Five Minutes Of 18-Year-Old Snatch

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

The importance of the above maxim can’t be overstated. The way to a woman’s heart is through her id.

There’s a male analogue as well.

Maxim #102: For most men, five minutes of a younger, hotter woman beats five years of older, uglier women.

Younger women are, barring a few conspicuous exceptions, better looking, better smelling and better feeling than older women. Career goals not achieved to the contrary notwithstanding, younger women are alpha females. The man who has tasted the succulent flesh of an 18 year old cutie will never again look at, or feel toward, older women with the same excitement, urgency or romanticism. He has been corrupted. His memories, lucid, almost palpable, of intimacies with younger women, will dominate. Five minutes in bed with a young babe will linger longer in his cortical penis extension than five years with an assortment of older women.

James Hooker has doomed himself. But it’s a doom that most men would welcome with open arms, if they could. His relationship — loving, tender, sexual — with an 18 year old babe means, should he find himself single again, that few women his age will satisfy him the way his current younger lover does. An older woman Hooker’s age who wants to extract commitment from him, or even a simulacra of lovingkindness, is going to have her work cut out for her. A man’s memory of an 18-year-old is a more powerful competitor to her than the attentions of real live women her own age.

Men like Hooker, men who have experience bedding younger women, and whose libidos are rocket fueled by powerful memories of young woman love, if they are single, go blankly into that dating field of cougars and cynical spinsters, depressed over the substandard offerings, forever seeking to recapture the intensely pleasurable magic of their time with their lithe lolitas. Their sheer disgust at the socially approved alternatives, and their unbreakable confidence at having inspired the love of much younger women, will help propel them back into the arms of charming coeds. They are men on a mission, and they won’t be stopped, not even by marriage.

Men like this live by one rule: if the cunnilingus feels like a chore, she’s too old.

As a one night stand with an alpha male can skew a woman’s expectations for life, so can a fling with an 18-year-old hottie skew a man’s expectations for life. But there is a critical difference in the sexes regarding expectation levels. It requires little effort for an average-looking woman to spread her legs and permit an alpha male to dump a fuck in her; for men are, on the whole, the less discriminating sex, and will rarely pass up easy lays with normal-sized women when they are offered. A woman’s ego, inflated from birth, will mistakenly regard the alpha’s fly-by-night attentions as validation of her relationship worthiness to men of his caliber. She will, in time, learn a bitter lesson.

In contrast, it requires yeoman effort, whether through the accumulation of wealth and status or through charm and dominance, for an average-looking older man to persuade an 18-year-old babe to relinquish her sex to him. This effort and resulting success is evidence that he has what it takes to consistently attract younger women and have relationships with them. When in the company of younger women, his mate value is self-evident. Thus, such a man’s expectations are more in line with reality than are the slutty woman’s expectations whose value is rightly measured not by how much cock she can hoover, but by how many high value men she can convince to stick around and fall in love with her.

Nevertheless, a continent full of average-looking, non-obese women riding the alpha cock carousel for stretches of their lives, and older men openly ignoring women their age to pursue their desire for the company of younger women, means an end to mutually nourishing beta male-slender female relationships and societally stabler older male-older female pairings. This is probably not going to turn out well for a monogamy-based modern civilization like ours, but it seems the rule that civilizations in the final spasms of decay revert to more primal norms of self-actualizing sexual and romantic fulfillment.

As always, I’ll be poolside.

Corollary to Maxim #102: A beautiful, slender older woman will be a better lay than a plain, fatter younger woman.

This corollary has more relevance today than it would have in the past, because enormous numbers of what would normally be very fuckable young babes have put themselves out of contention by getting fat and gross. Thanks to the Western obesity epidemic, there is a glimmer of hope for the yoga-toned 35-year-old who retains the feminine charms of her younger self. Chin up, ladies, and keep praying that your younger rivals gorge themselves on artisanal cupcakes and 150gram sugar-infused coffee drinks!

Read Full Post »

Alpha Male Of The Month

Before you read this post, I want you to remember something written here many times. The alpha male is not necessarily the admirable man. The alpha male is the guy who does really well with young, hot (read: high quality) women, because women love everything about him. You may not like the character of such men, but a lot of women sure do. So redirect your blame where it rightfully belongs, if blame you must.

That said, and without further ado, behold the winner of the Alpha Male of the Month award.

