Technology And Female Hypergamy, And The Inegalitarian Consequences

Owing to its theme, I feel duty-bound to alert the CH readership to this very good post examining the interaction between technology and female hypergamy, over at a blog named Selonomics.

“Why does it appear that the vast majority of women prefer the same small group of men?”

[…]

In my model, I decided to test how simple mate selection strategies resulted in wildly different statistical distributions in each of the final selection pools.

In the simulation, men make their mate selection decisions by minimizing over the age of their prospective partners, whereas women maximize over the status of the men in their accessible vicinity.

[…]

Although the simulation results above show only the most extreme scenarios, one biased in the direction of the median man (Regulated Monogamy, or Patriarchy) and the other in the direction of the median female (Open Hypergamy), it is interesting to note that contemporary real world data looks a lot more like the extreme scenario on the female side of spectrum.

The author’s conclusions won’t surprise regular guests of the Chateau, but he spells them out lucidly and adds some insight into how social media and the technology which supports it have magnified female hypergamy and made it nearly virulent.

In summation, I found the following:

• There is a strong outcome asymmetry in preferences between men and women when it comes to selecting a mate.
• We don’t have to assume very much to see this play out in the real world, only that men prefer young women and women prefer high status men.
• The positional trait (social status in this case), when amplified by both technology and the freedom to use those technologies, i.e. social norms favoring the Feminine Imperative (in Saudi Barbaria, women wear burkas and can’t use Tinder) the selection pool of prospective mates increases far faster for the median woman than it does for median man.
• Given that women are primarily interested in status, which is a positional good, then any technology that amplifies your ability to be noticed by high status men, will also increase mating inequality. Consider, for example, how men do not benefit nearly as much from the scale offered by Tinder as do women. In the graphs shown below, Hypergamy is calculated as the difference in median in-degree (number of incoming links) between the two distributions.

In layman’s terms, this is the MOST IMPORTANT GRAPH IN THE WORLD. It shows the stark sex difference in how mate quality of the opposite sex is perceived. Start at the extremes: the top 1% of men and women will receive “likes” from nearly all members of the opposite sex. The bottom 1% of either sex will get almost no likelove. In between is where it gets interesting.

At a female attractiveness level of 80% (corresponding to an HB8 on the 1-to-10 hotness scale), only men in, roughly, the 97th percentile of male attractiveness will get “likes”. HB6s will give “likes” to men in the top 5% of male attractiveness. HB4s will “like” the top 10% of men.  HB2s (ffs) will “like” the top 25% of men. Men at the 20% attractiveness level will only get “likes” from the BOTTOM 2% OF WOMEN.

You see where this is heading. As far as female DESIROUS INTENT is concerned, the bottom 80% of men may as well be distracting nuisances at best and utterly invisible #MeToo potential violators at worst to the top 80% of women. That’s what unrestrained female hypergamy looks like. A few alphas bathing in a lube-slicked ocean of vagina juice, while the mediocre beta male masses languish in their masturbatoriums.

Of course, real life pairings don’t arrange themselves according to online “likes” (yet). One look around, and you can easily see that far more than 20% of men have some success with women. What accounts for the difference between online intent and offline action are a number of factors, the most relevant of which are:

1. female resignation to the inevitable and frighteningly quick loss of their beauty and the romantic settling that most women who aren’t batshit crazy eventually accept as a part of living in the real world where men have standards
2. holistic female attraction criteria that result in more complex mate quality evaluations of men in real life, face to face interactions, which contrast sharply with the artificially myopic female attraction criteria that inordinately emphasize a man’s dating app profile and best-angle photo (this is why Game shines IRL)
3. porn and other sex substitutes that dampen the realization of female hypergamy by robbing middle of the pack women of valuable feedback on their allure

Social media amplifies female hypergamy by introducing more high status men to more women, and vice versa more hot women to high status men. Localism moderately contains female hypergamy simply by limiting the number of HSMV men in any given woman’s immediate environment, (which many women get around by moving to the big coastal cities). So Burnham’s critique of SCALE is apropos here, as a major factor in the development of runaway female hypergamy.

