The Flattery Trap

To praise, or not to praise? “seeking truth” asks:

The transition from sleeping often with women of assorted beauty and quality, over the past 8 years, to recently establishing a longer-term serious relationship with what I consider quite a valuable women is an interesting dilemma. Clearly there are long-term issues to excessively praising a woman, as constant exposure to praise will naturally lead one to lower the value of praising party, through over-exposure. However, when one is happy it is easy and natural to express the reasons for ones happiness. What is the balance?

What is your take on the long-term potential of a relationship strategy that involves praise for a woman’s strong points – Fun loving, Funny, Quick, Smart, Loving, Affectionate, and Attractive in large helpings of each, with a somewhat raunchy, nasty, perverted objectification of her as a sex object required to submit/please, along with occasional reminders of how successful and easy it has been to create hook-up situations?

For example, saying i love you and the same breath telling her to practice stretching so she can be manipulated for an easier pounding during an upcoming trip.  Does the sexual objectification offset the Betazoid aspects of praise?

I am finding the application of game interesting and looking to better understand its various implementations to sort out a comfortable role for it in relationships.

Here are three key seduction maxims to live by.

Better to err on the side of too much boldness than too little.

Better to err on the side of too much assholery than not enough.

Better to err on the side of too little praise than too much.

Do you know what happens to guys who cravenly praise their girlfriends day in and day out? They get dumped. Or tossed into sexual solitary confinement. Or taken for granted, if they’re lucky.

Do you know what happens to guys who are stingy with their praise? They get more sex than they can handle. They also get some drama, but… would you rather deal with drama or getting dumped?

I hope this lesson has reached home. Man, I have known guys who:

1. never complimented their GFs’ looks

2. never complimented their GFs’ smarts

3. never complimented their GFs’ personalities

but who had their GFs wrapped around their fingers. Even funnier, their GFs complimented *them* all the time, and all they answered in return was a head nod or a “you bet”. Isn’t love grand?

Now this doesn’t mean you have to go ice cold aloof ninja to sustain a loving relationship. As men, when we love a woman, we feel urges to compliment her. It’s a natural by-product of wanting to sex her hot bod with extreme defilement. And, it makes us feel good to throw her a bone of flattery. But betas completely surrender themselves to this urge, and it costs them. Alphas channel this urge, and it pays dividends. The Goldilock’s Principle is definitely in play. Allow me to open a window into a woman’s head, so you can see how your praise is received by her subterranean neuronal rhythms.

Excessive praise ===> “I can do better than him”

No praise ===> “He doesn’t love me”

Just the right kind and amount of praise ===> “I love him”

The first one will corrupt your LTR. The second one will corrode your LTR, but only after a very long time has passed. The third one will feed her hamster juuuuust enough pellets to keep her wondering, guessing, loving, and desiring.

There is a flattery balance to strike that won’t DLV yourself, and here are some guidelines to reaching that balance:

1. Never praise your girlfriend from a position of weakness.

There’s no worse time to lavish your woman with compliments than when she’s giving you the cold shoulder. But, men being men and unable to comprehend the maddening illogic of the female mind, that’s usually the time when they can’t stop praising their girlfriends. She’s snapping at you? Butter her up! She’s withholding sex? Ring up the excessive compliments! She’s being a raging bitch? Tell her how great she is! And then plead forgiveness of your sins!

Lord almighty, is this what the church of white knightery teaches men nowadays? You couldn’t do more harm to your cause had you tucked your junk between your legs, kneeled and begged her to touch your pee pee from behind.

The absolute WORST time to flatter your girl is when she is making your life miserable. Why would you reward bad behavior? Make like the pussy whisperer and train your woman not to crap in your face. Betas have no game except cloying flattery and “””supportiveness”””, so their instinct is to turn to that in times of turmoil and layer it on thick as can be. And you know the gruesome results of that: the woman feels even more repulsed by his presence.

