What Happens When Your Nation’s Men Are Emasculated

Supposedly, that is the Crips’ gang sign those Swedish handball team women are all flashing. It may as well be a gangbang sign, because odds are good Usain Bolt rammed home a 9.63 in each one of those broads’ Nordic pussies.

Now I know some (most) of you looking at this pic felt a blood pressure rise or, at the least, a stirring of disgust. That’s perfectly natural. Seeing women of your race (or tribe, or family) bang an outsider alpha male interloper, even going so far as adopting his cultural swagger and betraying their very essence as members of your shared tribe, and feeling emotions that would scandalize polite society, is a primal reaction that is evolved in all humans and has therefore likely served a beneficial role to our reproductive fitness. The id monster will not be reeducated.

It’s said that Swedish men are, arguably, the world’s most feminized men, bending backwards to feminist demands, rhythmically swaying to intone feminist boilerplate and flagellate themselves for their sin of being born men. It’s also said that Swedish women are among the most eager of the world’s women to sample the cock of the Other.

My purpose with this post is to proffer that the emasculation of Sweden’s men has a direct, causal effect on the willingness and ardor and shamelessness with which Sweden’s fully feminist women rush into the crotches of decidedly non-feminist, self-confident alien swashbucklers. When your women’s kinsmen — the men, lest the reminder be needed, who are the presumed benefactors of their women’s sex — are lickspittle, mincing betaboys who happily accede to every asinine feminist idea, it should be no surprise to scholars of female nature that the women who hold such ahistorically lopsided power over their countrymen would, unintentionally, geld them so thoroughly that they are reduced to anhedonic lumps the likes of which the male competitor Usain Bolts of the world could run over with impunity.

What this photo symbolizes better than anything is the age-old and unmitigable female paradox of insisting upon shit she does not really want. If you listen carefully and follow to the letter your women’s rambling feminist inanities, you get Sweden, land of the castrated men who repulse their own women. If, on the other hand, you dismiss and deride, in action as well as word, the feminists in your midst with the cocky assurance of the man who makes no excuses for his raw masculinity, you might piss off a few ugly manjaws, but you get to enjoy the continued admiration and carnal desire of your beautiful native women.

Game can save Sweden’s men from utter humiliation. Game at its most primitive is an illusion of power, but an illusion of power is still better than powerlessness.

This post gently massaged into Bill Bennett’s shoulders.

Read Full Post »

Eye Contact Game

“In need of advice” asks:

What is the right move to make when you and a girl hold eye contact from a distance across the room? I’m thinking of some type of direct approach, but what type of line should I open with? Of course the target is generally in a small group, but…

Put yourself in a girl’s shoes. (You sperg types and psychopaths can sit this one out; I understand how difficult empathy is for you.) You are scanning the room, discreetly, hoping to catch an alpha male’s eyes. He sees you. (Or, rather, he sees your pulpeous lips, your sultry eyes, and your bodacious tatas. Thank god for objectification, otherwise you’d never get a date!)

He holds your eye contact for a split second longer than the average beta bear, triggering your discomfort and tingle reflexes simultaneously. You shift a little in your chair to make room for your engorging labia. What happens next will either maintain your state of intrigued arousal, or return you to the previous indifferent baseline.

If the man lowers and raises his gaze repeatedly to confirm that you are, indeed, returning it, you will lose interest fast. What kind of alpha male dawdles while life, and pussy prospects, zoom past him?

If he smiles while holding your eye contact, and then returns to talking to his friends, ignoring you, you are curiouser. Will he rendezvous later to strike up a conversation? Or is he toying with you?

If he waits, steely-eyed, for you to break eye contact (and you are surprised to find yourself always looking away first when a man confidently holds your gaze), then disappears from view, only to reappear at your side ordering a drink for himself (but not for you), you can barely contain your excitement.

If he holds your eye contact without smiling, without frowning, with just the expressionless blankness of a man contemplating the cracks in a sidewalk, and then calmly, slowly moves directly toward you, your anticipation grows and your nerves electrify. You know what he wants, but still you can’t wait to hear how he goes about getting what he wants.

