The Training Of The Shrew

A buddy’s girlfriend and I were watching a movie on his TV and a scene had come on featuring the lead actress dragging her beta boyfriend to her alpha ex-boyfriend’s house for a party.

“This guy is a doofus for agreeing to go with her to her ex’s party. He’s walking into a trap. Any guy who does this in real life is asking for a breakup.” I beamed with pride at my insightfulness.

She disagreed. “No way, she’s a bitch for expecting him to go with her. Actually, she’s a bitch for even keeping in touch with her ex.”

Pleasantly surprised by her answer, I nodded my head approvingly and admitted to myself that my analysis of the movie scene was flawed. The beta boyfriend was not the primary offender; it was the obtuse, or manipulative, girlfriend.

My buddy is an alpha male. He teases, he bellows, he rises to anger, he’s sexual, he gives as good as he gets, and he tolerates ZERO bullshit from his girlfriend. She is quite cute, and ragingly feminine.

How did my thinking go so astray while her’s hit the mark? If you observe carefully, you may have noticed throughout your life that the sweetest girls with the most sympathetic dispositions toward men and the problems they have to deal with are those girls who have been with alpha boyfriends or husbands for a while. (Key qualification: “a while”. Girls who ride the alpha cock carousel are primitive, opportunistic sluts.) The reason why is simple: they have been “broken in”.

Once a girl has experienced the exquisite pleasure of submitting to a dominant lover her basal femininity is reset to something less accommodating of feminist boilerplate. She becomes keenly aware of the unique challenges that face men, and is able to a certain degree to put herself in their shoes, or, barring that, to at least sympathize with men and refrain from taking them for granted. This is the training of women that is similar to the training of dogs. And this sympathy and understanding extends beyond her alpha lover to men in general. It’s as if the domestication of her desire by a dominant man softens her feelings for all men. Not sexually softened, mind you. A woman in thrall of an alpha male is a faithful woman. But socially softened.

The converse should be apparent; women who have been denied the affection and commitment of an alpha lover, or who have been driven insane with spite by the dispiriting attentions of beta males they consider below them, nurse a steady stream of agitation toward, and resentment of, men in general. Exhibit A: a disproportionate number of avowed feminists are butt ugly. Exhibit B: SWPL city girls who yearn for loving, long term relationships with powerful men but get stuck with pump and dumps by players and cloying obsessions by undersexed betas. These women have yet to be broken in; their untamed limbic mania sets the tempo of their higher thinking. They drag their owners for a walk, instead of being walked. They are obstinate, crude, and, when their feminine humours do reassert for a temporary spell, sloppily scattershot in their compassion for indigents a world away while being brutishly curt and spiteful in their dealings with men in their social orbit. Feminism speaks to them because their femininity is suppressed.

The answer for these wastrel shrikes, as this blog has been saying from day one, is more game. While the mating market is zero sum, the pleasure market is positive sum. More pleasurable seductions of more women can only bring good things to relations between the sexes.

Read Full Post »

Values Compatibility And Sexual Attraction

A reader wrote a while back about her thoughts on the importance of shared values to pickup and dating. Here she comments that men of a conservative political persuasion would not find love with liberal women, and would have to focus their dating efforts on meeting similarly conservative women (which she caricatured as belonging to three distinct groups):

So that leaves him with other conservatives. Call it values, attraction, whatever, but I only know of three types: God/family hunters; rich-diamond-buying-guy hunters; and caveman hunters.

I’ve dated a number of conservative women and they were just as cool as their liberal sisters. They weren’t golddiggers (and I speak as a man who brings game to the table that ensures the golddigger programming isn’t triggered), they weren’t abstaining “God hunters” (whatever religious impulses they had did not affect their voracious sexual appetites), and they weren’t the type to routinely date dunderheaded cavemen. They enjoyed the same things that most young women enjoy — indie music, art shows, movies, astrology, gossip, fashion, travel, water balloon fights. These universal female interests cross ideological boundaries.