No, when you praise or compliment or act supportive, ALWAYS do it from a position of strength. If you’re wondering when that is, it’s when she’s fawning over you, or begging you to irrigate her furrow as you brush your dick tauntingly across her pink eggplant, or singing your praises to her friends, or just generally acting like a sweet, feminine woman in your company.

2. Never be consistent in how, or how often, you flatter your girlfriend.

Two predictable compliments a day, like a doctor’s order, is going to get tiring real fast. She should never know when you might deign to make her feel loved. And she should never hear the same damn turn of phrase every day either. The best times to praise your girl are when she least expects it, and that is usually when something else is happening and her attention is distracted from “you and her”. I like to toss out a compliment when she’s just dribbled food onto her blouse, or whisper a loving bon mot in her ear as she’s trying on clothes in front of the mirror. Unpredictability is as arousing to women as full firm tits are to men. Which leads to…

Maxim #55: The training of the woman distills to this essence: Punish her bad behavior consistently, reward her good behavior intermittently.

Enjoy your vagina deluge.

3. Flatter her in public.

You know what really flutters a girl’s heart? When you say something nice about her in front of her friends. That’s a relationship boost and a social status boost in one. Nonsexual public praise is the safer bet, but sexual public praise, if done right, can make her heart explode.

4. Praise those things about her that will redound to your benefit.

Sure, it’s easy to lapse into praising a woman’s most obviously enticing features, like her eyes or luscious lips. But she has little control over those advantages she enjoys. But if you praise her attractive behavior… “I love they way you’re so affectionate. It’s really sexy and so rare to find in a woman nowadays”… you encourage more of that positive behavior from her in the future.

Similarly, if you go the physical route, praising your girl’s ass will have the most impact when she just got back from the gym. She’ll want to keep going to the gym to earn more of that praise.

5. Use adjectives.

Chicks dig the adjective. Lots of them. Nice eyes? Meh. Orbs of liquid blue allure? Plow me! Caveat: Lawyercunts tend to balk at adjectives, because they are unfeminine and have incipient clit dicks. Just tell them you’re gonna rape them in two, and watch their love pour forth.

6. Always substitute nonverbal praise for verbal praise when you can.

Pinching her ass and smiling is more effective than telling her she has a great ass.

7. Substitute “we” for “you” in your compliments, when you can.

It’s the difference between putting her on a pedestal, and leaving a spot for her on your pedestal.

8. Romantic contrast is king.

If you always tell your girl “you’re so pretty”, she will expect the same endearment next time. If you always tell your girl “you’re ass is so righteous I’m gonna fill it with my religion”, she will expect the same perversion next time. But if you sweetly woo her “I love the way we kiss” as you’re leaving for work in the morning, and then hoarsely whisper to her “your ass is so hot my dick wants to wear it as a sombrero” when you return in the evening, she’ll have two orgasms, one for her and one for her hamster. Squeak!

9. Rarity is the glow of clits.

If you get a great reaction from your flattery, don’t beat it to death. Stop, drop and change the subject. You’d be amazed how many betas will sabotage their brief moments of glory by returning over and over to the same well. Any sort of praise of a woman ought to be, by natural habit and sincere discernment, a rare and welcomed thing. Most men have the problem of overestimating the right amount of praise. The right amount is much less than men think. If I had to estimate, one week between compliments is a good rough number to shoot for within an established LTR. Whatever number, it should never be more than the number of compliments *she* lavishes on you. Abide the Golden Ratio (see the 16 Commandments at the top of the blog). Note: raunchy talk is technically not praise, so you can raunch it up often without worrying about DLVing yourself, though it’s a good idea to dish that out irregularly, for the same reasons you would be spare in your nonsexual flattery.