For the lovelorn nerds in the audience, that’s what adoration looks like. And, for that matter, that’s what cocky confidence looks like. The two tend to go hand in hand in matters of the smitten heart.

The details behind this loving photo aren’t exactly the stuff of after school specials (or maybe they are now?).

Last year, Jordan Powers was just another student from Mr. Hooker’s class. Now she’s his live-in girlfriend.

James Hooker — the 41-year-old married father who left his wife and kids for his 18-year-old-student — might be the worst teacher ever. Last week, he resigned from his job at Enochs High School in Modesto, California over the scandal that’s shaken up a community and pit one mom on a crusade to save her daughter from a man she calls a “master manipulator.”

Jordan met her teacher as a freshman, but both maintain nothing physical happened until she turned 18 this past September. Hooker claims he saw Powers as “just a student” and had no romantic feelings toward her at first, but when her most recent birthday came around, things changed.

They changed so much, in fact, that Hooker, left his wife and three kids (one of them a 17-year-old Enochs high school student as well) so that he could move in with Jordan.

It doesn’t get much more ALPHA than winning the utter devotion of a hot babe half your age. For those wondering, I consider leaving your loyal wife and kids to live with a younger, hotter woman to be legitimate grounds for the wife to initiate divorce proceedings and extract some type of payment for damage inflicted. Shocking that you hear a man like me say this? Well, what this guy did was break a deal. Broken deals usually come with consequences. This is why I counsel men to avoid modern marriage altogether: it’s a RAW FUCKING DEAL for men because it requires most of the sacrifice to come from the man’s end of the bargain. A man has to turn his back on much more of his natural sexual predilection in the decision to commit to marriage than does a woman. Why do you think women are so eager to rush into the nuptial shackles bond?

The more interesting angle to this story is how it operates at the level of what I call a reverse Rorschach test. Given an unmistakable picture of an in-shape, confident man with a much younger, sexually developed woman obviously in love with him, we get to examine in technicolor glory the psyches of people, particularly older women, whose instinct is to recoil at the sight. We get to see, essentially, an enraged, fearful mind create an inky blotch out of a clear picture.

Lets follow the cunty brick road down the article author’s mindmap for an illuminating glimpse at her terrorized id thrashing violently against the bars of its cage. Note: Author is an older woman. As are the other women, besides Jordan, quoted in the article.

If this all sounds suspicious to you…

Jordan, a quiet, fragile-seeming young woman, who looks closer to 15 than 18 years in age…

gazed up at her former teacher, a man that looks every bit his 41 years…

Desperate for her child, Tammie has turned her own Facebook page into a “most wanted” profile for Hooker…

Since the story has been picked up by national press, she’s been flooded with messages of support from strangers….

“Nancy’s always been a victims advocate and fights for justice,” Tammie wrote on Facebook. “That’s the goal here, justice.”

Sounds suspicious, older man must be up to no good, possibly firing mind rays into girl? Check.

Helpless, fragile 18-year-old woman who could be mistaken, if you stare hard enough through a gauzy filter, for a prepubescent girl with no boobs, hips or ass? Check.

Man therefore a creepy pedophile? Check.

41-year-old man looks his age so why isn’t he dating women like me? Check.

Mother desperate for her legally adult “child”? Check.

Insinuation that man should be on a Most Wanted List? Check.

Armies of women circling the wagons around mother, shaming man into ostracizing himself? Check.

Older man in a loving relationship (and, yes, you bet it’s loving) with younger woman now a matter of “justice” and “victims”? Check.

Oh, my sides! These are the pretty lies older women tell themselves to calm the fear and terror inspired by their sexual obsolescence. It’s so obvious to anyone with the eyes to see: the craving for a world that is aligned with older women’s fragile, helpless egos, a craving so powerful that rivers of deceit, distortion and defamation spill from their lips and pens in an effort to obscure the dread, dark reality. And that reality is this–

Every older husband — every fucking one of them — is turned on by the sight of hot women half his wife’s age. He imagines scenarios… transactions… with these younger babes, thrillingly vivid and the stuff of older wives’ nightmares, and no amount of religious upbringing, tortured self-abnegation, hypocrisy or womanly shaming will cleanse his mind of these delicious thoughts.

Most men don’t act on these thoughts, because most men don’t have the option to act on them. But some do. If they are smart, they mouth feminist platitudes to distract the loser brigade while nailing the ass of some fine buxom coed. Just ask Hugo Schwyzer.