Granted, none of the conservative women I dated were self-professed evangelicals, so I can’t say for sure that the coolness factor (or my sex life) wouldn’t take a nose dive if I limited my dating choices to that segment of the American population.

Re: hiding your politics and values from girls: People can avoid topics and keep views under wraps for a few weeks, maybe months. Major lifestyle differences, like “I don’t want kids,” or “I go to church every Sunday,” or even “I eat at McDonald’s (or refuse to)” are another story.

You’re doing it wrong if you think dating ideologically dissimilar people is about keeping topics “under wraps”. It’s nothing of the sort. Real sexual attraction and love circumvent that type of defensively dull mechanistic dating jive. It’s irrelevant to men with tight game, because “major lifestyle differences” would hardly ever be summoned, purposely or inadvertently, to move a seduction forward. That is because what builds attraction is not a discussion over national health insurance or the blessings of having kids. Sustained sexual attraction is an ancient instinct that reacts to certain mate value cues, and political conformity is not one of them. If anything, a girl can be *more* attracted to a man who is ideologically different from her, as long as he is passionate about his beliefs without being charmless in explaining them. Girls are often shocked into arousal by the presence of a man willing to speak his mind and refrain from obsequiously parroting her opinions.

Nevertheless, my experience with women shows that politics rarely comes up as a discussion topic during the pickup and the ensuing weeks of heady sexual thrill. If it does come up early on, I know that my game has failed and I have veered away from the bread and butter of what makes a seduction successful. This is true whether I bring it up (I rarely do) or she brings it up (less rare, but still not very common, even when dating urban yentas). If you are gaming a girl properly, the last thing on her mind will be your political affinity. She may briefly broach the subject (in which case I usually offhandedly dismiss it with a casual disclosure of my “independent, libertarian leanings”, a practically inarguable and unopposable political stance which freezes most girls into a nonreactive state. Libertarianism: autistic ideology, fantastic courtship lube), but if she’s smiling and getting horny, she won’t likely linger on any political topic of discussion. Remember, if she likes you and respects your alphaness, she’ll be unmotivated to challenge your political beliefs. A good rule of thumb: if a girl you are dating is giving you grief for your politics, walk away. She will prove to be a high maintenance witch on the warpath to de-ball you at every opportunity.

Now at some point down the road those arid and tingle-killing ideological, religious or political issues will rise to the fore. It is inevitable when you spend so much time with a girl that it becomes impossible to sequester zones of discussion in an unshared limbo. But ultimately it won’t matter if the girl loves the man. She’ll instead be more drawn to his standing firmly for his principles. Which leads us to…

Maxim #61: Among love’s many benefits is its capacity for diminishing to insignificance those differences that would have prevented its flourishing in the first place.

Corollary to Maxim #61: Avoid emphasizing any values differences until love, or a mind-blowing orgasm, has taken root.

Only a major crisis like a disagreement over having kids will present an eventual stumbling block that could be too high to hurdle. Usually those kinds of issues don’t make a nuisance of themselves until months — even years — into the relationship. The types of women who shrilly harp on the importance of “values compatibility” to dating are the same types of women who bring 463 bullet point mental checklists in all dealings they have with potential suitors. This attitude and lack of dating spontaneity makes them very unattractive and unfeminine and most men find it a turnoff. Women older than 28, overeducated women, women who have to fill their schedules with “events” and “classes”, and urban Jewish women tend to exhibit the worst of this behavior.

Having said the above, I will tell you a story about a girl I dumped over a political disagreement. She and I had been together for a good amount of time, but there was an undercurrent of mutual dissatisfaction neither one of us could quite put our fingers on. The sex was good and we did all the “right” things that couples are assumed by polite society to do together. But it felt forced, like we were self-consciously cognizant of our dance moves, and the rhythm and flow that should be the hallmark of a naturally progressing relationship had subordinated itself to carefully mimicking a placemat of numbered foot steps on the ground. On paper, we were good together, but paper is a flimsy palimpsest upon which to etch a living poem.