If he looks away and pokes his friend, pointing at you while talking to him, then looks back at you and smiles, you lose interest. You feel your vagina prancing out of the room.

If he bends over and speaks to you through his ass cheeks, Ace Ventura style, you realize he is unattainable and lament that you will have to settle for a more predictable man this night.

I hope you are getting the drift of this exercise in imagined pickup scenarios. There are alpha ways and beta ways to initiate verbal contact after eye contact has been established, and there are multiple and varyingly effective ways for each. Getting strong eye contact from a girl before approaching — an approach I would NOT classify as a cold approach — is something many beta males rely upon because it is, in fact, one of the easiest approaches to execute. It’s the closest thing to a sure thing in non-social circle pickup that there exists.

(Try approaching a girl who doesn’t even notice you, or, worse, who looks away to the side when you try to catch her eye. It’s a whole other beast.)

In my personal experience, a consistently effective approach after strong eye contact — that is, eye contact which you determine is evidence the girl really likes your look and vibe — is to wait for her to unlock eyeplay first, and then simply walk towards her, slowly and deliberately. Usually, she will look up again and see your mighty visage coming toward her, and this will make her nervous. This is good, because a nervous girl is a girl who already perceives you as having higher value, and thus you will have prequalified hand in the seduction.

Once you have reached her side, look away from her momentarily, toward the bar or the crowd. Stand shoulder to shoulder. Allow a few seconds of uncomfortable silence to pass. Now this next step is key: do NOT say anything about liking her, or her liking you. She will be expecting that. An alpha male is rarely one to satisfy women’s expectations. You may go direct with your opener — “you really should work on your distance flirting technique”, “if you wanted to talk to me, you could have just come over and said hi”, “your friends are annoyed that you’re paying more attention to me than to them” — or indirect: address her friends if she’s with a group and act like you only came over to get a drink and socialize. Ask her what she thinks of girls who drink manly drinks. Inform her you made a bet with your friends that you would limit yourself to flirting with only one girl this night.

Whatever you do — and there are plenty of opener tactics in the archives — know that extended eyeplay with a girl makes your job a lot easier. She’s practically announced that she’s ready and willing to give you a chance. Attraction is yours to lose, so all you really need to do is avoid typical anti-game mistakes and know how and when to transition into more intimate rapport.

Read Full Post »

A Little Pain Warms The Female Heart

As the Kristen Stewart affair (re)confirms, women, particularly young, slender women with high mate values, possess a seeming masochistic tendency to seek out relationship drama and wallow in it. All women have this urge, although the degree to which the urge expresses itself varies in its intensity among women. A very rough estimate by yours truly puts it at 1/3 women crave sadistic assholes (who may even beat them), 1/3 of women are drawn to men who provide non-thuggish but nonetheless insecurity-amplifying drama, and another 1/3 are put off by thuggishness and prolonged drama-inducement but who do enjoy some minimal amount of relationship tension, whether manufactured by the man or organically arising from his higher value relative to hers.

Furthermore, this craving for asshole men diminishes slowly with age, and with declining beauty. The elicited excitement and allure of the jerk tends to be strongest in very pretty, slender women aged 16-25, and weakest in ugly women over age 35. The reasons for this dynamic are obvious: very attractive and maximally fertile women — that is, those women with the most options in the sexual market — are best able to capture the attention of an asshole, and extract commitment from him. Older, uglier, fatter women are not even on assholes’ radars; their options are limited and their ability to extract commitment from men is kneecapped, so they tend to de-emphasize their longing for badboys and emphasize their appreciation for the secure reliability of lower value niceguys.

A few feminists are only now beginning to grapple with these hypergamous truths of female nature, not least in part because of the efforts of alternative blogs belched up from the bowels of hell, like this one, but they have yet to fully imbibe the meaning behind the evidence that confronts them. Many of them will attempt to scaffold their tattered ideology and hide the beast from their sights by making feeble assertions to the contrary, with no evidence in hand, that for instance, to pick a classic example of the genre, men “like drama-inducing bitches just as much as women like drama-inducing jerks”.

