Women Are Equally As Shallow As Men

SFG remarks:

Women are shallow, but so are men. ‘Shallow’ means caring about appearances, which are the only things that matter in the social world. So ‘shallow’ is something we socially-inept types sling around to insult those who are better at marketing themselves.

Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”. Women are just as drawn to shallow traits in the opposite sex as are men; the difference is that women’s shallowness is exalted in the public sphere. And it is exalted because there is no social compassion for the men who fail to meet women’s shallow standards and slip through the cracks. In contrast, women who fail to meet men’s shallow standards are decried as victims of oppressive male objectification and showered with sympathy.

This double standard exists because men are biologically expendable and women, sadly, biologically perishable. The underlying biological ur-reality forms the psychological reality which overlays it and projects into consciousness the workings of the subconscious id. Every word we say and action we take is ultimately slave in service to the primordial beast in our brains.

Another reason men are more easily and rapaciously slapped with the “shallow” label is because their sexual preferences are more visually discernible; female prettiness and sexiness, which is what men desire above all, are readily observable. Such is not the case (at least not to the same degree) of women’s sexual preferences; female preferences are focused more on men’s status, dominance and charm, and thus less easily distinguishable at a glance. The non-visual, time-delayed nature of much of women’s animal desires allows them to plausibly evade the smear of shallowness. But just because women’s preferences rely more on feedback from judging men’s dominance displays and comparing men’s relative statuses than on feedback from seeing men’s looks doesn’t make women any less shallow. It just diverts the flow of shallowness to a different part of the kiddie pool.

In truth, women’s preferences are no less shallow than men’s. It’s proxies for reproductive and survival quality all the way down.

Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations. If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess.

Read Full Post »

Women, Divorce And Misleading Statistics

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

In related news, Jason Malloy’s data at The Inductivist on divorce initiation and reasons given is illuminating:

Assuming that those who assign blame are the ones that initiated the divorce, and had a “good” reason:

Wive initiate 70% of divorce and blame the husband 40% of the time. (60% of female initiated divorce is unprovoked)

Husbands initiate 30% of divorce and blame the wife 21% of the time.

(79% of male initiated divorce is unprovoked)

23% of divorces are males “trading-up”
28% of divorces are males “screwing-up”
——-
51% of divorces due to men

42% of divorces are females “trading-up”
7% of divorces are females “screwing-up”
——-
49% of divorces due to women

So women are much more likely to “trade-up,” but men are much more likely to “screw-up”. And the two cancel each other out. Both men and women are seemingly responsible for about half of divorces.

This should put to rest the feminist and white knight lapdog lie that men are primarily responsible for marital failure because they aren’t “manning up”, or are behaving irresponsibly. (Paging Charles Murray…) Women really do initiate at least half the cases of divorce because their husbands have turned unattractively beta, or because they have crossed paths with a more desirable alpha male and indulged their instincts.

Indeed, if we restrict our focus to the under-acknowledged role of female hypergamy in sexual marketplace functioning, then it should be obvious that a major cause of divorce in this country — women trading up — has gone almost entirely unreported and unremarked upon by the discourse gatekeepers, aka Lords of Lies.

Furthermore, and most shockingly to feminist and manboobed sensibility, a strong argument can be made that in the moral calculus defining parameters of blame for marital dissolution, “trading up” is a much worse impetus for divorcing than is “screwing up”. After all, a woman who is compelled to trade up is turning her back completely on her marriage and the vows she made to her husband. In contrast, a man who screws up by, say, partaking of a one night stand or drinking too much, has not necessarily turned his back completely on his marriage, though his screw up may convince his wife that the union is not worth sustaining.

I think, given the nature of the data and the differing biological predispositions among men and women to weigh the gravity of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity unequally, that it is fair to say women are the prime drivers of the divorce industrial complex, and that this fact, for reasons that go to the heart of the equalist utopia project and feminist prerogative, is actively ignored and suppressed by the commentariat and legal system.

But not anymore. Heh heh heh.

For more on this subject and a debate over the precision of Malloy’s data, check out this post and comment thread.

Update

wfprice makes a good point about the way feminists use standard of living statistics misleadingly:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

A good rule of thumb is to just start with the working assumption that anything which falls out of a feminist’s craggy mouth is a lie.

