Pre-Sex Offers That Sound Too Good To Be True

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous asked:

I met a 8.5 girl online (physically I’m a 6.5).  She’s extremely aloof, ignores half my texts.  Likely never LTR material. We’ve made out, nothing more.  Her interest waxes and wanes.  She planned a trip to Central America without me, leaving very soon, casually invited me.  I’ve never really traveled abroad.  I’m fast-tracking my passport and scuba certification.  I offered a nice hotel, she insisted on hostels to “meet people.”  I don’t want to feel like a novice or tag-along.  How do I prepare fast so that I can lead, demonstrate value, enjoy the trip, and build heat between us?

Short Answer: Don’t go.

This reminds me of a similar story I once heard from a friend. He, too, had sorta, kinda hooked up with a hot chick, except he did it in person while on vacation. They shared a make-out, but nothing more. After returning home to their respective countries, she invited him to visit her in her hometown. He opened his wallet, boarded a plane, took a cab from the airport to her place, crashed on her couch, and came back home two weeks later angry, bitter and pissed about ever having gone. She hadn’t put out at all. He wasted money and vacation time on illusory pussy.

He thought by taking her up on her offer of a two week vacation in her backyard she was basically offering sexy funtime. A sensible conclusion for any man to draw, but unfortunately girls are anything but sensible creatures. Unless you are the Don Juan of game, any “innocent” meeting (in her mind) that hints at a contrived pretext for sex will put a woman on guard. Not to mention, a man totally betas himself by going out of his way to spend money and fly to meet a woman on her turf in the tacit expectation of sex.

For these reasons I suggest you don’t bother going if banging her is your primary goal. She will smell that and make the path to her pussy arduous and labyrinthine indeed. Your trip will be miserable, as a result. If, on the other hand, you can honestly tell yourself that banging her would just be a welcome complement to a trip in which your primary focus is scuba diving and hitting on chicks in hostels, then by all means take her up on her offer as a TRAVEL COMPANION. But beware the danger in assuming she will be anything more than a platonic tour buddy.

Now if you had already had sex with her multiple times, I’d advise the opposite: clearly she was smitten by your bedroom prowess and offered the trip to monopolize more of your lovin’.

As for the travel preparedness details, don’t worry so much about that. Attitude is key. Go with a devil-may-care air of whimsy and enjoy your time in a foreign land with someone who will buy you tropical drinks. If you’re worried about seeming like a tag-along, make sure you have reservations to do some things on your own. Read up on the place, so you aren’t stuck in a situation where she’s telling you about all the good restaurants, clubs and beaches. If you have to leave her behind once in a while to do something you like but she doesn’t, do it. You have to act like this is as much your vacation as it is hers.

Read Full Post »

Why Men Don’t Need To Worry So Much About Their Looks

The online dating site OkCupid’s crack team of SWPLs analyzed user data and made some interesting discoveries about men’s and women’s looks and how their attractiveness, or lack thereof, affects their profile response rate.

First, they posted two graphs which show how men and women rank the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex based on profile photos.

The first graph is a superimposed comparison of male appraisals of female attractiveness and the actual messages men sent to women:

Men have a very realistic appraisal system of women’s looks that clashes with their less realistic self-appraisal system of their chances to get the hottest babes. As you can see from the graph, men accurately rate most fertile-age women as mediocre lookers, with smaller contingents of the very ugly and very beautiful. This assessment accords with reality. But then, men send most of their messages to the hottest 20% of women.

As we will see, men are more forgiving than women in their ranking of the opposite sex’s looks, but they are less forgiving in their message send rate.

As with women, by their actions ye shall know them.

The graph might convince some that men have an entitlement complex as entrenched and powerful as women do, but that would be a misleading conclusion to the data. Men value looks above almost everything else in women, and this is particularly true when men have little to go on except online profiles. The photo looms large in online dating. Since women’s looks are so incredibly important to men’s happiness as regards their sex and love lives, men’s decisions to shoot for the moon on the one female variable that really matters in an environment that is conducive to mass approaches, (something which would not be feasible in a real world context), makes perfect sense as a courtship strategy. There is little risk that a man who follows this online strategy will refuse to later date down if the first wave of messages he sent to the 9s and 10s doesn’t pan out.

It’s all about investment cost. It costs men very little in time or effort to send a message to one hundred 9s on OkCupid, so the fact that they do so is less proof of their self-entitlement than it is of their rational utility maximization.

It’s more insightful to say that men have less an entitlement complex (as the term is understood when applied to female behavior) than that they have a tactical complex.