So it was that, wholly unexpected and random, we rapidly death-spiraled like mating eagles into a heated political discussion once and I chose not the path of diplomacy and conciliation, but the jagged cliffside rocks of immoveable obstinacy. I hurled facts and figures at her, the holy water to the emotionally vampiric female soul. She reacted as a startled vampiress would; shrieks and bared fangs, her pallor drained from her face in shock at my bombshell impudence. “Why is he not kowtowing to me?”, I could practically hear her hamster morse coding to the nether reaches of her brain.

She vainly attempted to parry me, but, as with most women, she was no match. In a fit of pique and sullenness, she snarled “I’m appalled that you think this way”. I said, “Get over yourself” and walked away. One week later, she called to leave me a message. I listened to the message, and never saw or spoke to her again.

The moral of this story should be obvious. The one time a political discussion was ostensibly the objective reason for a breakup was in fact proof that a political disagreement had nothing at all to do with the breakup. Among other things said, the message she left confirmed something both of us had been suspecting for a while:

“I just didn’t feel the magic was there.”

Our political incompatibility was merely a front for our underlying love incompatibility. An excuse to open the lid on a boiling pot of spiteful ennui.

Any escape hatch in a storm…

Read Full Post »

Fanged Female Condom

In an effort to discourage rapists, a South African doctor (surprised?) has invented a female condom with hooks that attach to the penis and cause immense pain.

I don’t have a problem with this invention. But I wonder what kind of legal ramifications will confront the first woman who forgets to remove the artificial vagina dentata and maims her boyfriend’s or husband’s penis? Because I guarantee that should this device become widely available, we’re going to be hearing stories of forgetful drunk chicks quite literally hooking up and getting all hellraiser on their partners’ cocks. Jesus cringed.

Read Full Post »

The Male-Female Spontaneous Touch Initiation Ratio

There is an easy way to assess the strength of your relationship without ever having to turn to that favorite solution of charlatans couples therapists everywhere. Who needs communication when you can gauge how strongly your partner feels about you by how often she spontaneously touches you?

In the interest of lowering the divorce rate, increasing the love rate, and decreasing the time wasted on a cocktease (or, in the case of you ladies, a ringtease), I’ve devised a simple system for analyzing the depth of your lover’s love for you.

The Spontaneous Touch Initiation Ratio (STIR) rests on a simple premise:

In every healthy, successful relationship, the woman will initiate non-sexual spontaneous touching at least twice as often as the man.

This non-sexual touching can take many forms. For example:

A light graze of fingertips across your back as she walks behind you at a restaurant to take her seat.

A tousle of your hair.

A hand on your thigh at the movies.

Arms wrapped around your neck while you and her are walking down the sidewalk.

Kiss on the cheek for no apparent reason.

A brush of “lint” off your shoulders or hair.

Any unnecessary grooming.

Grabbing your hand first to hold it as you walk.

Hand resting on the small of your back.

As you can see, there are many ways to intimately bond without inserting penis into vagina. Of course, holding hands *while* inserting penis into vagina is best of all, but unfortunately we don’t yet live in a society that tolerates genital couplings in public. Damn kids always spoiling a good time.

Since you want your woman to touch you at least twice as often as you spontaneously touch her, a male-female STIR that is equal to or less than 0.5 should be your goal. Here’s a handy chart that illustrates the different STIR ratios and what they mean for the health of the relationship.

STIR                 Odds She Is Cheating On You     Time Remaining Until Breakup

0.3 – 0.5           10%                                           Four years

0.01 – 0.3         1%                                             The time of your choosing

<0.01     Odds you’re cheating on her: 100%  The time she tolerates your polygyny

0.5 – 1.0          20%                                             Two years

1.0 – 2.0          40%                                             Six months

2.0 – 3.0          60%                                             Three months

3.0 – 10.0        90% (100% she’s thinking about it)   Two weeks

>10.0              100%. With three other dudes.      Didn’t you get the memo?

Why is 0.5 or lower the golden STIR number? Because in my experience, the typical woman in love (or in lust) will spontaneously touch you twice as often as you touch her. Exceptions exist, but they are unimportant in the scheme of things. The lower the ratio, the more she likes you (or the less you like her, same difference). The higher the ratio, the more likely you are impersonating this guy.