Well, ain’t that an ego salver! Too bad it isn’t true. There is very little real world evidence, either in the scientific literature or in anecdotal observation, that men crave relationship drama and the bitches who can give it nearly as much as women crave the badboys who can give them drama. Dark triad traits? Benefit men’s desirability; do nothing for women’s desirability, or even hurt it. Female groupies for male prisoners? So well-known that there are even websites devoted to letting women air their grievances with the prison system and detail their efforts to get conjugal visits with their killer lovers. And then of course, there are the women who, despite plenty of resources and peer pressure to guide them to better choices, freely opt to love and love again abusive men who turned their faces into mashed pulp.

Men do not share with women this masochistic compulsion for relationship drama. Men who are stuck with abusive women are often losers who know they couldn’t find another woman to save their lives. Men who have options will leave bitchy women without a second’s thought. Men, in fact, are the total opposite of women in this regard: the typical man will usually RUN AWAY FROM bitchy women in favor of sweet, feminine women, given equal looks. Even given unequal looks, most men will choose, for example, a sweet, caring 7 over a bitchy, sadistic 9, at least for long-term consideration. (For a one night stand or short term fling, men will put up with some shit in exchange for the pleasure of defiling exquisite beauty.)

So it is with this sex difference in drama-seeking in mind that the theme of this post emerges.

Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.

You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.

The more beta you are, and the hotter your girlfriend or wife, the more necessary will be the application of drama inducement game (DIG).

Reader David Collard comments:

I have written a poem about virginity and defloration, mainly to annoy skanky feminists:

http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/first-draft/

As I have said before, deflowering my wife was unpleasant, and painful for her, but I am glad I got to do it, not some man before me. […]

I have seen a serious scientific (evol psych) argument that the pain of childbirth gets a woman to bond to her child, and the pain of defloration gets her to bond to a man. On the other hand, my wife says my deflowering her put her off sex for quite some time. She had a very tough hymen.

It is an intriguing theory that women are, in some primal sense, attracted to the freeing chains of pain. The pain — physical or emotional — seems to release in woman animal lusts, which then stampede beyond her control. This loss of control is something women secretly yearn to experience, and the alpha males who so delight them are the men most adept at stripping women of their superficial veneer of control.

David writes that childbirth and defloration are both major masochist milestones in a woman’s life that also represent pinnacles of pain. In the crucible of this pain (physical in these two instances), a bond so powerful, so unbreakable, is formed, that the woman will be forever merged in psyche, soul and snatch with the child and the man, respectively, who visited this pain upon her. I believe this is the best argument there is for beta males to actively seek out and deflower virgins, for the resultant bond will be so strong that they can then coast in their betaness for many years afterward without threat of cuckolding.

“Anonymous” writes:

Quoting Kristen Stewart: “I feel boring. I feel like, Why is everything so easy for me? I can’t wait for something crazy to fucking happen to me. Just life. I want someone to fuck me over! Do you know what I mean?”

So, she wants to play some Russian Roulette? Why are women so masochistic? You have a tenuous alpha/beta analysis when it isn’t even 100% clear that Alpha’s are better for survival or fitness then beta (why are there so many betas if alpha is the better gene)? I won’t quibble over this because your pop science has a much more serious problem. The central problem with female fitness in modernity has nothing to do with alpha/beta but is delayed pregnancy. What are the psychological consequences of going 15-20-35 years after menstruation and failing to get preggers? Ancient women were ALWAYS pregnant, like in stone age societies. Women are designed to be constantly knocked up and hauling 5 kids. How can their psychology pull the 180 to barren femcunt lawyer slut? Or barren and bored slut actress? You don’t think this makes them masochistic freaks? They are built for pain (pregnancy and hauling kids). Your Alpha/Beta analysis works, but the bigger issue is masochism and other psych problems from being chronically barren.

I understand anonymous’ wrenching repugnance at women’s callow and seemingly self-annihilating unimpeded sexual behavior, but that is a confusion remedied by a widening of perspective and a depth of experience. This odd drive by women for the powerful, charming, dominant men, even when it threatens a solid and secure relationship, must have served some benefit to our distant female ancestors, including the mothers of the infinite mothers of your mothers.