10. Finally, praise feminine qualities, not masculine qualities.

Do you want to turn your sweet petunia into a proud feminist with a jagged fault line running straight through her soul? Then why are you complimenting her “ambition”? Men with no clue often think women want to hear what they would like to hear. No. Women want to hear that you acknowledge and love their unique gifts — their femininity, their generosity, their softness, their sexiness. It’s similar to how men get tired of hearing their women praise their “muscles”. Ladies, you really want to strike the gooey center of your man’s heart? Tell him you love how he commands a room. Bam. You’ve just won an extra 30 seconds of lovemaking.

I hope this clears the matter for you. Compliments are garnishes, not the main dish. Nobody wants to eat a full plate of parsley. And remember, disapproving of her flaws is as crucial to LTR management as offering praise of her… talents. More crucial, I’d say, because a missed compliment won’t lower your value like a missed reprimand will.

Read Full Post »

Identifying The Self-Centered Girl

BD writes:

[W]hen I first learned of game, I saw the videos of these dudes and thought what fags these dudes looked like! I wondered if these feminine-sounding PUAs actually liked the women or they were just playing a fun game like dress-up or doll-house.

A few posts back I submitted a link to a study that showed how women talk can reveal how self-centered they are (I can’t find or remember link right now) by using “I” so much. Ex. Upon asking them what the weather will be like tomorrow, they could say, “It will be cold,” or they could say, “I don’t know; I think I heard on the television it would be cold.” The girl that answers the first way isn’t self-centered. The girl that answered the second way, using three instances of “I” is self centered. Watch a group of hot girls talk. What’s the first response each of them says after one of their friends says something? It’s, “I know, I know right!” Isn’t that a trip!

So, I can neg the group with this concept in a masculine way, but when I highlight the examples of how women answer questions to reveal their self-centeredness, I can go all gaylike on them and mimic their feminine responses. Win/Win.

People like to talk about themselves; it’s fun and it makes us feel happier. The problem with identifying the self-centered girl in any group is that there are so many of them. Where to begin? Most women are self-absorbed by nature; it comes with the territory when you are, biologically and hence psychologically, the more valuable sex. This is why women should never have been given the vote; when the world revolves around you, it’s not a huge rationalization leap to decide that the world owes you lots of gimmedats.

But there are girls who defy even the bounds of their own sex and exhibit a level of conceit and self-focus that would shock even a bar top dancing whore. It behooves the master hamster seducer (where all seductions must begin) to know who these girls are, for they can be your greatest ally if harnessed correctly, or your worst enemy if left untended.

Find out which girl in the group is the most self-centered by listening for overwrought first-person singular pronoun usage, but also by watching for which girl is constantly interrupting someone else’s conversation to interject her opinion or exclamation, or which girl is moving her body forward into the group’s center of mass to draw attention to herself. This is the girl who will assuredly cockblock you if you don’t take preemptive countermeasures. (Example: “Who brought their attention-seeking little sister along?”)

Unusually self-centered girls are narcissists par excellence, and they love “screening” men for their friends and playing matchmaker, when they aren’t actively stealing those men away from their friends. This eternal cycle of drama feeds their insatiable egos, for the girl who self-loves more than she loves has a paradoxically fragile ego that requires a steady injection of external validation to keep it respirating.

BD’s suggestion to neg the ego-driven girls by mimicking their female solipsism is an ancient craft, and one I’ve used many times. Girls love it when you make fun of their girl-isms, and this can be in the form of aping their words or their mannerisms (easy to do if you have observed enough girls socializing and have a handle on their gender’s peculiarities). This is another one of those rapport-building techniques that is so powerful it can be easily overdone. Just a little to spike buying temps, and not more, or you risk sounding like a clown. And a gay clown, at that.

Or you could dispense with all this keen psychological acumen, and just drop a killa line on a girl like the one my buddy uses on occasion: “Does this fine pocket square smell like chloroform to you?” 1% of the time, it works every time.

Read Full Post »

Quality Vs Quantity, Formula Version

Ah, that perennial conundrum. That gavel of masculine judgment. Does the quality or the quantity, or both, of women that a man beds determine his alpha mojo? The hosts have graciously elaborated on this topic in the past, which should have been the final word, but not all of the world’s 7 billion people have yet stayed a night at the Chateau to wake in the morning infused with the knowledge of the Celestials.