Do you really want to be that guy, the peabody puffboy who finds himself triangulated to the wrong end of a cuckolding? I didn’t think so.

Be cognizant of how often you touch your girlfriend or wife, and vice versa. If your STIR starts inching above 0.5, you need to amp up your game to bring it back down to an acceptable level. If your STIR is already above 1.0, you should move your assets overseas if you are married, and if you’re unmarried, you need to mentally prepare for an incoming dumping. There’s no better fun than anticipating a dumping from your girlfriend and turning the tables on her before she has had a chance to achieve cloooosure.

Read Full Post »

The Tiger Woods Effect

It’s been said that when Tiger Woods is dominating on the fairway his opponents lose their composure and begin piling up the bogies. An analogy could be made to relationships. The greater the dating market value disparity between two people the more likely the partner with less power will lose composure at the slightest threat of loss. Another way of saying this: The partner with less hand is more emotionally invested in the relationship.

Tiger Woods may be a goofy looking guy but have no doubt — millions of hot women the world over would love to bang him. This means whichever woman lucks out in the marital lotto with Tiger is automatically the partner with zero emotional hand. (Financial hand is another matter. Thanks to insane anti-male divorce laws a world-beating alpha male like Tiger Woods can be brought to his knees by a single throwaway lantern-jawed blonde like Elin Nordegren.) Nordegren has little hand being married to Tiger and her hindbrain knows this, which is why she went psycho on him when she presumably suspected him of cheating and chased him down with the long iron.

The Tiger Woods Effect works in either direction. Look back on your own dating career. With which women did you behave in the most wretchedly beta manner? The hot ones, right? It’s usually the women who are relatively significantly higher in dating market value who will cause a man to forget everything he’s learned about women and throw alpha to the wind as he begs pleads and cajoles her for more love. Let’s say you are a 6 and your girlfriend is a 9. How long do you think it’s going to be before you’re writing her sappy poems and buying her flowers? Two dates?

Similarly, if you’re a girl who’s dating Tiger Woods and you catch him throwing a flirty glance at a waitress, you might do something crazy like this. (Thanks to Justin for the pointer. My readers always come through with great links.)

I believe it’s a good idea for men to get practice dominating a woman so fully she loses all dignity around him. Date at least one woman who is lower than you in dating market value and watch with wonder how little effort you have to put into the relationship. This will instill you with the right attitudes to have with the hotter women you truly wish to date — namely, aloofness, carelessness and selfishness.

Read Full Post »

Women Want You To Cheat

Here’s a quote from a female commenter to an article about emotionally unavailable men that was posted over at one of those loser feminist sites that rhymes with Jizzabel:

This is me, I love my husband but every once in awhile I wish he weren’t so into me. I think I’m still emotionally unavailable but pretending not to be, because I know that deep down I do care about him, I’m just not really into caring yet.

The verdict is in: Women want men to cheat on them. Oh sure, they don’t *consciously* want their men to cheat, but unbeknownst to all but the most self aware women, their ginas tingle uncontrollably for men who can — and do — score some poon on the side.

Whenever a wife says she “cares about” her husband, you can bet her pussy has turned drier than Death Valley. Female “caring” is the anhedonic guilt blurt of the higher brain rationalizing the disgust of the hindbrain. This commenter’s marriage is doomed. Her husband is a romantic beta with visions of pedestals dancing in his head. He needs to pull back fast if there is any hope of avoiding divorce rape. Going to a hooker won’t cut it; the wifey needs to know her husband can win over women with his natural charms. Going to marriage counseling won’t cut it; tag teaming with a pseudoquack to berate her husband mercilessly while he sits there taking it like a dutiful herb schlub is no way to excite ginas. Doing more domestic chores won’t cut it; contrary to popular belief women aren’t aroused by men acting like women.