Update

I find it funny that the mother of the young woman is attempting to smear the guy by pointing to texts he sent her just before she turned 18. That kind of charade puts the lie to the intentions behind age of consent laws. It’s ridiculous to insinuate, as this mom is doing, that her little girl was a radically different woman incapable of making decisions for herself just a few months before she turned 18. The mother is appealing to a legalistic, arbitrary age demarcation — in this case communication that occurred only a few months on the “wrong” side of the law — as proof that Hooker is a pedophile in all but the clinical definition. I understand the mother’s fury, but her actions do nothing but discredit the real impetus behind AOC laws: to protect sexually undeveloped children from the predations of real pedophiles.

Relatedly, almost every scientific study I’ve seen has concluded that girls mature earlier than boys on a whole host of emotional and physical metrics. An 18 year old woman is more capable of choosing to be the lover of a 41 year old man than an 18 year old man is capable of choosing to go to war.

Apparently, the mother is a single mom. The girl grew up with no father. Well… wadaya expect? The odds that the daughters and sons of single moms grow up to be sluts and delinquents respectively are higher than they would be had they grown up in two-parent homes. The usual caveats about causality implied, I think most everyone, including the experts, agree that a mom+dad is better for kids than a mom alone. In that spirit, a vigorous public shaming of single moms is good for the children. So…

you suck, single moms! Way to be bad mothers! 😆

Read Full Post »

What Do Women Want? A Master

A reader asked if there were any books I could recommend that explored the psychology of women. I suggested “Story of O” and “9 1/2 Weeks”. (The latter was originally a book which is much better than the movie version.)

There is a maxim among the pick-up community that if you want to know what women want it’s better to watch what they do than listen to what they say. Very true. However, if you are going to listen to what a woman says for clues about her innermost desires, or read what she writes, you would do well to pay attention to what a woman says TURNS HER ON. Not what she says she wants in a hypothetical husband or boyfriend but what she specifically describes that got her horny and hungry for loving penetration. Any editorial commentary about the ideal man can be safely ignored.

The two books above, both written by women and featuring very beautiful female protagonists, are wide-open windows to the id of women’s sexual natures. What we find there is shocking to most, dispiriting to some, and unsurprising to a few. Women reading these books will, despite themselves, become uncomfortably aroused. Men will discover ancient stirrings within themselves they may have thought civilization and a PC academic indoctrination stamped out.

The beatings and brandings the women in the books suffer, provoke, and then eagerly anticipate in turn are distractions from the main message, which is that the self-confidence and exquisitely suffocating domination of the male characters caused the women to fall so helplessly in love with them that the men could do anything, make any demand, and the women would happily go along just to keep their love. Some men can handle this awesome power, some can’t. The man in 9 1/2 Weeks was consumed by his power as much as his lover, and it got the better of him.

These books, taken together with the real world observations of men who actually live lives like those of the men in the books, tell us what women want.

They want a man who takes charge.

A master.

Adopt the attitude of the master, and women will revert to their naturally submissive essence faster and more profoundly than you can scarcely imagine, and no amount of feminist propaganda, insulating credentials, or careerist ladder climbing will stand in the way of their joyous, even relieving, surrender to your intoxicating dominance and confidence.

Read Full Post »

Long-Term Cohabitation Is Just As Good As Marriage

Many conservative, religious, anti-game and traditionalist types like to claim that this blog underplays the advantages offered to men by marriage. They redundantly quote studies purporting to show that married men live longer, healthier lives than single men. We here at Le Chateau have balked at such assertions, helpfully reminding our traditionalist, neoBiblical brethren that the same benefits found in marriage can be had living in long-term, loving relationships.

The reasoning is simple: the pro-marriage studies are conflating the benefit of living with someone under marital contract with freely living with someone who loves you. Sex, love and affectionate companionship don’t feel any more fulfilling when a piece of paper is signed. If you really think about it, it makes no sense that a man’s health would improve and his lifespan increase because he signed on the marital dotted line. Something else is at work here, and that something else is long-term shared love, with or without the imprimatur of a marriage license.

Of course, haters miss the nuance and continue their rampage against the dissolute lifestyle of the “player”, which they mistakenly believe this blog advocates. (In point of fact, this blog advocates learning game and the way of the alpha so that men have the freedom and the options to pursue whichever type of relationship with women they want, whether that be marriage and its attendant risks or frisky one night stands and their attendant, albeit lesser, risks.) “PUAs are wrong! Marriage is good for men!” they wail, refusing to even tackle the debate points to the contrary that crop up on this blog.