But then, as anonymous rightly states, there has always been, until relatively recently, a natural curb — an auto-pilot emergency brake — on this female hypergamous impulse, that would engage when the impulse became destructive. This natural curb was PREGNANCY. Ancestral women used to get knocked up quickly, at very young ages, and then be burdened with child after child until the wall removed from them the last hope of fulfilling a latent hypergamous urge. A Kristen Stewart, shorn of the props and rebar and condoms and abortifacents and Pills of modern society, would not, in the ancient times, have had the luxury of chasing down and fucking multiple alpha males to satisfy her id-shaped itch. In times bygone, her downlow would have meant the abandonment and eventual death of her child by her beta provider (Robert Pattinson) and the ostracization by her tribe’s women. Her alpha lover (the director) would not have agreed to help much in the raising of the children she had borne from previous men. There would not have been a media-savvy slut-excusing PR machine, aided and abetted by feminists and manboobed robots, to carry her through the ordeal to a safe landing ensconced in the lap of a replacement alpha male.

Instead, a modern Western Kristen Stewart gets to skip all that pain that would have been hers in prior eras, and indulge her hypergamy nearly free of consequence. Perhaps anonymous has a point; the mitigation to almost total irrelevance of this primal pain that was once the birthright of women has rendered their sex so psychologically scarred, so emotionally gutted, that they deliberately seek destructiveness in their relationships to feel anything at all. This destructiveness, once harnessed, feeds on itself, and there is no cure save sexual obsolescence, which must come, as it does for all women, sooner than they think.

The barren woman. The spinster. The pathetic partying cougar. The slutty alpha female. The delayed marriage and childbirth. The 0.5 child SWPL mother. Is it all coming together in a vortex of unhappiness and self-despoilment? Is the answer a reconnection with the animal spirits — and the animal dangers — that used to animate our free choices?

Kristen Stewart and millions of women in similar circumstances as hers will realize their fates too late. Worse for them, the Robert Pattinsons of the world are beginning to wake up and realize their fates as well. The interesting times are just beginning.

This post sealed with a kiss for Billyboy Bennett.

Read Full Post »

What Kristen Stewart’s Cheating Tells Us About Good-Looking Beta Males

People are asking my opinion of the Kristen Stewart affair. She cheated on her boyfriend Robert Pattinson with her movie’s director, an older, objectively less physically attractive married man whose wife is a model. Ok, here goes.

1. She’s cute.

2. She’s a horrible actress.

3. You can be the best looking man in the world, but if you’re a beta in your core (and there is evidence in his quoted words that Pattinson is an unreconstructed beta) you will suffer a higher chance of getting cheated on by your girlfriend if she spends any nontrivial amount of time with an alpha male who has the ATTITUDE.

4. This is more anecdotal evidence that male looks and youth simply aren’t as vital to revving women’s libidos as female looks and youth are to igniting men’s libidos.

In the modern West, betaness is a disease, and I aim to deliver the cure.

Read Full Post »

Obedience To Authority Game

We often mischievously note here that women are more prone to herd behavior than are men. That is, on average, your typical woman is more likely to “go along to get along” than your typical man. This is why all sorts of cultural trends — from fashion to food to acceptable modes of posturing — exert stronger influences on women.

The close cousin of lemmingitis (falling in step with fads) is obedience to authority. If you are apt to align your lifestyle with whatever is the latest fashion, (and ostracize those who don’t), you are probably also apt to blindly obey high status authority figures telling you what is good for you. If true, then we might speculate that women make better cultural foot soldiers for whichever elite authority is most tangible in their lives, owing to women’s greater propensity to accept authority dictums without question.

We may add to this speculation not only personal observation and confirmatory heaps of anecdotes, but in addition scientific evidence that women are, indeed, more obedient to authority than are men. Courtesy of reader uh pointing us to this Milgram experiment replication:

Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a “cute, fluffy puppy” who was given real, albeit harmless, electric shocks. They found similar findings to Milgram: half of the male subjects and all of the females obeyed to the end. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment and some openly wept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as the shocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects showed more hesitance towards delivering the shocks.*

Always remember: All female participants in the Milgram obedience to authority experiment continued shocking the puppy despite their tears.

Half of the men stopped.