Now let’s take a look at the superimposed graph of female appraisals of male attractiveness and female message sent rate:

This is where things get interesting. The first surprise that jumps out in this graph is how harsh women are in their assessment of men’s looks. According to women’s perspectives, 80% of men fall on the ugly side of the physical attractiveness spectrum. This is way out of line with a reality where nearly every human trait is distributed normally. Clearly, women have a skewed entitlement complex much larger than men’s in how they judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex.

Yet look around you and you’ll see much more than 20% of men either hooking up or in relationships of varying strength with women. How can this be if women think 80% of men are ugly? Well, it can only be if women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s looks. And the second line in the above graph is evidence that men’s looks simply aren’t as important to women as women’s looks are to men. Women’s message distribution more accurately reflects their ranking of men’s looks than does men’s message distribution reflect their ranking of women’s looks.

That is, women may be saying one thing — men are mostly ugly — but they are doing the opposite — sending messages to lots of ugly men.

Do we really need more proof that men should never listen to what women say they find attractive and instead should WATCH what kinds of men women fall for? If you are a stickler for reams of scientific evidence, there was a NewYorkBetaTimes article not too long ago about a study that essentially confirmed for all men who know the score that what women claim they respond to sexually and what actually causes their vaginas to tingle is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED.

That one study alone probably affirmed more about the core concepts of game than any other. That is, affirmed for those who disbelieve the field experience of millions of men.

Back to the second graph: there is a big difference between men and women in the number of messages each sends to the more physically attractive members of the opposite sex. OkCupid doesn’t delve very deeply into the implications, but we here at the Chateau will, and by doing so a crucial component of female mate preference is revealed:

Women are messaging less attractive men (according to women’s own assessments) because the suite of male attractiveness traits that women viscerally respond to includes much more than male physical attractiveness.

Women are looking at and judging the ENTIRE PROFILE of men on OkCupid and sending messages based on a more holistic appreciation of attractive male qualities. And what we can see based on female message sent rates is that plenty of ugly men — as perceived by women — are bringing other, compensating, attractiveness characteristics to the table that women find desirable in a mate.*

This conclusion is perfectly aligned with evolutionary psychology theory.

Moral of the post: Men, work on your looks, get yourself looking as good as possible, but don’t worry so much if you’re not among the best looking men in the room. A lack of good looks is simply not the deal breaker for men that it is for women in the sexual marketplace.

*It should be noted that a secondary motivation for women messaging lots of “ugly” men on OkCupid has to do with women’s greater craving for ego assuaging, which is much easier to obtain in the online environment. Most men can handle a fair amount of rejection from hotties without crumbling into a puddle of self-doubt, and they don’t need a lot of compensating attention from less desirable women to make them feel better. Women, in contrast, cannot handle even a little bit of rejection from very attractive men, and they do get a thrill from receiving lots of “safe” internet attention from hordes of lickspittle betas. Yet another reason why online game is pointless for the huge majority of unenlightened men, but a cornucopia of cooch for those few men who know how to game the system.

It should be stressed that this is a SECONDARY motivation, as the graphs are showing women who are actively messaging these “ugly” men, (which indicates a desire to establish contact beyond that afforded by the quickie ego stroke), instead of waiting around for betas to message them. This is a critical distinction from the sort of attention that a hottie will get when her inbox floods with 50 boring unsolicited emails every hour.

Read Full Post »

Does Game Work Less Well On Masculine Women?

A reader left a link to a very interesting study of digit ratio and how it affects women’s mating and nesting behavior.

The current study assessed digit ratio (2D:4D) and mate guarding in 101 dating couples. Low 2D:4D men (indicating higher prenatal testosterone exposure) were more likely to state that they threatened male competitors and used more threats and physical aggression toward their female partners. Men were particularly likely to use threats and physical aggression toward partners who cheated in the current relationship. In addition, women resisted mate guarding by men with high 2D:4D, particularly when women cheated on their partner. High 2D:4D women were more possessive toward their partner. This is consistent with ideas regarding the effects of sexual selection on mate guarding.

Digit ratio studies seem to come out every week now, with similar conclusions that the amount of testosterone or estrogen we are exposed to in our mothers’ wombs has real world consequences for how we act as adults when searching for a mate and settling into relationships. It is strange but true that you can tell quite a bit about a person’s character — barring exceptions, of course — by simply eyeballing the ratio between his or her ring finger and index finger. Cultural conditioning, my ass.

