the reason we haven’t made contact with advanced alien species is because they opted for the reality-bending virtual pleasuredome iCum existence until the last smart chick standing orgasmed herself to death with the Alphabot 2000 SmoothTalker model 6000, her 0.5 children left to arrange her unattended funeral?]

The percentage was even higher among mothers 35 years and older, with 71 per cent. [it makes a twisted Darwinian sense that the smartest women would fail to adequately reproduce to replacement level, as they are the ones, through their own status- and resource-enhancing actions, cursed with the smallest gene pool of acceptable men to choose from.]

‘The higher share of college-educated mothers stems both from their rising birth rates and from women’s increasing educational attainment,’ the report explained.

Attitudes have also altered in the past 20 years as the stigma of unmarried parenthood has softened and Americans marry later in life. [but she’ll alwaaaays… be an unmarried single mom with bastard spawn… to meeee….]

As one commenter to that article put it:

So women are waiting longer to have fewer kids without dads in an increasing welfare-state world. Anyone see the impending disaster this is fueling?

I do. Which is why I’m sipping a cocktail poolside, unmarried, with my lover beside me. The smart move, if you ask me. You want to put in the hard work turning this ship around, be my guest. The sordid status quo benefits me. It would really cramp my style if the pool of attractive young women suddenly dried up from a rush to the altar and the nursery.

It seems that the steady drumbeat of data continues proving what I wrote about in this post:

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation.

And in this post:

[…] here are the [Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse that explain our cultural lament configuration]:

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

It’s all been so predictable, yet our Kommisars of Kultural Korrectness couldn’t see what was happening right before their eyes, or they could but didn’t care. The formula is simple:

Divest sex from pregnancy + financially empower women, thus devaluing men’s mate attracting provider ability + incentivize divorce for women + disincentivize marriage for men + remove the slut and single mom social shaming mechanisms + endless dating + fertility treatment + government and corporate welfare =

More single women in their most attractive fertile years available for plundering.
More divorce court ass rapings for men.
More bastard children.
Less marriage.
Later marriage.
Later births.
Fewer lifetime births.
And an alpha cock carousel that spins relentlessly until society crumbles under the weight of declining productive native population, rising orc horde populations, and wildings by all those fatherless bastard boys raised by empowered single moms.

It’s all so clear as day and yet our so-called smarties continue jabbering about comparative advantage, relationship complementarity, and immigration-fueled cheap chalupas.

It’s funny until the pleasurecrats and statusticians have no gated communities left in which to escape.
And then it’s hilarious.

I have a prediction of my own. Either American society implodes, or the coming generations of Millennials and younger utterly turn their back on the values of their parents and grandparents, giving a big one finger salute to the dying Baby Boomers and their progressivist equalism lies and returning the country back to the cultural configuration that once brought it to majestic heights.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Read Full Post »