Girls love cute things, but they love powerful authority figures even more.

I’m glad to report that, thanks to the yeoman efforts of this blog, there is a growing awareness of female nature settling firmly in the minds of Westerners (and a smattering of Finns. I kid, I kid! Sort of.) Like male nature, female nature is not all bad, nor is it elevated above men’s (it’s different than men’s, but not any less degraded). Le Chateau’s campaign to RAISE AWARENESS about women’s true nature helps bring balance to the social conditioning force, which for generations has defaulted to the side of pristine women and fallen men. This grand rectification will BEGIN THE HEALING of a society teetering on the precipice of choking to death on a morass of self-asphyxiating lies, and get more than a few men laid in the process.

We know that women are more instinctively obedient to authority, but the reason perhaps eludes those of us with less experience navigating the twat trenches. This female impulse to servitude is both an evolved moral mechanism to reinforce in-group cohesion (and thus secure resource blessings to their children) and a manifestation of their desirous attachment to alpha males, of whom the most obvious archetype are those alpha males wielding authoritarian power.

This knowledge dovetails nicely with game principles. Mystery was always fond of repeating that women are evolutionarily configured to desire “leaders of men”, (along with “protectors of loved ones” and “preselected by women”). I’d expand this axiom to include leaders of women, because the man who can corral a roomful of women to do his bidding is, in many ways, a sexier specimen to women than the man who leads a battalion of men. See, for example, any fashion photographer.

Authorities are, by definition, leaders of men and women. You, the beta male who wants more choice in women, can leverage women’s instinct to obey confident leaders to your hedonistic advantage. Try this sometime (if it is out of character for you, which will be the case, I bet, for at least 80% of my male readers):

• Order, don’t ask, a girl to do something with you. Telling her she’s coming with you to Bar A or Event X is, you will find hard not to notice, far more invigorating to her libido than asking her the same.
• If you are buying a meal or a drink for your girlfriend, choose her option and unhesitatingly order it for her. I have had girls exclaim with surprised glee how awesome it was that I caught them off-guard with this bold move. (Note: Do not default to buying shit for girls you haven’t yet fucked.)
• Spontaneous sex in dangerous places. Again, command her, don’t ask. Asking a girl to have risky sex will always get a “no” answer, which is funny because not asking will almost always get you a “yes” reaction.
• Simply command a woman to do something that makes her a little uncomfortable. Authority is best proved by the victim’s follower’s degree of submission. Tell her, for instance, to skinny dip. Or pilfer a pack of gum. Or go down on you at a movie. Or bury the body in the backyard. Or betray her feminist principles (always a laugh riot).

Ordering a girl to do something, particularly something risky, may sound like an easy proposal, but don’t be fooled: it will feel a lot more difficult than it is if you aren’t used to doing it. Couple your natural aversion with the feminist tankgrrl shrikegeist enshrouding secular societies, and it can seem quite the daunting task to the average beta bear. But the rewards, I assure you, are well worth it. The man who can tap into those ancient Phlegethon viscera coursing through women’s primal souls will have the key to untold pleasures of the penis and the heart.

Women may feel distress when they have to obey an authority telling them to do something they normally wouldn’t, but that distress is an optic fiber pipeline straight to their vaginas. When they experience the one, they inevitably experience the other. You don’t need to be an actual authority figure to trigger this female lust instinct; you just need to accurately portray such authority over the women you want to desire you. And like the accomplished actor, such portrayals will eventually lodge their way into the filament of your being, and the distinction will cease to meaningfully exist.

*If you’re interested, and you should be, here’s a Milgram experiment follow-up which found ethnic and national differences in willingness to obey authority.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Cruelty

Blogfly Whiskey has taken his fair share of lumps from the alt-sphere commentariat for his view that white women universally swoon for black cock and for his… ahem… Scots-Irish sensibilities. But this comment he left over at Sailer’s contains more than a grain of truth.

Here’s the mechanism. Guys being funny get chicks. Girls being funny get … well maybe just maybe fame. But say an ugly girl who is a stand-up comedian won’t pull as many hot guys as an ugly guy who has the same level of success. Because men value looks while women value fame and social dominance more.