The THREE CULTURAL CHANGES that have had the biggest negative impact on beta male romantic fortunes have been:

1. Urbanization
2. Social media and online dating
3. Female obesity

#1 and #2 increase beta male competition with alpha males (by proxy) which relationally lowers beta SMV, while #3 reduces beta male dating market leverage by shrinking their pool of acceptable prospects.

If we are to solve the crisis of incel soyboys, we have to de-urbanize the shitlibopolises, log off our gadgets while mocking the women and thirsty betas who remain addicted to them, and Make American Women Waifs Again.

• Age in men tends to be a proxy of social status, where as age in women tends to determine genetic quality. Genetic quality is normally distributed, on a Bell Curve, whereas social status (and the wealth and income that results) is either log-normally or Pareto distributed in a population (What if Bill Gates Were as Tall as His Money?), following the truism that “20% of the men get 80% of the women.” While close to true, what my simulations actually show is that what is really happening is something closer to “20% of the men receive 80% of all female intent.”

He’s made an important distinction here. Intent isn’t fulfillment, but it certainly smooths the path. Formal social regulations and informal cultural regulations have historically been used to stymie the full and free expression of female hypergamy, at least in Eurasian peoples, because there was a gut instinct understanding that it was a bad arrangement to alienate 80% of men in an asexual purgatory and break the bonds of nuclear family formation by permitting women to waste years chasing the 20% of men they desire most. These traditional barricades against free-wheeling hypergamy loosened the link between raw female desire and domesticated female behavior. Women may not have liked it (though there is evidence in happiness surveys over time suggesting otherwise — aka the “tyranny of choice” paradox), but tamping down on their unfiltered and unobstructed hypergamous drive certainly was good for society as a whole.

Over time, the cultural and geographic constraints against hypergamy imprint via sexual and natural selection onto the racial genetic code, so that today Eurasians are more constitutionally comfortable with monogamy than are, say, Africans. But some universal traits still linger, and female hypergamy is one of them, shared by women across the world. This is because the force of sexual selection provided by the evolved hypergamous urge is such a powerful Darwinian mechanism to ensure survival that selection pressures against hypergamy were only able to slightly alter primal Eurasian female sexual proclivities in the direction of monogamy and intersex SMV complementarity.

• Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.

It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.

In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.

As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.

A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.

***

Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.

I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:

In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.

In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.

Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.

One obvious outcome of reckless hypergamy in a sexually atomized mate market is delayed marriage and childbearing, and too many years spent in endless dating cycles hopping from cock to cock and job to job, only to surrender at the last with a few remaining years on the ol’ biological clock as a consolation prize for the unlucky also-ran herbling who has to eat the pain of wifing up a woman who historically would qualify as a road-worn spinster whore, a pain amelioration which he typically accomplishes by posturing as a white knight male feminist pretending it was his choice to leap at the flappy labia scraps thrown his way.

The good news, especially for readers of this blog, is that there are many Game techniques devised specifically to leverage female hypergamy to the benefit of men….push-pull, DHV, disqualification, outcome independent mentality, assuming the sale, etc. This is a benefit to the few individual men dedicated to learn Game, and more so to those committed to put it to practice. But runaway female hypergamy is a disaster for the West as a whole, after accounting for the few Machiavellians who can extract pleasures from its dwindling resource of feminine women. Female preference cascades in openly hypergamous societies are accelerating the lockout of beta males from the primest cuts of poon, while also locking out women from motherhood and happiness.

My next few posts will cover this explicitly. The Mating Economy is likely best understood as a series of feedback loops, in which a balance between Regulated Monogamy and Open Hypergamy maximizes the “socioeconomic growth rate” of a Civilization.

I’m looking forward to those posts. (To the author: If they’ve already been published, please link to them in the comments, and I’ll add the links to the post.)

Read Full Post »

Be A Man With Standards

Adhering to standards and expressing them to women is what separates the quenched alphas from the thirsty betas. Too many men cede the Darwinian high ground of standards to women, an assumption not without biological basis in reality — the vessel housing expensive eggs can demand more than can cheapo spermos — but nevertheless an assumption that can cost men a lot of romantic possibility, and tragically an assumption which can be overturned with minimal mental effort.