The Chateau warned the trads and supposed “realist” thinkers (this post at Audacious Epigone is a good example of the kind of statistical legerdemain I’m talking about) that the studies claiming health, sexual and psychological benefits accruing to men from marriage were comparing the wrong variables. The comparison should not be between married men and single men, but between married men and ALPHA men in unmarried relationships. Single, quasi-celibate betas and omegas bring down the averages for single men as a whole, and make married men look fucking great in comparison.

The claims about marriage benefits disappear once you alter the variables to reflect a fairer comparison:

1. Unmarried men in long-term relationships receive just as many health and happiness benefits as married men. The crucial variable is not the marriage certificate; it’s the love.

2. Unmarried, cohabiting men enjoy the pleasure of thinner lovers than the fat wives enjoyed by married men. Strike one against the notion that men enjoy better sex within the confines of marriage, even if they are getting more of it than single betas. All indicators are that, once married and backed by the long arm of the law, women pretty much let themselves go to pot.

3. Unmarried players are just as desired by women for marriage as beta providers, (but unmarried players just don’t tend to commit to women as readily.) So marriage tells us little about the quality, or alphaness, of the men who willingly take up the shackles.

4. There is no evidence I’m aware of that married men have more frequent sex with their indentured sperm receptacles aka wives than unmarried men *in relationships* have with their girlfriends. That’s the key distinction. My bet, if such data could be extracted, is that unmarried men with girlfriends, and particularly those who cohabit, have more sex than married men. I throw the challenge out to the GSS nerds to unleash the data.

5. Finally, why do pro-marriage anti-gamers always assume that maximizing sex frequency is the desired goal for men? Quality matters. One hundred sex sessions with a seacow will be less satisfying for most men than one session with a knockout. Go ahead, ask any man about his fondest sex memories. That one night with the bombshell will immediately leap to the front of his mind, crowding out the three years of sex with his dumpy wife. Not to mention, many men will gladly trade lots of one pussy for less of many pussies. Variety is the spice of life.

But wait, stop the presses! Look what we have here. Yet ANOTHER study confirming the Heartiste worldview.

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period. […]

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time. […]

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth” said Musick.

I think we can at last put to rest the myth that marriage is some kind of uniquely beneficial arrangement for men.* As this blog has been saying for years, you can get all the benefits of marriage in a loving long-term, unmarried relationship, including cohabitation, without the unbelievably shitty risks.** And now science proves it. Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.

*Note: Claiming that a particular romantic arrangement is good for individual men is not the same as claiming it is good for society. While cohabitation offers many advantages to single men, it is probably better for a heterogeneous collective and its mutant posterity that society organize itself around the institution of marriage and the two-parent family. That means making marriage more enticing, not less, for the typical shoe-gazing beta stuck in diversityland.

**As more men come to understand the tangible and intangible benefits that cohabitation offers, and embrace the lifestyle, expect to see hordes of feminists and pilgrim johns try to regulate it so that it begins to resemble in burden the same crumbling wreck of marriage that men are abandoning in droves. There’s no way those interests are gonna let a cash cow in the form of transfer payments from men to women just disintegrate overnight. And make no mistake, or be deluded by the sloppy romanticism with which beta males imbue the institution: marriage is a sacrifice for men, and a gain for women. There are no two ways about it. Men have to surrender fealty to their primary directive to spread their seed in exchange for second-rate benefits that can be had just as easily within unmarried LTRs, while women get sustained material and emotional provisioning that more closely aligns with their innate monogamous proclivity. All the sacrifice from legalized commitment, in other words, is born by the man. Cohabitation is an escape clause that no feminist or tradcon, if they give it some thought, can allow to persist unimpeded.

Read Full Post »

Sexy Quotes & Lurid Links

Scandalized reader “halisi” unintentionally offers a great example of a feminist ashamed of what feminism is really about.

1) Feminsim is NOT anti-beauty/pro-frump! There are plenty of feminists who like to wear designer clothes, wear makeup, and/or take the time each day to make themselves look beautiful. Jessica Valenti said it best (and I’m paraphrasing here): “I like to wear makeup. I just realize that I’m only wearing it because society tells me I’ll look ugly without it.” Feminism is about finding the beauty within yourself, makeup or no.

2) Feminists aren’t anti-men/family, either. There are tons of feminists who are married with children. Tons. And not all feminists are pro-abortion, either; that’s actually one of the most contested issues in the feminist community.