Russell Brand is (to my male eyes) one ugly dude who looks like an ape and is not in particularly good shape; nevertheless women go nuts for him, because he’s famous and considered funny and socially dominant (by abusing social taboos and being cruel to old guys — women generally find cruelty arousing in a socially dominant way).

The “funny-to-fuck” theory is likely true, and we don’t really need to read a study to determine that. Just go outside and socialize in mixed groups for a few times each month. Funny chicks get as much male attention as their looks command (which is to say, their humor generation capability is irrelevant to their mating success). But funny dudes will, if their humor isn’t overly-deprecating, often clean up with the ladies, regardless of their own looks. The reason for this illustrates another core game concept: chicks dig male status, dominance and personality as much as, or more than, they dig male looks. Men, on the other hand, dig beauty first and foremost, and a woman’s comedic timing, however it might make a man laugh, won’t stir his schnitzel if she’s a dog.

Since women don’t see a benefit from humor in the competition to attract men, their sex, on average when compared to men, has not evolved a strong cortical humor module. Women are better equipped to appreciate humor than they are to produce humor.

(As usual for the feminist-impaired, I will note here that the fact of male humor superiority does not mean no funny women exist. I have known a few funny chicks in my life. There are just a lot fewer funny girls than there are funny boys, and within that select group, the funniest funny men are a LOT funnier than the funniest funny women.)

The more insightful and scandalizing assertion made by Whiskey is the connection he draws between male humor and male cruelty, the two of which often travel hand in hand. Anyone who goes to stand-up shows a lot knows that the best male comics are sometimes relentlessly cruel, either to the invisible characters populating their anecdotes, or to hecklers in the crowd. And when they are cruel, merciless sadists, the women in the audience are laughing their pedestaled asses off.

The darkest truths of female nature are so dark that they are rarely broached in free-thinking underground subcultures, let alone polite, straitjacketed society. And one of those darkest of truths is the dispiriting observation that women become sexually aroused by men who expertly wield the soulkilling shiv of sadism.

Of course, style matters. You can’t just go around pointing and laughing at bums and expect dates to jump your bones. (Although, if I were pressed to judge competing strategies, I would say that your chances of banging a hottie after a date are better if she’s watched you mock a bum than if you gave her a bouquet of flowers when you picked her up.)

Cruelty that is delivered with supreme confidence, bemused detachment, and eviscerating precision is catnip to women’s kitties. Glib male cruelty says “I have so much power and self-assurance that I can freely shit in the faces of losers and foes without appearing insecure”. It is the mischievous cruelty of the Joker that makes women swoon. Despite themselves, women will get turned on by the masterful application of cruelty toward lesser men (and women!), because cruelty, almost in a league of its own, flaunts dominance. Male dominance is to women as female beauty is to men: it’s irresistible.

I say “despite themselves”, because women will hardly ever admit to such crass cravings. In the face of your cruelty to others, she’ll pout and feign a morally indignant pose and wag a finger and beg you to show mercy and pretend to be put off but in the final calculation the seismic ripples of her pussy will speak louder than any words coming from her mouth.

You think I jest?

Me: Sweetcheeks, look. That bum just winked at you. He wants to take you back to his cardboard box. [waving at bum] Hi, bum!
Her: [struggling to conceal a grin] Shh, stop that. Stop waving. You’re horrible.

Me: You want to take a bus? Forget it. [nodding in direction of obese woman] She ate it.
Her: [looking heavenward] Oh my god, I can’t believe you just said that.
Me: I hope it wasn’t a school bus. Think of the children.
Her: [smiling] Why are you being so mean?

Me: You ever date a really fat man and compare boob sizes?
Her: Jesus. [laughing] You’re not winning any points.
Me: Would you be with a man who could fill out your bra if he had a million dollars?
Her: I sometimes wonder why I’m with you.
Me: The huge prehensile cock.
Her: Oh yeah. [kiss]

Me: [looking over at girl in wheelchair] Would it be rape if she can’t feel anyting down there?
Her: [facepalm] Are you SERIOUSLY going to be like this tonight?
Me: You mean, like the bastard you love?
Her: No, like the immature boy I definitely do not love.
Me: Don’t make me pull your ponytail.
Her: I can’t stay mad at you, can I?