Studies like this one are anathema to feminists (for the obvious reasons), but they should give practitioners of the crimson art of game pause, too. For if digit ratio alters women’s behavior toward men and her fidelity within relationships, then game will have to adapt to those realities.

Examine, for instance, the second conclusion in that study abstract above. Women resist mate guarding by high digit ratio (i.e., feminized) men; in layman’s terms, women give feminine men more shit when those men act possessively. More masculine men, therefore, can better get away with possessively jealous behavior. A well-versed student at Le Château Institute for Advanced Poon Studies would slyly remark that it makes perfect sense when you consider that women would be more likely to want to step out on a feminized beta male to get impregnated during the ovulation part of her cycle by an alpha male. A very jealous beta boyfriend would throw an annoying monkey wrench in her subconscious plans.

Also note that the female resistance to mate guarding by the male is *stronger* when she has already cheated. Gentlemen, if you have discovered cheating by your girlfriend or wife, kick her out immedaitely after throwing her shit on the sidewalk. Ignore her desperate entreaties to the contrary; it is already too late to save your relationship or marriage.

In addition, the study found that high digit ratio (i.e., highly feminine) women are more possessive of their boyfriends. Why would this be so? Presumably, feminine women would have more options on the dating market, so they would have less reason to be possessive within a relationship. But you have to look at both sides of the couple equation. Feminine women likely partner with masculine men — sexual polarity is the most potent attractant in the known universe, besting even black hole gravitational pull — and these are the kind of men who have more opportunity to cheat when the cheatin’s good.

Similarly, it would not surprise me to learn that feminine betas often wind up with masculine women who take charge of the development of the relationship. The problem that presents itself to these betas is that masculine women are going to find it harder to keep strange cock out of their panties when the ovulation bell rings.

What does this have to do with game? Well, we know that feminine men will have a harder time keeping their women in line, and feminine women will be easier to game into strict relationship fidelity. Possessiveness often gets a bad rap in the cultural mainstream, but ask yourself this: Would you rather deal with an overly attentive girlfriend easily aroused to jealousy, or a stand-offish “girlfriend” with a wandering eye? Which girl will give you better, and more frequent, sex?

From experience, I can tell you that girlfriend possessiveness, while annoying at times and dangerously apt to blossom into full-blown stalker-itis if improperly managed, is far more amenable to game and psychological ploys designed to minimize its worst aspects than girlfriend aloofness.

A masculine, aloof girlfriend is the beta boyfriend’s second worst nightmare (his first is involuntary celibacy). This type of girl will chew him up and spit him out, twice on Sundays, and this goes double for betas without a clue. A beta with tight game — which, by definition, will bump him into lesser alpha territory — can keep a masculine, low digit ratio girlfriend’s faithless instincts in check, but it will cost him regular peace of mind. He may decide she is worth the aggravation if she’s hot enough.

Alpha males have to deal with possessive, feminine girlfriends more than beta males do, so their perspective on that specific manifestation of female behavior may be skewed toward less tolerance for it. This is why you will often hear natural players complaining bitterly about clingy girlfriends who cramp their alleycat style, the gender opposite of masculine women who seethe with contempt for their clingy, beta boyfriends.

As a follower of the tenets of game, you have to take two critical presumptions into account when you venture into the field.

1. As a man, do you tend to the less aggressive or more aggressive end of the male behavior spectrum? Your digit ratio will give you a clue as to which way you lean. If more aggressive (lower ratio), you may want to shoot for women with lower ratios as well, since they will be less possessive of your time and attention, freeing you up to fool around. If you are less aggressive by temperament, you will want to screen for feminine women with higher digit ratios, as these types of women will be more easily gamed into loyal relationship material.

2. Are you looking for a fling or a girlfriend? If the former, target low digit ratio girls. If the latter, go with high digit ratio girls.

Returning to the title of this post, I surmise that masculine, low digit ratio women are harder to game because they are less possessive and more prone to cheat than feminine women. A lack of possessiveness means that a whole suite of game strategies that deal specifically with arousing jealousy and instilling a fear of loss will not work as well on women who don’t get jealous very easily by nature. Similarly, game tactics which inspire love, and, hence, loyalty, in women will be less effective on masculine women with stronger drives to cheat and slut it up.

My experience confirms this hypothesis. Think of masculine women as quasi-men. How well does game work on men? Not very well. It stands to reason that game will have less impact on women who have the psychology of men.

Luckily, most men prefer the company of more feminine women, particularly for LTRs. If she’s a fling, then it doesn’t much matter if she craves random cock once a month, or likes to scratch her belly while watching football.