3) And feminists are most definitely not against women/girls playing sports! If anything, that’s anti-feminism.

1) If feminism is not anti-beauty, why do so many self-declared feminists look like coal miners?

1a) Valenti’s “I just realize that I’m only wearing [makeup] because society tells me I’ll look ugly without it” is the dog-eared “deus ex societas” card that feminists always pull when they have run out of credible explanations for female behavior and are forced to confront the reality of innate sex differences. To demonstrate the bankruptcy of that card, try to imagine a man saying “I just realize that I’m only trying to get girls into bed because society tells me I’ll be depressed if I stay celibate.” Ridiculous on its face, yet that is exactly the level of intellectual feminist thought.

2) Marriage and kids are no amnesty from man-hating. Some of the worst ideological feminists are lantern-jawed fuzzfaced quasi-dykes married to mincing beta schlubs who confirm feminist prejudices by their mere existence, not to mention by their sycophantic suckuppery.

2a) I’m sure there is a lone feminist or two somewhere out there in the hinterland who is pro-man and anti-abortion, but she has little say in the national conversation. Feminism’s leaders and spokeshos are, almost to a bitch, man-hating termagants who loathe male desire and cheer on third trimester vacuumings. So, please, spare me your empty-headed NAFALT argument.

3) Who said feminists are anti-sport? I’m pretty sure the field hockey team in my high school was 90% incipient dyke. Of course femcunts love the idea of sports; it’s another way for them to undermine traditionally male domains. Title IX is exhibit A in how a feminist policy to force equality of the sexes inevitably tilts the playing field against boys. Schools only have so much money to spend, so boys, who by nature prefer participation in the sports battlefield in greater numbers, on average, than girls, have seen their sports programs cut to accommodate the inclusion of women’s sports programs.

No, feminism is, right down to its withered, cunty heart, a grotesque ideology mounted on a dais of lies. My goal is to mock it so ruthlessly that its practitioners and sympathizers, all of them, find it ever more difficult to pronounce in public life that they are feminists, to drive the true believers so far underground that only their raspy-throated, dusty-muffed sisters-in-arms are willing to entertain their insipid nostrums. This is total war, and in total war where the weapons are words, the goal is utter destruction through social ostracism. The icy wasteland of discredited ideologues and crackpots mumbling self-medicating catchphrases and hitting themselves in the forehead is feminism’s inevitable destination.

***

Gramps has some insight into the nature of decision-making.

As an old guy, I can say that almost every decision I made, regarding important life choices, which were comfortable and low risk, I came to regret. Those decisions I made which were stressful, and which I made under duress (choosing between several stressful alternatives) I found yielded the greatest rewards.

I can see two forces at work here. Perhaps, because we imbue stressful decisions with greater importance, we come to value the consequences from such decisions, regardless of benefit, as more rewarding. Or, this is an example of hormesis: a version of “that which does not kill us makes us stronger”. Decisions made under stress strengthen our resolve to see them through, and the more we have invested in a decision, the greater the likelihood we will value the fruits of our labor, even if those fruits aren’t very good for us.

***

Sea7 writes in response to women wearing pajamas to the classroom:

That is nasty. Contaminating the classroom with all their previous night’s clitty litter as it sloughs off the twat and sprinkles out the PJ leg hole.

Alpha pillow talk.

***

Related: How to pick up chicks who are wearing pajamas.

There are so many possible situations here, and I am so drunk, that covering them all is beyond the scope of this post.

However, in a “common dressing” scenario (of, say, lots of PJs), the neg, social, and value scoring possibilities become PUA friendly for ambitious Betas looking to move up a notch.

To wit:

PJs have flaps. Or not. The point being, ASK about them, in a teasing neg, if possible. This can lead as deep into the coal mine as you are willing to go.

PJs look good. Or not. The point being, CONTRAST them unfavorably from your target against another chick. The more public and subtle you pull this off, the better.

PJs make a statement. Or not. The point being, acknowledge (and, of course, neg) the “innocence” and “exploratory” subtext of the PJ beaver whilst working a touchy-feely move towards relief and satisfaction.

PJs rarely have shoes, and beavers CRAVE shoes. The possibilities here are potent – use them.

How I’d open a PJ-wearing girl: “Too good for Snuggies, eh?”