Me: The perfect lover: black cock, white looks, asian flexibility. Waddaya think?
Her: I think you’re being racist.
Me: You know what black girls call me? Colonist.
Her: More like COLON-ist.
Me: Wow. That was. So. Funny.
Her: Shut up.
TRIUMPHAL SEX

***

Sugar and spice and everything nice?

NO.

Tingles and wetness and everything alpha.

The above snippets are far from the cruelest a man can be, but you get the idea. And, generally, the crueler you are, as long as you are confidently cruel and don’t back away from it when she huffs and puffs, the sexier you will be to her. Sure, women are generally the overtly nicer sex and won’t make a habit of ridiculing the weak and degenerate, but WOW JUST WOW can they appreciate the sadistic streak in men.

The way it will usually go down is like this: You revel in your cruelty. She reacts with manufactured disapproval, often stifling laughter. Her vagina moistens. A wave of hidden shame releases a continuous flow of blood to her vaginal walls, maintaining her in a semi-aroused state all day long. Later that night, the floodgates open and you slip in like a lubed eel.

And a thousand ancient dictums are proved right once again.

Read Full Post »

Men Aren’t Attracted to High-Earning Women

The feminist and equalist gatekeepers of discourse are getting nervous that their house of lies is about to crumble in on them, thanks to the yeoman efforts of the alt-sphere. You can tell the heat is on them by the fevered pitch with which they churn out their copy, rife more than ever with sloppy logic, appeals to emotion and propaganda masquerading as fact.

An exemplar of this indisciplined genre is this Time article asserting that men are attracted to high-earning women, authored by Liza Mundy. The basis of her claim is the Hamilton Project which, she says, shows that men are more attracted to high-earning women.

Mundy makes the classic category errors of her type:

1. She conflates the marriage market with the sexual/dating market.

While there is overlap between the two markets, men bring to bear an adjusted set of criteria upon potential marriage partners. For instance, men will value chasteness and a low partner count history in marriage material women more than they will value those things in a sexual fling. (More tellingly, men tend to value looseness in short-term sexual prospects.) Men may also make cold, unemotional calculations that a woman of means can give their layabout asses a better life. For these reasons, plus more, the hottest woman a man meets is not necessarily the one he will wind up marrying. Often, men will marry out of expediency or a growing sense of weariness with the dating grind (it is a grind for a lot of men who don’t have the game to handle the particular challenges of dealing with lots of women on a regular basis).

2. She assumes men have unlimited options are are therefore marrying exactly the women they most desire.

If the highest income women are marrying at higher rates than the “bottom” 90% of women (and that’s a pretty big bottom), it does not necessarily follow from that statistic that the men those high-earning women marry are attracted to their marital choices. Or that the women are attracted, either. It could just as well be the case that those men are settling for aging, high SES women who are themselves letting up the gas on their hypergamy and relenting to the internal pressure to marry before they hit their physical expiry, a pressure which will be much more acute for women after a decade of higher education and career building.

3. She thinks that marriage is proof of physical attraction for men.

Again, there is nothing special about signing on the dotted nuptial line that reveals men’s raw desire better than their incorruptible boner reflexes. If (and that’a big “if”) men are marrying high-earning women at higher rates than they are marrying low income women, it could mean that one or both parties are settling to avoid loneliness, that lower income women are spurning men who want to marry them, that high income women are relaxing their standards for marriage, or that men are coerced by social conditions into marrying for reasons other than physical attraction or even love. It could be all of the above. If Mundy were truly interested to know which women high value men are attracted to, which women those in-demand men most DESIRE, she would strap a plethysmograph on a sample of men and measure their dick turgidity as they eat dinner with, talk to, and make out with hot poor babes and plain wealthy women.

Any guesses what that data would show? Mundy? *crickets*

4. She misrepresents the data.

The best I saved for last. Go to the link to that Hamilton Project study and read it for yourself. You’ll notice something peculiar; specifically, the graphs don’t mesh with her interpretation.