Here is my five point plan for saving faltering marriages:

1. Stop giving compliments, flattery, and gifts.
2. Come home from work late every night.
3. Buy yourself new, stylish clothes.
4. Cheat. If she asks, deny. No need to confess to the wife. She’ll be able to smell the competitor vaj juice on you.
5. After three months of executing the above four points, unexpectedly tell your wife her ass looks great.

I challenge any multiple credentialed psychotherapists to prove me wrong. My simple five point system based in a clearheaded understanding of male-female biosocial differences VERSUS the peer reviewed, academically accredited expertise practiced by the husband-shaming marriage counseling industry. Mano a mangino.

Care to bet whose solution saves more marriages?

Read Full Post »

Everyone’s Racist Except Black Women

To find out what people actually prefer in sex partners it’s much better to observe what they do than to ask them what they do. (You noting this, GSS nerds?) Our sex preferences, being the bedrock human value that underlies all other values, is also the one most susceptible to self-deceit. In that vein, a billion readers sent me a link to the blog of the online dating service OkCupid that had a post about research that compared the rates that people of different races respond to messages sent to them by horny admirers. You can go read the full article, including charts, here. I imagine it’ll be genuinely eye-opening to those who’ve been living in a windowless basement their whole lives.

The author, Christian, good SWPL that he likely is, interprets the data from a “racism is alive and well” perspective, but we here at CH headquarters know better. These are the ugliest of the ugly truths. Read on.

The author writes:

When I first started looking at first-contact attempts and who was writing who back, it was immediately obvious that the sender’s race was a huge factor. Here are just a handful of the numbers that illustrate that:

Black men love Asian chicks because they play hard to get. Really hard to get. The big surprise is the love that Indian women (dot, not feather) *don’t* have for their Indian brothers. Wassupwitdat, subcontinental ladies? I’ve written before that it’s likely the natural human preference, for all races of people, is to date, and particularly marry, within race. OKcupid is just one American online dating service (which skews young, educated and progressive) so we aren’t seeing the full picture, but assuming this data is even remotely indicative of reality outside of the online dating world, then one wonders why Indian men turn off their own women. Is this an emigrant phenomenon? If we dumped a bunch of white guys in Bombay would the Indian women immediately jettison their homeboys for the fresh white meat? Or is it just Americanized Indian chicks that have the Temperate Zone Fever?

The author goes on to explain how they calculated reply rates by race, describing the match compatibility system that OKcupid uses. You can read the details there, but in short, it looks as though, given an exact match on all other variables, people are choosing to reply or to not reply based on the one variable of race.

When viewing the charts below, keep in mind that yellow is a neutral (expected) reply rate, red is a reply rate that is lower than predicted by match compatibility, and green is a reply rate higher than predicted.

Now let’s look at the vastly different table of actual reply rates for messages, sent by men to women (I know our gay readers are interested in same-sex versions of these tables, and I will produce them next week):

The numbers on the perimeter of the table are the weighted average rates for each column/row. Here’s what we know:

Black women are sweethearts. Or just talkative. But either way, they are by far the most likely to reply to your first message. In many cases, their response rate is one and a half times the average, and overall black women reply about a quarter more often.

That’s not all we know, Christian. Some other possible reasons why black women reply at higher rates to men of all races:

– they’re sluttier.
– they’re more open-minded.
– they’re more experimental.
– they have lower standards.
– they get less attention from men in general so they resort to casting their net farther and wider for a nibble.

Note also that black women reply at the lowest rates to black men. For all the talk from black women about how much they want to date black men, their actual online preferences suggest they really want to date anyone *but* a black man.

White men get more responses. Whatever it is, white males just get more replies from almost every group. We were careful to preselect our data pool so that physical attractiveness (as measured by our site picture-rating utility) was roughly even across all the race/gender slices. For guys, we did likewise with height.

Maybe I should try my hand at online dating again. I did it a few times, with surprisingly good results (for me, anyway; not so much for the husband of the chick who agreed to meet me), but despite my unusual success in the online world, I don’t recommend it as anything more than a supplement to meeting girls in real life. The main reason why online dating sucks is simple: The kind of girls who have to hide behind a monitor to meet men often look like this:

So which women give white guys like me the most love? Native Americans, Other, and Black chicks. My memories of sweet intimacy with black girls are fond.