The reaction of certain quarters to men’s rights has been fascinating to me from an observer’s perspective. The obstinately blind who think men’s rights advocates are whiners really need to get a grip on the fact that the family court system is arrayed against men’s interests. It is grossly unfair to men in its favoritism toward women. Some systemic injustices really are injustices, and not just figments of some broken person’s imagination or examples of confirmation bias.

As I have explained before, there is a very good evolutionary reason why this state of affairs has emerged and persists with little push back from women *or* men: in the unrestricted playgroud of nature, men are disposable. (And women are perishable. Hi, PA!) One man can do the reproductive job of 1,000 men, if necessary. Our hindbrains have evolved over millennia to reflect this biological reality, and it manifests in the ease with which we send young men to war but recoil at the prospect of doing the same to young women, in the compulsion to blame marital breakups on men no matter the facts and to excuse women’s misdeeds, in the quickness with which men’s natural sexual urges are demonized and demagogued while women’s natural sexual urges are lauded as steps toward empowerment and self-actualization, in the permissible bias in family courts against men and for women, in the relative lack of concern for jailed and destitute deadbeat dads compared to the outpouring of sympathies for struggling single moms and divorced women, and in the full weight of societal opprobrium levied against male caddishness in contrast to the revulsion and willful ignorance expressed for confronting female sexual nature, hypergamy and all, honestly and openly.

I could go on with examples of this sex-based disparity in empathy for pages.

Since these are hindbrain reactions, I don’t expect logic or concepts of fairness to appeal to anyone except the victims. Best you can do is what I have done: get all the love and sex and intimacy without the legal Dame-ocles sword swinging over your head. The best feminist is a disarmed feminist.

Read Full Post »

The Other Three Weeks

Game blogs typically focus on aloof alpha game (AAG) that creates and exploits value differentials because it is the form of game that is most poorly understood by the masses of beta males and it is the game with the most untapped potential to quickly and powerfully build an attraction and bond with women, particularly the hot younger women who are most highly prized by men. But there is another aspect of game that is often left under-explored by pickup artists yet is almost as vital to fun, healthy, emotionally fulfilling relationships with women.

I speak of beta reassurance game.

There are perfectly understandable reasons why beta reassurance game (BRG: I will be using nerdy acronyms in this post because I don’t feel like typing out the full terms over and over. Get used to it.) is overlooked:

1. In the early, critical stages of seduction, women respond more viscerally to AAG than to BRG. In fact, unleashing BRG too early will hurt your chances with desirable women, who have more than their share of lickspittle betas doting on them.

2. It’s easy to lose a woman’s sexual interest with too little AAG, as opposed to BRG where too much will turn a woman off. Therefore, the pickup artist’s reaction to this reality is to place more emphasis on AAG at the expense of BRG, since there is a higher risk of not doing enough AAG than there is of doing too much BRG. (The converse — too much AAG or too little BRG — can also turn a woman off, but that dynamic is less pronounced and likelier to occur later in a relationship, after sexual access has been secured.)

3. Most men are beta males by nature, so the core concepts of BRG come to them as naturally as breathing. The concepts underlying AAG are understood by fewer men, so the market for learning AAG is bigger.

4. Most men, especially younger men, who want to do better with women are less interested in the demands of long term relationships than they are in sexual satisfaction. AAG is more applicable to getting laid than it is to the formation and maintenance of LTRs (though by no means is it unimportant to the latter!)

Anyhow, that’s a short list of the reasons why AAG dominates most game discussions. Yet, if we were to carefully plot the trajectories of dying relationships and marriages, a not inconsiderable number of them would have failed because the man distanced himself emotionally or provided insufficient reassurances of emotional fidelity to his woman. The upper crust wife who has a torrid affair with the poolboy because her rich hubby is ignoring her is a stereotype for a reason.

Therefore, it is in your interest as a man to learn and master the chivalric arts of beta provisioning game (without actually providing much materially) as religiously as you train yourself in the dark arts of AAG. A woman in love is aroused both by your dimorphic demonic alphatude and by your crazystickygluey emotional closeness and dependability. The trick is the degree to which you emphasize interchangeability and intimacy.