We are all familiar with the 463 bullet point checklist that fertilely-fledged women carry in their subconscious to be accessed when and where potential suitors are found. The online dating market doesn’t even require the cloak of subconsciousness; there, women are forthright about their criteria. Some female Tinder profiles can run to upwards of fifty dealbreakers, often hilariously coupled with fatty bluehairs and fishmouth tatted freaks belying either their sincerity or their sanity with which they make their demands.

The “out and proud” female bullet point checklist accompanied by ravenous hordes of thirsty betas tripping over themselves to meet those female standards is solid evidence that the modren sexual market has shifted to the favor of women — likely culprits in the imbalance: numerical sex skew and female obesity — and that men are falling right into their roles as desperate hound dogs chasing after table scraps.

It’s even worse now that we’re in the era of Trump, and ideology has become one of if not THE sorting mechanism for Shrillennial hookups and relationships. “TRUMP VOTERS SWIPE LEFT” is a common refrain on girls’ profiles.

It doesn’t have to be this way. So much hidden love can explode in the world if men abided for themselves the same laundry list of criteria that women take for granted as the prerogative of their sex. Men with freely and boldly expressed standards are a lightning rod to women who labor under a scarcity of such men. Try it and see for yourself. Set standards of what you will allow or disallow in women and follow those standards. You don’t even have to be sincere; the mere revelation of your standards and ACTING as if they matter to you will be enough to flip the seduction script and have women effortflirting for your approval.

EVERY WOMAN SUCCUMBS TO THE BITTERSWEET THRILL OF CHASING A MAN OF DISCRIMINATING TASTE.

And I’m not talking about demands for physical perfection. Women already know men lust most forcefully for 36-24-34, barely legal, and blemish free. NO FAT CHICKS is just a start. You need to flesh that out with MORE demands, MORE criteria, MORE checklists. For example: HILLARY PUSSYHATTERS SWIPE LEFT. NO FATTIES, NO TATTIES, NO WHACKIES. BPD? SAVE IT FOR YOUR BETA MALE ORBITER. LTR FOR THE GIRL WHO EARNS IT.

Then sit back and recline in your cowgirl position banging chair as the ladies line up to

1. meet your exacting standards or
2. shit test you to kingdom cum

Either reaction is good. Remember, the shit test is prologue to sex. If a girl is uninterested, she will ignore you or curtly reject you. If a girl is interested DESPITE her forebrain telling her you’re no good, she will tease, taunt, and try to wind you up as a gauge of your alpha male state control (or beta male emotional and libidinal incontinence).

Some readers object: what’s to stop a girl from simply lying to you about meeting your standards?

A lying girl?

Is there another kind of girl?

If you ask the second cumming of Mother Theresa how many cocks she gave alms to in her youth, she will lie about the number.

Why it doesn’t matter:

You’re still getting laid.

And, unless you’re a hard-up buffoon who marries the first girl who looks at your cock cross-eyed, you are gonna have (at least) a three month trial period breaking her in; few women can sustain the illusion of a perfect fit with you longer than that. Her annoying tics, untrustworthy sluttiness, antagonistic value system, psychological scars, and feminist proclivities will eventually out, and they almost always out post-coitally, when she (like all women) thinks her vagina is sufficient to placate any doubting thomas and divert his attention from her shitty personality.

Know the ho
in the afterglow.

By then, you’ll be well-positioned to offer or rescind any implied promises of exclusivity.

Read Full Post »

Female Social Rank Is Irrelevant To Male Mate Choice

In my view, an unresolved mystery of human evolution is why women would bother engaging in status jockeying competition with other women when men choose mates primarily based on physical attractiveness and youth (but I repeat myself), traits which women have little control over and which are hardly altered by direct competition with other women. It’s obvious why men compete with other men….women are attracted to high status men who can provide resources and social connections for them and their children. It’s not so obvious why women compete with other women given that no man who wasn’t a scheming gigolo marrying an older rich widow to finance his gay twink lifestyle ever gave a rat’s ass about a woman’s social station.

And swaggering in to add the weight of natural world evidence to the evolutionary mystery of intra-female status wars, is our old friend ¡SCIENCE!: (via rman2017)

CH, here is a documentary about wolves.