Any guy who claims to have game but picks up hundreds of circus freaks a year will be a laughingstock. And the boastful guy with few notches who claims to know everything about women because he’s been dating his cute high school sweetheart his whole life will similarly be mocked.

To put it in logical terms easily grasped by the aspies among us (first number in each series refers to penis-in-vagina notch count unless otherwise noted; second number refers to female attractiveness rating on a 0-10 scale):

Stiff autumn breeze <more alpha than> 100 0s

Unlubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 hundred 1s <more alpha than> 200 0s

Couch crease <more alpha than> 100 2s <more alpha than> 200 1s <more alpha than> 300 0s

Lubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 3s <more alpha than> 200 2s <more alpha than> 300 1s <more alpha than> 400 0s

Barely legal porn-assisted masturbation <more alpha than> 100 2s <but less alpha than> 100 3s over a two month time span

Handjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 10 3s

Blowjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 15 3s

Chandelier swinging, titty fucking, throat gagging, motorized defiling, publicly violating, video recorded facialized money shotting, post-coital sammich making, never see her again sex with a 4 <more alpha than> 50 missionary style 3s

Fleeting glance from a 10 <more alpha than> 100 1s

Handjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 1,000 1s

Blowjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 10,000 1s

Sex with a 10 <more alpha than> 100,000 1s

Anal sex with a 10 <more alpha than> Infinity 1s

100 5s <more alpha than> 100 4s <more alpha than> 500 3s

50 6s <more alpha than> 100 5s

40 7s <more alpha than> 100 6s

30 8s <more alpha than> 100 7s

10 9s <more alpha than> 100 8s

1 10 <more alpha than> 3 9s

LTR with a 10 <more alpha than> one night of sex with a 10 <more alpha than> LTR with an 7

One night of sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Rotating harem of multiple LTRs with 100 5s and 6s <more alpha than> One night stands with 1,000 4s

LTR with a 0 <more alpha than> Nothing

Serial LTRs with 5 10s <more alpha than> One night stands with 100 9s <more alpha than> Lifelong monogamous LTR with an 8

Unmarried, cohabiting, child-free, sex-gorged LTR with an 8 <more alpha than> Once-a-month married sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Once-a-day married sex with a 7

Unmarried, commitment-free, responsibility-absolved, sex-on-demand with a cast of 1,000s of faithful 10s wearing kneepads and schooled in the culinary arts <more alpha than> The universe

***

So, if you have ass-banged one 10 in your life, you have equivalent bragging rights to the guy who has banged every 1 in the world.

If you have effortlessly banged 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who has gotten one (freely given) blowjob from a 10. If you needed to expend huge effort to bang those 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who stuck it in a couch crease for quick relief.

If you have inspired a 6 to want a relationship with you, you have more alpha bragging rights than the guy who has inspired 10 4s to spread their legs for him.

Where it gets blurry is in the plain middle of the beauty arc. A guy who banged one 6 technically will be more alpha than the guy who banged two 5s, but at those fine gradations, who’s really keeping tabs? That’s where the Template will influence the grading curve and make distinctions harder to delineate.

Ultimately, the essence of alpha maledom all comes down to inspiring beautiful women to, first and foremost, desire your poundage, and then to desire your continual poundage, and finally to desire your love. If you can seduce a hot babe into bed multiple times, then seduce her into love, and then do this same thing with many hot babes over the course of your life, you are an alpha male, no matter what else you have or have not accomplished in your life. Many will balk at this, but that doesn’t change its truth.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks In Every Way: The Science

One billion readers have sent me a link to this study proving the old Chateau maxim — and conventional wisdom before the feminists and their lapdogs seized control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator — that chicks dig jerks.

Women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, new research suggests. When ovulating, a woman’s hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men.

“Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond,” study researcher Kristina Durante, of The University of Texas at San Antonio, said in a statement. “But until now it was unclear why women would ever think it’s wise to pursue long-term relationships with these kinds of men.”

The researchers had women view online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

Here’s a direct link to the study, titled “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.”

What’s particularly interesting about this study is that it proves women don’t just seek badboys for short-term flings; when a woman is at her horniest, she wants sex AND loving commitment from the jerk. And she deludes herself into believing the jerk wants the same thing. (Or rather, her hormones help fuel her hamster into believing the unbelievable.) This goes a long way to explaining why women take on “project” men and attempt to reform them. It’s not because women are nurturers who want to save jerks; it’s because women are TURNED THE FUCK ON by jerks and want desperately to keep them around and help raise the children they hope to have with them.

This flies directly in the face of the assertion by feminists, manginas and game haters (oh my!) who love to crow, without any evidence in hand, that women only want to sleep with jerks for a night, and want nothing to do with them the rest of the time. But of course, all that baseless crowing reveals is the phlegmy bile of bitterness dribbling down their porcine, slackened chins.

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

Tingles trump reason. Once you get a woman tingling nether-wise, she will rationalize into insignificance any deficiency or character flaw you may possess in service to her unquenchable love for your jerkitude. But beware her friends! They are not so blinded and will whisper sour sabotage in your woman’s ear.

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.'”

In other words, it’s evolutionarily better for a woman to risk it all on the jerk women love than to risk nothing on the beta provider women tolerate. Such is the power of the force behind a woman’s prime directive. This is the stuff that Hallmark won’t put on Valentine’s Day cards.

I consider this post another slam-dunk confirmation of core game principles. It will, baal willing, drive my haters livid with rage.

Some of you may be tempted to ask, “Heartiste, how can you be so right, so often? What’s your trick?” It’s simple.

1. Don’t live by lies.

2. Step outside of the house.

That’s it! You too can be a man of wisdom and great perspicacity by simply following those two rules above.

So what game lessons does this study offer for students of the university of alpha-as-fuck?

Lesson #1: It’s better to err on the side of too much jerkiness than too little.

Lesson #2: It’s easier to segue a woman from short term fling to long-term lover by being a jerk than by being a dependable niceguy.

Lesson #3: Keep a mental record of your woman’s cycle. Amp up game when she’s ovulating; toss her a compliment and a cuddle when she’s bleeding. Do this regularly and you will experience a love so strong you will wonder if you can do any wrong by her at all.

Lesson #4: If game is the aping of certain jerk characteristics, then game is an important variable in not only attracting women for sex, but keeping them around for the loving long haul.

Best of luck!

PS In totally unrelated news, here’s an article about a (white) Aussie woman who killed her own son in order to win the attention of her on-again-off-again badboy (Kiwi) boyfriend. I suppose that’s one way to slow dysgenia.

Read Full Post »

Hot Women Are Harder To Fool

Put away your illusions about smart, ugly girls and dizzy, hot blondes. If you want to know which type of girl will be better at cutting through your cadtastic bullshit, it’s the hot babes for the sixth sense win.

Women in contrast, often have low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR); i.e., narrow waists and broad hips that approximate an hour-glass configuration. Women with low WHR’s are rated as more attractive, healthier, and more fertile. They also tend to have more attractive voices, lose their virginity sooner, and have more sex partners. WHR has also been linked with general cognitive performance. In the present study we expand upon previous research examining the role of WHR in cognition. We hypothesized that more feminine body types, as indexed by a low WHR, would be associated with cognitive measures of the female “brain type,” such as mental state attribution and empathy because both may depend upon the activational effects of estrogens at puberty. We found that women with low WHRs excel at identifying emotional states of other people and show a cognitive style that favors empathizing over systemizing. […]

It is interesting to note that our findings suggest lower WHR females, who are more likely to be targeted for dishonest courtship, may be better at identifying disingenuous claims of commitment.