You say this sounds funny coming from a guy like me? Well, you obviously haven’t been reading closely enough.

In general, for most men, AAG should have primacy over BRG at all stages of pair bonding. BRG is the coin of the realm. It is devalued by debt peonage, unshackled female hypergamy and cultural propagandism. AAG is the dusty tome in the attic the keepers of the social order hope you never find. Unless you are a top 20% alpha male, your problem will likely be a risk of smothering women with too much BRG.

So consider this post directed at alpha males with intimacy (aka desire for pussy variety) issues. But beta males have problems in this area as well. Specifically, I’m thinking of the sort of spergy beta who lacks the intuitive grasp of women’s full panoply of needs, and struggles to summon spontaneous romantic gestures that help cement relationship bonds. Then there is the beta who has tasted the sweet success of seducing women into bed, and overshoots, neglecting the value of the long-term soft sell.

Because, keep in mind, there are three weeks out of every month when women don’t ovulate and get horny for alpha male seed. That’s 75% of a woman’s reproductive life (~15 years) when beta males have a shot. Looked at that way, betas running beta provider game have a leg up on alphas running nothing but aloof and indifferent cad game.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but you get the idea. BRG is as legit a form of seduction as AAG.

Yes, women are secretly turned on by men who cheat on them or who intimate that they are cheating on them, but women also like thoughtful romantic gifts, gazing at starlight together, dinners out with other couples and shopping in tandem for scented candles. It is a woman’s greatest curse and an inexperienced man’s greatest aggravation that she should have these two opposing desires within her pulling her apart at the seams. The god of biomechanics is a mischievous prankster fuck.

So, in that spirit, here follows a few off-the-cuff guidelines to refine your BRG.

– Inexpensive gifts that signal you know something about a girlfriend are far better than expensive gifts that signal nothing but how much money you’re willing to spend on her.

– Spontaneous romance beats obligated romance every time.

– Chicks dig little notes. The littler and sweeter, the better. Hide them around the house in spots she’ll eventually find them for maximum effect.

– Be nice to her cat when she’s looking.

– Chivalry is OK if you’re doing it for a long-term GF, and it doesn’t cramp your style. Take the seat in the traffic lane in restaurants. Walk streetside when out with her.

– It’s OK to buy a girl a drink on a first or second date. It’s a small act of capitulation to the dominant social memeplex that saves you unnecessary headaches. NOTE: Do NOT buy a girl you JUST met a drink. Drinks should never be used to bribe a girl’s attention.

– Leaven your cocky pickup game with vulnerability game. An anecdote about some small, inconsequential weakness, optimally drawn from your childhood, will activate her “I’m feeling a deep connection with this guy” swoon reflex. Pay heed to the handicap principle. The best alphas can afford charming admissions of quasi-weakness. Contrast is king.

– Cold reading is a critical BRG tactic. Master it.

– Strong beta provider game that doesn’t require much monetary investment or undignified appeasement includes choosing her meal for her at a restaurant, getting her into the VIP line at clubs, tactically mentioning something innocuous you remember about her (“You should like this bar. It’s decorated in your favorite color.”), holding hands (your hand on top!), planning dates with real activities that are more than just excuses to get her inebriated and sexually defenseless, and remarking that she’s “winning you over” when she does something awkward or clumsy.

– All BRG rests on a foundation of alpha self-possession. There should never be even a hint of desperation or last-minute-strategizing in BRG. It should flow as smoothly and unpretentiously as AAG.

– Spend a lot of time with her. This is really the heart and soul of BRG. More time with her means less time potentially chasing other women.

Final thought: the amount of BRG you drop should be directly proportional to the interest you have in a girl as girlfriend material. If she’s a one night stand, you hardly need more than an hour or two sitting close to her on a sofa and practicing non-evaluative listening. If she’s a wifey prospect, you’d better get good at remembering her birthday and the time, temperature and cast of moonlight on the night when you first kissed.

Read Full Post »

How To Remain Unflustered By Female Beauty

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

The above is from the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Readers have asked, not unreasonably, “Hey, I get it, being unperturbed by a woman’s beauty is rock solid inner game, but how am I supposed to do that?”