***

A shadowsage calling himself Porter leaves an especially illuminating comment over at Mangan’s. People in the rotting majority who think diversity is really about equality, and thus that their looming minority status will open access to all sorts of multicult racket goodies and exonerations currently only available to designated pawns victim groups, are in for a rude awakening. It is not human nature to grant one’s historical scapegoats mercy when they have been enfeebled and dragged down to one’s level, particularly when one has been invigorated by nursed grievances and desouled of the nobler virtues; just the opposite: it is human nature to pile on, to execute the finishing move until the last sworn enemy is dangling from the gallows in the public square. There is no mélangutopia awaiting us over the horizon; only hands at throats across America.

***

So single motherhood and the decline in male industriousness our author describes cannot be spirited away simply by getting men and women to the altar. ‘Outrageous’ though it may seem to a generation steeped in feminist propaganda, the natural economic basis of marriage must also be restored. White men are programmed by evolution to be providers. If you deliberately rearrange society to render this function superfluous, do you have any right to complain when men stop knocking themselves out to perform it?

F. Roger Devlin, a man who abides Chateau principles, wrote the above criticism in his review of Charles Murray’s forthcoming book “Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010”. He rightly raps Murray’s mangina tendency to excuse female mating predilection while happily clobbering men over the head with the “man up” billy club, in what is otherwise sure to be a good book. Murray tackles social issues, race and class very well, but he seems to shy from taking on feminism and its bastard children.

My opinion of cultural trends now underway?: Thanks to technology, diversity and cognitive stratification, America is entering the period of The Great Culling, a process which will create not only new classes, but even new races, broadly a snarky Eloi and a medicated Morlock, and slowly, as the government cheese runs out, the losers in this culling will begin to procreate less and less, until they are discarded by the invisible crotch of evolution as failed human experiments unable to adapt to the new reality. (Note that some of the losers include childless spinsters of the high IQ elite.) The wildcard is genetic engineering, something nerds love to trumpet to assuage their feelings of hopelessness, but I doubt it will emerge in time to make a difference.

Anyhow, may 2012 be filled with postponements of the coming dystopia!

Read Full Post »

Tokens Of Appreciation

Imagine this blog is a church, and the priest is passing out the hustle hat. It arrives at your pew, and your pewmates are tossing bennies into the basket. You pause when it gets to you. But then you remember all the HOLY RIGHTEOUS WOMAN KNOWLEDGE the God of the Gaming Guide Maxims has dropped in your skull lap, the real world benefits you have accrued from reading at this outpost of dangerous thought… and lo and behold your alligator arms grow THREE SIZES today, and you reach out to offer a generous token of appreciation.

You feel better. You feel good. And why wouldn’t you? You did something that will help the world more than a thousand New York Beta Times editorials.

More soberly, the blog is about to incur some expenses. Plans are afoot to move to an offshore host and begin major upgrades. A storefront is in the blueprint stage. Equipment for field reports costs dough. Donations aren’t needed, but they help, and, if candor is appropriate, they are welcome feedback. Not to mention motivation to build the Chateau into a truly magnificent bastion of irrepressible truth and testicle-girding fortification.

Donate here.

If the link above isn’t working, use the donation button located at the upper right corner, under the banner heading.

Anonymity is assured.

Enough of that. It is a new year. What would you like to see more of at Le Chateau Heartiste in 2012? Operators are standing by.

Read Full Post »

Newsflash! Sexually Obsolete Jilted Wife Reconsiders Divorcing Unfaithful Alpha Male Husband

This is what happens when a woman who has passed into sexual worthlessness has to contemplate the stark reality of divorce from a cheating alpha male husband who fathered a child with his mistress, but who still tingles his wife’s tangle.

Is Maria Shriver having second thoughts about divorcing Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That’s what we heard.

Tipsters cite the Kennedy princess’ strong Catholic faith as one of the main reasons she might be reconsidering tossing the husband who cheated on her.

The religion excuse is squid ink. Maria has lost her looks and is facing the merciless indifference of the zero sum, free-for-all dating market as an aged divorcée. She knows, on some deep primitive level, that as a newly single woman she could very well wind up living out her years unloved by any man. Or at the least unloved by any man even close to Arnold’s level of alphaness.

A woman in this position, and swirling with these feelings, can forgive a lot. I mean, A LOT.

Arnold, for his part, is reported to be treating her nicely. What’s that sound… cha ching.

It’s almost as if there is a powerful sexual market guiding people’s decisions. Weird.

Read Full Post »