First, the marriage rates for men ages 30-50 in the top 10% of earnings are down to 83% today, from 95% in 1970. Fewer men of all income groups are getting married. If men are attracted to high-earning women, why aren’t more men getting married to the larger pool of these high earning women, a pool that has grown substantially since 1970? One theory: Educated, high earning women are the upgraded trophy second wives of divorced men. A smaller group of older, high status men are churning through a larger group of careerist women. Say hello to our brand new, serial monogamy, r-selection society.

Second, the graph for “Change in share of women married, by earnings, 1970-2011” shows that every income group of women, except for the top 1% of earners, experienced a decrease in marriage rates. Even the top 5% saw a decrease, albeit a smaller decrease than that experienced by women in the bottom 85% of earners. If men are attracted to high-earning women, then why are women in the upper quintile of earnings — real catches to men, according to Mundy’s theory — seeing a decrease in their odds of getting married?

The bottom line is that women’s earnings have only an indirect effect on men’s mate choices; namely, the higher a woman’s income, (and this goes just as much for women who went from zero income to minimum wage), the smaller her psychologically acceptable pool of prospective mates. And we see this reflected in the actual data, (as opposed to the data Mundy perceives). The top 1% of female earners are the only group of women who have seen a rise in marriage rates, and the explanation for this lies less in men’s physical attraction for them than in cultural forces, governed by underlying biological rhythms, altering the landscape of the marriage partner hunt.

The evidence for a direct effect of women’s earnings on men’s attraction is scant, and where such evidence exists, it tends to show that men are TURNED OFF by women who make more than themselves. At best, the direct effect on men of women’s high income is like lingerie on a dog — funny to think about, but completely neutral as a penis stimulant. At worst, a high income can actually hurt a woman’s chances with men, especially men who don’t make as much as her, and she will be exposed to men who use her for the lifestyle while saving their true animal lusts for the hot, poor ass on the side.

A comment by a high-earning woman to that Time article strikes me as an accurate portrayal of the reality on the ground for her kind:

scoutmom

Sorry Time, but as a single woman who makes well over 150k, I don’t buy this story for a second. In my personal experience, yes, I could easily go out there and get married. But, not to anyone I would consider a truly equal partner. In this recession, I’ve seen many men see me just as a meal ticket. It’s not that they are intimidated (well there’s a few of the insecure ones out there), but mostly they see me as someone who can solve all their financial problems. Here’s a profile of the last few guys who either asked me out or I went on a date with:

1. Stock boy at an office supply store – Um, at 42, don’t you think you should be doing something else with your life? And no, he didn’t lose his successful job elsewhere and had to take this. He considered this his career and marijana his hobby.

2. Father of 4 kids (that was OK with me) and had over 78k of credit card debt. He made it clear he was looking for a “financially stable woman to help him out.” Sorry sweetie, I’m no one’s sugar mama.

3. Elementary school PE teacher who never wanted to be more than that. I was actually really into him and we dated for a while, but in the end, when he found out how much I made, he couldn’t handle it and broke up with me.

4. A man who paid 42% of all his earnings to child support and alimony and was about to lose his job. I actually thought he was a cool guy and was OK to date him until he said, “well, I was really worried about losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage and alimony, but now that you and I are together, I know I’ll be safe.” And FYI – he said this while downing 14 drinks in a bar on our second date. Nuff said.

These are just some of the situations that a successful woman who lives in Southern California is dealing with. And for those of you out there who think me not viable to date for other reasons, I am considered attractive by most people, and I used to do some modelling in my younger days. I am now 37, own my own 550k house, a car, portfolio, great relationships with friends and family and have an active social life. I just refuse to take on a partner who isn’t my equal in some way. I really don’t care how much money you make, but don’t expect me to pay for your financial mistakes or have to take care of a man who is mentally a little boy.

So, like the article says, I hide my career and income from men and dating profiles. It just makes me a target. I do not see this trend changing any time soon. Maybe I’ll try dating again when the economy gets better?

A target. That, Mzzzz Mundy, is a better descriptor of the kind of attraction some men have for high-earning women. Rich women aren’t lust objects; they’re prey objects. And the likelihood of being preyed upon is directly proportional to the rich woman’s ugliness.

Read Full Post »