Good question! Unfortunately, the best answer is one that won’t help you when you need the help most. Only the accumulation of repeated beddings of beautiful women is guaranteed to instill in a man unflappable poise when in their company. Sexual experience with beautiful women strips them of their mystery and tempers their power to transfix.

This is not to say you will lose the ability to appreciate female beauty; only that a pretty face won’t be able to stupefy you into bumbling betaness anymore.

Fine, now how do you assume the right emotional state when you don’t yet have a wealth of experience handling beauties? As mentioned in the quoted passage above, refraining from the knee-jerk beta male reflex to loudly, or silently, declare this or that women to be hot, smokin’ hot, or fuckin’ insanely hot, start thinking and speaking of women in more subdued, less penilely loaded, terms; e.g., interesting, unique, endearingly comical.

This simple change of perception will help you immensely. You should even go out of your way to chide your beta buddies whenever they start yawping about some or another chick’s hotness. “Dude, chill on the compliments. She’s ok, nothing more.”

There is another technique that I have put to good use in helping me overlook a woman’s beauty. Whenever I’m approaching or talking to a hot babe, I reproduce this image in my head:

I remind myself that every woman has a penis head, aka cervix, pointing outwardly in her vagina to greet my own penis upon arrival. This visualization of hot women as storehouses for bulbous penis heads, by reducing them to their component biological parts, renders their beauty less fantastical, even a little silly. Imagine that cervical penis waiting to meet, glans-a-glans, your penis head in a romantic French kiss. A sword fight in the arena of her vagina.

I assure you, that if you plant this image in your head, you’ll never again be stunned into catatonia by a hot chick.

Read Full Post »

Caring Vs Uncaring Assholery

A reader ponders:

First off I’d like to say you’re really doing the world a public service. I came across your blog by googling ” how to spot a slut,” (trying to figure out if my girlfriend at the time was…she met your criteria and she was a huge slut). Anyhow in one of your much earlier posts you point out that there are two types of assholes. The uncaring and caring. The latter coming from a place of hate and insulting women and not really forming any sort of attraction. That is where I am right now how would i make the shift into the uncaring asshole category?

Think about the most inconsiderate person you know. Then, act like him. That’s how you make the shift.

If you don’t know anyone like that, then you’ll have to make the shift by adjusting your inner game, which means forcing yourself by sheer strength of will to become less outcome-dependent. Uncaring assholes are truly the masters of outcome-independence. They hardly feel a twinge to their egos when any one girl falls through as a prospect. That attitude is catnip to women.

The reader is referring to this old post which dissected the difference between assholes that women love and assholes that women suspect are really spiteful betas in alpha clothing. Quoting:

There are genuine assholes who are loved, and there are spiteful assholes who get nowhere. The difference is crucial.

Uncaring asshole = success with women.

Caring asshole = failure with women.

When women say they don’t fall for assholes, they are thinking of the second kind. A caring asshole comes from a place of bitterness and spite. His assholery is reactive rather than proactive. He is poor at calibrating which women will be responsive to his dick attitude. Caring assholes are crassly insulting and transparently invested in the outcome of their game.

Uncaring assholes are assholes as a consequence of their indifference. It is the aloofness of the man she loves that drives women crazy with obsession*, and that aloofness is manifest as asshole behavior. An uncaring asshole demonstrates clearly in his body language and tone of voice, not to mention his dearth of words, that he could take her or leave her.

A good rule of thumb to detmerine if you are leaning more toward the caring side of assholery:

Do you feel emotionally invested in the reaction you’re trying to get from girls you want to have sex with? When you asshole it up, does your blood pressure rise? Does anger festoon your words? Do you imagine vengeance, hoping to land a solid metaphorical blow to a girl’s ego?

If so, you are trying too hard. Your caring asshole behavior, while better than acting like a sheepish beta if pickup is your goal, will more often than not turn a potential lay away.

I’m not saying there’s never a time for anger. There is. There is a time for red hot passion and white hot rage. But your operational mode should be one of… say it with me… AMUSED MASTERY. Cool-as-fuckness. Imperturbability.