I’ve forwarded to the part on topic. The females go into heat and the alpha has to choose which one he will mate with. He has 2 choices, who happen to be sisters. The assertive, aggressive Grey Female Alpha (GFA). Or the shy, submissive Black Female Omega (BFO). A few interesting bits:

1. The beta is disciplining the females, and being especially aggressive towards GFA. The Beta acts like the court eunuch keeping the harem in line.

Lupus orbiters.

2. The Alpha DGAF. He’s playing in the snow. (If you watch the full documentary you will see at the beginning that he establishes himself as alpha not because of his size or age, but because his attitude.)

no matter what happens, his claws are a-tapping’.

3. The Alpha makes his choice. It’s the BFO. Social rank within the female group has no bearing on the Alpha, as he completely disregards their status. He goes for shy and submissive. He knows that the mate he chooses will automatically become the Alpha Female in the pack by association, not the petty games the females play between them.

Among wolves, female social rank is irrelevant to alpha male mate choice.

Among humans, same. If you’re a hot babe, you’ll attract the attention of alpha males, no matter your social or occupational status. But human society is a bit more complex, so there must be a reason intra-female competition evolved.

One theory: women compete to demoralize SMV-comparable competition into ceding the playing field. Men won’t date women they don’t ever see or meet.

Another theory: A woman’s male partner isn’t the only provider of resources for her and her children by him. Other women can act as proxy providers by cajoling or otherwise influencing their own male partners to redistribute their resources to the highest status woman in the tribe/suburban neighborhood. Under this hypothesis, women compete to earn the favor of not just men, but of everyone so that they are looked favorably upon when times are tough and favors are needed.

Consolation prize theory: women compete intrasexually to scratch their itch for drama that they aren’t scratching with all the boring beta males sniveling around them for a piece of pity pussy.

Bottom line: there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the psychosexual differences between the sexes that needs clarifying before we #MeToo ourselves into Darwinian oblivion. One major source of misunderstanding is the mass psychological projection that men and women, but particularly women, engage in when they delude themselves into believing what attracts them to the opposite sex is also what attracts the opposite sex to them.

Koanic gave one sterling example of female projection feeding into false female beliefs of a societal double standard holding The Woman down:

If women can indiscriminately hit on all men by dressing like whores, then men can indiscriminately hit on all women by propositioning them like whores.

This gets at the heart of moderin confusion: sex denialism obfuscates differences between men and women, notably ignoring the fact that men are visually aroused and women holistically aroused. So in effect women dressing like whores IS hitting on men.

A lot of man-hating cruelty and female unhappiness could be avoided if we all accepted the biological truth that male desire is focused through the eyes while female desire is focused through the ego.

Similarly, the false consciousness that female social rank matters a whit to male arousal thwarts the budding of a lot of potential romances, while wasting in the rogering trenches the prime birthing years of women afflicted with the delusion of male desire for empowered careerist tankgrrl shrikes.

Read Full Post »

Inner And Outer Hajnalia

Jayman writes in a comment to this post,

Hajnal line. It’s all about late vs early marriage. Northwestern Europeans married late (average age for women 23) for centuries. Eastern and Southern Europeans married much earlier (often in early teens for Russians, for example). This is a pattern that continues to this day, albeit at later ages across the board (the rank order remains fairly unchanged).

Right, and the Hajnal Line is now colloquially associated with differences in a bunch of other inter-european characteristics, such as clannishness, familism, nationalism, passivity, and fondness for watching from the corner stool. (Paradoxically, fertility rate is unusually low in Outer Hajnalia.) Anyhow, I wonder when the trend of Inner Hajnalia late marriages will bang up against the biological reality of the Wall. That is, given a choice, men aren’t really happy about marrying women with only a few years left of supple fuckability in them. Preference for younger virginal women is universal among men. And there are many biological reasons men prefer virgins over road worn sluts who’ve spent the better part of their salad decade warming up for their ludicrously ostentatious wedding day.

At some point the raw Darwinian calculus will re-emerge and there will be a pendulum swing back toward younger marriages with hotter, tighter babes who have oodles of residual reproductive value left.

Read Full Post »

Urbanization And Female Hypergamy

Urbanization and the accompanying social disconnection have the effect of pathologizing female hypergamy, turning it from a useful Darwinian selection mechanism to an auto-immune disorder that robs women of their prime child-bearing years and elevates their risk of spinsterhood.