This is not to say that game is useless on masculine women. In fact, many early game tactics work better on women with oversized clits. A masculine woman is probably a pro at brushing off betas, and it’s a good bet she has the broad but shallow ego of a man. As a result, negs will work particularly well on her kind, and the happy surprise of being on the receiving end of brazenly cocky game will catapult her straight past the comfort zone and into your bed.

Read Full Post »

Social Media And Female Self-Esteem

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Feminists and their suckups have been very effective at shifting cultural opinion in the direction of believing that women suffer from low self-esteem at the hands of an antagonistic patriarchy. And they have managed this propaganda feat while simultaneously trumpeting the world-changing force of grrlpower. Remarkable squaring of the circle! Feminists are, if nothing else, skilled at resolving seemingly insurmountable contradictions in thought. Their hamsters are juiced to the cheeks on roid pellets and spinning that wheel faster than ever.

The truth, as is always the case when closely examining feminist doctrine, is the complete opposite.

If you are a man, imagine experiencing life through the fish-eye lens of the woman in the left-hand side of that Facebook graphic above. The lens distorts reality so that you are the impossibly enlarged center of your frame and everything around you recedes to warped insignificance. This is an even better analogy for the life of the typical attractive young woman than the metaphor of living in a fishbowl.

Try to picture this life, except with the sex roles reversed. Every one of your trivial observations or random thoughts gets “upvoted”, literally and metaphorically, by throngs of admirers, mostly female but some male too. Your lauded accomplishments amount to sharing cute puppy pics. Say something stupid? No one will call you out on it. Make a lame joke? Everyone laughs uproariously. Post a drunken photo of yourself? Hundreds of chicks “like this” and cheer in unison, “you go, guy!”. Tell no one in particular that you are sad, and you’re having a bad day? Hundreds more line up to offer uplifting messages of support.

You get the idea. Now, what do you think experiencing life like that will do to your self-esteem? If you answered, “my self-esteem would fly through the roof”, you win. Again.

The notion that American women endure the travails of low self-esteem is unmitigated bullshit; mythmaking of the highest caliber. American women, and really most women in post-industrial countries on the downslope into cultural decay, have the opposite psychological condition: TOO MUCH self-esteem.

Social network mediums like Facebook and Twitter have contributed to the bloating of the American female ego by giving her access to the admiration of ARMIES of would-be suitors (the equivalent of a handful of suitors in pre-internet fame times), and to an emotional support system that numbers in the hundreds, even thousands, over the relatively tiny social circle her grandmother was grateful to have in her day.

Today, it is insidiously easy for a woman in her peak attractiveness years to attention whore. If you want to know why so many women so readily whore for attention, the answer is simple: because they can. Cute puppy pic —> cascade of high fives. Who wouldn’t avail themselves of that quick ego fix?

In contrast, most men must still attention whore the old-fashioned way: by earning real achievement and marketing it to as wide a receptive audience as possible. A man doesn’t have the luxury of posting puppy pics to get his ego thrills. He needs to actively market himself and/or his accomplishments, and to sell himself in such a way that he is received in a positive light by his audience. Game is a revolution in thought because it allows men to circumvent the traditional avenues of male attention whoring; namely, occupational status and ostentatious materialism.

In some limited ways, social media serve men’s interests as well. The task of preselection becomes a lot easier. One pic of you doing shit with a cute chick is worth ten overactive hamsters. Plus, if you have a band, it’s now a lot simpler to expand the pool of potential groupies. Nevertheless, critical differences in how social media affect men’s and women’s psychology exist; few men will experience the instant ego rush from online exposure that so many girls in their prime fertility years do.

I occasionally get emails from older men taking issue with one or another core game concept. Usually, they are along the lines of “When I was dating, I didn’t need to neg women. It wasn’t that complicated.” Well, that may or may not be true (rose-colored glasses come to mind, as does the suspicion that a lot of old-time players have conveniently forgotten how much game they used to spit), but the fact is that the prevalence of social media and its effects on women’s egos has demanded the use of self-esteem lowering seduction tactics like negs and disqualifications.

Maxim #22: A woman with inflated self-esteem is a woman who will erroneously believe she is too good to date men normally in her league, unless steps are taken to bring her self-esteem back in line with reality.

Corollary to Maxim #22: A dating market lopsided with unrealistically high self-esteem women will shrink the pool of men available to date and marry, with the consequence that women remain single longer than they would otherwise.