Nor am I saying you should be inconsiderate all the time. If an LTR is your goal, you can’t expect to be inconsiderate with your girlfriend or wife and not eventually string her out so badly that she jettisons you to fill the emotional void in her needy, feminine soul. Many a movie plotline has centered on the ignored wife of a distant alpha husband and the emotionally available sneaky fucker who ingratiates himself to her for the damning tryst.

Within the context of an LTR, consideration should be seasoned with inconsiderate aloofness, like a sprinkle of pepper on a nourishing bowl of soup. That is the zen way of poon.

But when dating and seeking the hookup, (to lead possibly to deepening love), aloof and sometimes even callous disregard will intrigue far more hot and high value women than not. And this is especially true for women living in the salad days of their fertility.

You have to recite the following as part of a self-motivational technique for imbuing yourself with the right (i.e., sexy) attitude:

I must not obsess. Obsession is the mind-killer. Obsession is the little-death that brings total betaness. I will face my obsession. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when my obsession is gone I will turn and face its path, and only my alpha self will remain.

Once you can confidently proclaim that oneitis no longer stalks you like a leech on your masculinity, that there will never again be “that one girl” you must have, that no girl’s inconsequential caprice can rattle your self-possession, and that you have let go of your spite and your anxiety, will you have arrived in a place that permits the blooming of uncaring assholery. And the parting of labial petals.

Few men achieve this level of state control, and with good reason: it’s hard. Great beauty can disturb the stillest mind. But try you must. You’ll have to bear the torment of self-awareness to make your attempt count, but it beats the alternative of sleepwalking through life in ignorant betatude.

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 »

Equality Ruins Sex

Here’s a simple formula:

Economically empowered women + empathetic men = loss of female sex drive.

Who’da thunk it!

Well, apparently not feminists, because the latest slew of research is sure to give them a crusty old vagina hemorrhage.

Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.

And that gender equality, far from liberating women sexually, actually inhibits desire.

This is not news to anyone who reads this blog. This research supports a critical CH maxim:

Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both by the laws of human nature.

When women make as much or more money than men, when they have equally prestigious jobs and an army of assistants, they will find that the pool of sexually desirable men dries up, and the inevitably lowered status men who are available to them are perceived as veritably castrated. Male dating inequality results, where more and more men are deemed unworthy mate prospects while the few men who still wield high status over the majority of women find their prospects enlarged.

A choice quote by a classic lawyercunt from the above article:

Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.

‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.

But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex.

‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says.

‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’

Women are hardwired to prefer submission to a strong man, and the stronger the man, the more abject her surrender. See: Story of O. Women BEG for you to exert your power over them. A woman craves it like you crave stuffing her holes full of love.

Luckily for men in this epoch of economic contraction and anti-male bigotry, game will allow them to bypass the female algorithm to screen for high status men by giving women the SUBMISSION TO POWER that they so desperately need without men having to rely on any societally conventional status metrics. And women will love them for it.

For the haters and doubters who latch onto the whiny cry Fake! every time this rule of game is rubbed in their faces, ask yourself a simple question. Would Amy, the corporate lawyercunt in the story, feel

a. more turned on, or

b. just as turned off as before

if her lower rung lawyer lover started gaming her using the principles espoused on sites like this one?

Rhetorical. We all know the answer to that. She would love every last second of it, and her nag-to-blowjob ratio would quickly reverse.

Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.

Ironically, while feminism has opened the pussy floodgates for alpha males, enabling them to have their fill of noncommittal sex, the uptight little ideology has simultaneously ruined the libidos of women by, in turns, masculinizing women and emasculating men. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature and expect no blowback.

According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.

What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.

Maxim #2: All successful seductions are adversarial in nature.

Even female rats exhibit the same tendencies that human females do: the love of being chased, the anticipatory flirting, the insufferable but charming coyness, the anti-slut defensive posturing, the desire to submit to a dominant male, with ass perched high in the air, undulating in expectation.

When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.

‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.

‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”

‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’

I think we can declare, with this vaj-smash CH post, that on the date of 18-8-2011, feminism died. May the gruesome corpse shortly rot into spinsterly decrepitude and spare us all the spectacle of watching me do the Snoopy happy dance and gloating “I told you so!”

Read Full Post »