Executive summary: You can string along an ugly chick a lot longer than you can a hot chick. But then, why would you want to?

Sex differences are the result of eons of social interactions between men and women with differing reproductive goals. Gene variants have evolved to equip men and women with the armaments they need to successfully navigate the mating market. Men have evolved penetrative bunker busters; women have evolved deeper bunkers. It’s an arms race with no end in sight, and no purpose; its existence is its own reward.

These sex-based gene variants aren’t uniform; “girly” genes are found less numerously in masculine women, and “manly” genes are found less frequently in feminine men. There is a general psychosocial sex dichotomy that is blurred at the edges, where the girly and manly gene clusters are not as clearly delineated. Thus you find, as this study concludes, that manjawed freaks like feminists are more likely than neotenous beauties are to fall for a player’s empty promises. Maybe that’s why feminists are so adamant about inserting the state into sexual affairs: they need a smarter surrogate to protect them from their own naivete.

It makes perfect sense that hot chicks would be better at sniffing out pump and dumpers from buy and holders, because they have inherited traits from their ancestral sisters that protect them from the kinds of men who are very good at seducing women at the lowest price point possible; men who, it stands to reason, would want to seduce only the hottest women, and a splendid variety of hot women, at that.

This study should also give pause to those game haters who believe players only target ugly chicks. If that were the case, the ugly girls would have evolved defensive mechanisms against the plunderings of players. But the fugs remain naive and easily manipulable, because, analogous to beta males and their rose-colored views of beautiful women, they rarely get the chance to experience the worst, or the best, sides of desirable men.

Read Full Post »

The Silent Virginity

There are virgins among us, but they cannot be identified by their ecstatic moans, so they slip unnoticed by the sexually active masses like frigid totems to a bygone era.

A reader links to a study on American virginity rates:

Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

– Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

– Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

– Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

– Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

– The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

– Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

Read Full Post »

Ugly Women Are More Likely To Be Careerist Feminists

Chalk up another scientific confirmation of Heartiste theory: ugly women who can’t attract a desirable man switch strategies from finding a provider male to collecting the resources themselves, (and then rationalizing their life choice using the rubric of feminism).

A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, ‘women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby’.

And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.

Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.

They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career. […]

After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.

In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children. […]

The final experiment tested the researchers’ suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner.

The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career.

They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men.

Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated.

Here’s a picture of Hilary Rosen, the über feminist who said stay-at-home mother Ann Romney never worked a day in her life:

Hot babes usually put marriage before career, and tend to have happier love and family lives. This is why ugly feminists with multiple degrees insult stay-at-home moms so vociferously; ugly women feel, on a deep visceral level, that their ugliness is the real reason why they don’t have the things that better looking women have, so they pretend they never really wanted those things or that the women who want those things are somehow lesser women, inexperienced, provincial puppets of an imagined patriarchy who don’t understand the joys of climbing the corporate ladder. These feminists are, of course, engaged in a heated, scorched id campaign of lying to themselves.

This all ties back to the growing dystopia of single momhood and men dropping out of sexual market contention. When women work or collect government largesse, their economic independence renders men in their income bracket less desirable as mates, because women are naturally hypergamous and prefer the company of higher status, more powerful men. A vicious negative feedback loop ensues, wherein men deem that efforts to make a pittance are no longer effective at securing women’s sexual interest, and women with fewer mate options pursue careers as a substitute for the loss of acceptably higher status beta provider males. Throw in obesity disfiguring large swaths of young womanhood, the divorce industrial complex creating perverse incentives for women in loveless marriages, and a skewed sex ratio with too many men living into their prime reproductive years, and you’ve got a recipe for total societal breakdown, unprecedented antagonism between the sexes, and a playing field ripe for men to plunder using the charismatic arts known as game.

In a future post I will explain why intelligent men need to learn game and start marrying and having kids with dumber but hotter chicks in order to save Western civilization. Not joking.

Read Full Post »