Corollary to the corollary to Maxim #22: The most effective measure society can undertake to increase the incidence of marriage and the quality of married life is to stop artificially propping up women’s self-esteems.

It’s no coincidence that social media — and the Generation Masturbation it spawned — and the modern permutation of game co-evolved at roughly the same point in history. Future anthropologists will study this era as one in which the sexual market operated in near complete freedom, with all artificial constraints tempering female sexual prerogative removed, and many of the impositions on the full expression of male sexuality removed as well. The consequences of this society-wide experiment are beginning to manifest, and so far the social landscape coming into focus — despite being a boon to cultural renegades like myself — doesn’t bode well for maintaining a healthy, prosperous nation.

*downvote*

Read Full Post »

Women’s Shifting Perceptions Of Male Looks

A critical sex difference is in how men and women perceive the looks of the opposite sex. A woman’s beauty is a powerfully visceral stimulant of men’s desire, and tends to remain so until their beauty begins the fade in earnest by the early-mid 30s. Men’s looks, in contrast, provide a more muted stimulation of women’s desire — less visceral and more aesthetic compared to the hungering stimulation female beauty causes men to feel — and this stimulation of female desire tends to manifest in two ways.

1. Women can be drawn to men’s looks upon first sight, just as men are by women’s looks, but unlike men, women can (and will) nearly instantly lose the thrall they feel in the presence of a good-looking man should his behavior and conversation come across as unattractively beta. Betaness can kill the advantage of good looks dead.

The same is *not* the case when the sexes are reversed; that is, a beautiful, bitchy women will still make men feel horny, even as the bitchy attitude discourages men from treating such women kindly.

Maxim #67: When women are confronted by a man with low status behavior that is incongruent with his high status looks, they will never resolve the incongruity to the benefit of his status; women will always resolve the incongruity to the detriment of his looks.

2. Women will gradually perceive a man’s looks getting better over time if he possesses other attractiveness traits (e.g., charm, fame, social savvy) or if the woman in question has fallen in love with him. “Time”, in this context, can be as long as years or as short as a few minutes. A man running tight game *will* be perceived as better looking by women. A man in a relationship who is loved by his girlfriend or wife will also enjoy the benefit of positively altered female perception of his looks.

Again, the same phenomenon does not exist when the sexes are reversed; an ugly woman, no matter how charming, wealthy, famous, kind or personable, will *not* be perceived as better looking by men. A similar dynamic operates within relationships; in fact, a woman in a long term relationship can actually become *less* attractive to her lover as his desire for variety begins to outcompete his feelings of love and loyalty.

There is one caveat: early in a relationship, when the feelings of love are strongest (3 months to 2 years, depending on his basal oxytocin levels), a man will be so infused with a dopamine high that his woman will seem more beautiful to him than when they started dating fornicating. Although — and this cannot be stressed enough — NEVER will she seem more beautiful than when he FIRST laid eyes on her. That initial blast of lust is impossible to duplicate.

The above observation of the female inclination to perceive a lover’s looks in more favorable terms explains the time-tested wisdom that a woman in love thinks her man better looking than he is. I believe this change in perception is so powerful that it actually reflects a neural rewiring of a woman’s brain circuitry when gazing upon the visage of a man she loves. Similar radical alterations in female perception happen when a woman is pleasantly surprised by a charismatic man who is successfully seducing her despite his unimpressive looks.

Stingray wrote:

I knew a guy in high school who had severe burn scars covering more than half his face.  Dated one of the most popular girls in school for a long time and was liked by all the other girls as well.  Everyone who knew him said that after knowing him for only a short time, the scars were invisible.  They simply became part of who he was and went completely unnoticed.   Attitude is everything.  Looks may slow down those initial reactions, but if you move beyond that and maintain a confident frame, they will not hinder you much.

Scar game.

A man’s physical flaws are like disappearing ink — exposure to a woman’s love, or even her interest, will cause them to fade away.

And here is some real world experimental evidence that manly confidence influences women’s perceptions.

According to a university study, women can still identify a physically  attractive man just by reading his profile.

It found good-looking men were able  to convey their confidence and attractiveness in their written self-description – and that women volunteers were able to recognise their beauty without being shown the lonely heart’s accompanying photograph. […]

‘Our data suggests that attractive individuals wrote texts (profiles) that  conveyed confidence, and it was perhaps this confidence which primarily  signalled quality to the women.’

The associate professor added that ‘such confidence may arise from attractive  people’s general sense of their high mate-value’.