White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else—and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups’ reply rates to non-whites is terrible. Asian women write back non-white males at 21.9%, Hispanic women at 22.9%, and white women at 23.0%. It’s here where things get interesting, for white women in particular. If you look at the match-by-race table before this one, the “should-look-like” one, you see that white women have an above-average compatibility with almost every group. Yet they only reply well to guys who look like them. There’s more data on this towards the end of the post.

Speculation time: Did the mass of white SWPL women vote for Obama to assuage their subconscious guilt for prefering white men as mates? The jig is up white ladies. The next time I hear one of you braying about “racism this” and “racism that” I’m gonna shove this data right back in your pieholes.

Based on the weighted average rates at the bottom of the chart, Indian and Asian girls are the coyest women. Men, it’s a solid gameplan to avoid dating these chicks if you want to get some action before the tenth date.

Let’s see what happens when it’s the women writing the messages to men.

The first thing we notice is how much more eagerly men reply to female senders of all races than women reply to male senders. Hey, men are easier lays than women, news at 11. The second thing that jumps out is the high rate that Middle Eastern women get replies. According to this chart, white women are not the queens of the ball; every other group of women except black women gets a slightly higher reply rate than white women. Are white women’s deserved shitty reputation for entitlement, loudness, and cat hording finally catching up to them? Or is it that obese white women are more likely than fat chicks of other races to turn to the internet for love? What we do know is that worldwide, white women are the admired example of femininity, even for little children whose parents and culture are trying to convince them otherwise.

Men don’t write black women back. Or rather, they write them back far less often than they should. Black women reply the most, yet get by far the fewest replies. Essentially every race—including other blacks—singles them out for the cold shoulder.

Black women get no love. Summoning the Obsidian Kraken.

White guys are shitty, but fairly even-handed about it. The average reply rate of non-white males is 48.1%, while white guys’ is only 40.5%. Basically, they write back about 20% less often. It’s ironic that white guys are worst responders, because as we saw above they get the most replies. That has apparently made them very self-absorbed. It’s interesting that white males do manage to reply to Middle Eastern women. Is there some kind of emergent fetish there? As Middle Easterners are becoming America’s next racial bogeyman, maybe there’s some kind of forbidden fruit thing going on. (Perhaps a reader more up-to-date on his or her Post-Colonial Theory can step in here? Just kidding. Don’t.)

I would also note from the chart that Middle Eastern men are the biggest horndogs of all races.

The title of this post is sarcastic. It’s no more racist to prefer the opposite sex of your own race for dating and fucking than it is to prefer brunettes to blondes. If sex preferences are racist, then we need a new word for *real* racism; racism that includes things like forced segregation (superracism), racial violence (superduperracism) or slavery (goddamnthat’ssomebadassracismrightthere). But our sexual preferences are hardwired, and if the free expression of those preferences are racist, then racism itself is hardwired. Woops. Cat’s out of the bag!

The knee-jerk response to all this unsettling data from good, moral liberals will be “Ah, this just shows that institutional racism is still with us so we need more reeducation camps, mach schnell!”, never once considering the possibility that these “racist” preferences, by progressive socially enlightened OkCupid members no less!, reflect deep biological proclivities to favor mates who look like us. ON AVERAGE.

It’s no coincidence that our Western transnational de-patriotized elites are propagandizing Americans with a constant bombardment of images of interracial couples and swooning articles extolling the virtues, nay the moral imperative, of white people to date other races. The elites, hermetically and hypocritically marrying within their own race/class/ethnic religion, have it in for those who are best positioned to unseat them from their thrones of power. They know that if tribal identity, instinct — and even behavior — are biologically unalterable, then no government policy in the world will solve what they see as an impediment to utopia. This depresses them no end. Their answer is to have everyone (but themselves) mix it up in the sack until all human diversity is gone and we are left with a one race world that can get on in an orderly fashion with the business of being cogs churning in the gears of the globocorporate krell machine.

But it will never work. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Read Full Post »