De-urbanization will throw a monkey wrench in the gears of the cock carousel and corral runaway female hypergamy. If you want to improve the romantic and marital prospects of beta males….that is, if you want more beta males to have access to relatively unsullied feminine women who forsake gogrrl careerism and avoid emotional pollution by shitlib hivemind propaganda in favor of family formation and hearth duties…you’ll support de-urbanization.

A de-urbanization program (aka a Heritage America Renewal Project — HARP) plus an immigration moratorium for a couple of generations are together the only long-term solution to feminist dysgenics. Federal and state incentives should be structured to support small city and town development, antitrust to break up megacorps…basically decentralization and de-scaling.

Infrastructure projects will help revitalize the US interior, making it more attractive for businesses and locals, which will limit the brain drain from rural regions to the coastal megacities. Ending immigration and thwarting the menace of Diversitopia will make good districts more widely available and thus more affordable.

Now if we can only solve the existential problem of female obesity in the heartland, we’ll truly have made America great again!

Read Full Post »

Confounding The Cocktease

If you’ve been around enough women in your life, you’ll have come across a most frustrating subspecies of the sex: the manipulative exhibitionist, aka the cocktease. Anonymous writes,

Happened to a friend of mine. She let him touch her everywhere but nothing more. When he gave up, she lured him back, only to play the same game again, for months. Don’t waste your time with such women, or improve your game to prevent these games.

The worst reaction a man can have to the unique predations of the cocktease is gullibility. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football Lucy is holding for him, the cocktease will never let you make solid contact. Keep hoping for a different outcome with her, and keep getting stymied right at the moment your blue balls have hit maximum pressure.

You have to stop pulling her toward you, and start pushing away from her. Redoubling your efforts to get in her pantsuit will only lead to the same detente: her stringing you along by the short and curlies, and then giving you the Heisman when you think you’ve breached her perimeter defenses.

A few CH words of wisdom on the cocktease, which should help clear any man’s mind about the nature of his antagonist.

The worst of the Manipulative Exhibitionist girls are power-tripping narcissists who love inciting sexual arousal in men, but especially in men with whom they have no reciprocal romantic interest. I.e., the classic cocktease, on roids. This is important, because the ME girl’s feeling of control and power over men would be harder to sustain in the presence of a man who likewise aroused her own curiosity.

The Power Tripper ME girl loves the reaction of sex-struck beta males driven to catatonic impotence, but she loves even more the consequent opportunity to put those betas in their places. This is why more than a few Power Trippers are past-peak women in their late 20s and early 30s; she is the woman in dire need of reassurance that she still has the slut stuff to play bumbling betas for marionettes.

******

The cocktease’s ideal man would be someone she approaches first, but who doesn’t flirt back. He just stands there being amused by her antics, making her work harder and harder for his attention, until his value is outsized in her mind. One step forward, two steps back, is his motto for dealing with cockteases. And then when the time is ripe, he pushes hard for the close, leaving her little head space to rationalize yet another coquettish escape.

The cocktease doesn’t want you to chase her; that will only embolden her to greater depths of cockteasery. The only intervention that breaks the cocktease’s spell is non-intervention.

When she lures you back….don’t bite. Brush her off and later offer a rescheduled meeting on your timetable and at the place of your choosing. This will screen out the cockteases who truly have no interest in you and are just using you for ego thrills. What the cocktease least wants to do is make an effort, so if you have made her work a little for you she’s more likely to drop her act and get real.

When she lets you touch her….don’t bother. Your active disinterest will drive her crazy, and she’ll overcompensate by coming onto you harder to provoke a flirtatiously sloppy reaction from you. State control is your best friend when in the company of a cocktease.

When she’s coming onto you to provoke your ardor…..push her away. “Whoa, not so fast. I like to be wined and dined first.” Or, “What are you running here, a brothel?” You get the idea. You want to frame the situation as one in which you’re the prize and she’s the ho who can’t control herself around you.

The Confound the Cocktease strategy is basically flipping the seduction script. The better you are at psychologically manipulating a cocktease to believe she’s chasing you for your approval (and romantic interest), the quicker the cocktease will stop manipulating you for external validation.

Tell your friend to give it a go, and report back to us.

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 »