Take home lesson: If you’re an ugly man, you can influence women to perceive you as more physically attractive than you are by projecting the confident demeanor of an attractive man. A low status man can influence female perception by projecting the attitude and body language of a high status man. This is the crux of game.

Read Full Post »

Dealing With Nasty Bitches

Every so often, you’ll encounter a really nasty, bitchy piece of work while on your pickup adventures. Her shit tests will be more insulting, her attitude will be meaner, her barbed questions will sound like an interrogation for the benefit of her friends. Through no fault of your own, she’ll come down on you as if you were the ex she’s hated ever since he dumped her over text.

Typically, the advice in these scenarios is simply to smile and say “nice talking to you” and bail. Nothing wrong with that, and it certainly beats lashing out in anger by calling her a bitch in response. But sometimes… sometimes… your balls grow three sizes and you feel a need to exact the pain of a psychological mindfucking. Good news. All it takes is one short line to subvert her bitchy self-satisfaction, like verbal jujitsu.

“Oh, so you’re one of those.”

Spoken without anger, with a completely neutral facial expression, the beauty of this line becomes apparent. It gets under her skin without diminishing your social grace, it chastens her in front of onlookers, and it forces her into your frame.

It also leaves you with multiple options on how to proceed. If she accedes to your frame — “What do you mean by that?” — you have room to maneuver into qualifying her should that be your goal. If she lashes out impotently — “Fuck you!” — you have the option to backturn and leave her looking like a tool.

That’s part of what being an alpha male is about: choice. You are not a pawn in other people’s choices. You choose, that is, you establish the frame, and others follow along or are discarded.

Read Full Post »

A Quantifiable, Objective Standard Of Beauty

A Daily Mail article (usually I’d say take the Mail with a flat of salt, but they did helpfully include sources so you could dig up the original study if you were so inclined) presents new research that female beauty has the same effect on male brains as cocaine.

The study, conducted by Harvard University researchers, found the face of an attractive woman triggers the same reward centres in a man’s brain as [cocaine].

Test subjects were shown images of attractive females, and brain imaging scans revealed that reward circuitry fired off when they looked at comely faces.

A prominent curved forehead, eyes, nose and mouth located relatively low, large eyes, round cheeks and a small chin were among the features men found most attractive.

A reader writes in response to the article :

So, seeing this young lady’s face and body causes a cocaine-like effect on male viewers.

We could show a large sample of men a large sample of images, and determine quantitatively how intense the response was.  This would allow us to prove that beauty is not a social construct but is hardwired, and even to show which females have the goods, objectively.

We could even show that fat females cause no brain squirt of coke-like nice-nice.

There is a lot of science to be done here that will make a lot of pretty lies wither.

Veeery interesting. Yes, the results of such a study would, I’ve no doubt, drive another nail into the ideological coffin of the “cultural conditioning” crowd. You want to gleefully watch covens of feminists cry to the hells below and lash out in spittle-flecked fury? Show them studies that beauty is objective and measurable, and that men pretty much share an attraction for the same slender, beautiful women.

A study that showed the same SPECIFIC reward regions of the brain LIGHTING UP on MRI scans of, say, one hundred brains of men hailing from various globe points when they looked at photos of beautiful women, and then DEACTIVATING when the men were shown pics of ugly or fat girls, would be the sort of inarguable hard science that should, in a rational, sane world, utterly discredit the beliefs of those who say beauty is a subjective, cultural construct. Brain scans would, humorously and in one fell swoop, put the lie not only to platitudinal feminist gum-flapping insisting there are no standards of measurable beauty, but to the feeble entreaties of all those cloying betaboys who suck up to flabby fembots by telling them what they want to hear.

“ew, i don’t want an anorexic. i like a girl with curves, like you dear”

brain scan image formulating… *beep boop beep*… “anorexic” girl pic asplodes brain

“no no, that’s not me, dear. that’s just my culturally conditioned brain talking.”

😆

There are lies, and there are cosmic overlies. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “beauty is subjective” are those cosmic overlies that fuel the core reactor which energizes so many lesser lies. Destroying them would cause dominoes of lies to fall in their fiery wake.

ps a little question i like to pose to people who don’t believe universal beauty standards exist is the following: how could photoshop professionals, who spend their days retouching photographs of women to make them more attractive, know which parts of the face to alter if beauty did not have an objective, measurable basis? think about it.

pps i told you i would give you three evolutionary psychology related studies this week sure to fibrillate the hearts of feminists and their apologists, and i came through. now go, my disciples, and spread the game word.

Read Full Post »