Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Marriage Is For Chumps’ Category

Did you buy your girl a big rock to ritualize your love for each other? Odds are, she’s daydreaming about fucking BIGDICKENERGYMAGACHAD down the office hall. From the world’s most authoritative journalism source, diamond rings as beta male screenings:

Women expect a pricey engagement ring if their partner is UGLY to compensate for their poor looks

Researchers showed 590 people a photo of an attractive or unattractive person

They were asked what it would take to get engaged to the person in the photo

Men said they would buy a more expensive ring if the ‘girlfriend’ was attractive

Women expected a pricier rock if the ‘boyfriend’ in the photo was unattractive

Ah, complementarity. Diamonds are a girl’s best recompense.

Alpha fux/beta bux field tested and found operative. da GBFM lollzzloled.

The good news for ugly men is that they can buy themselves a hotwife, which once again proves that men can compensate for their looks while women have no such option. An ugly chick can’t do anything to convince an hsmv man to commit to her.

The study also found that women who rated themselves as attractive were more likely to go for larger, more expensive rings, regardless of their partner’s looks.

‘The finding is consistent with the notion that desirable women expect greater resource investment from their mates,’ said study lead author Madalyn Taylor.

Game can save men a lot of money. What’s it worth to you to be able to seduce and sequester hot babes on the cheap?

But there’s a dark side to appeasing a woman’s self-entitled instinct to indulge herself of a man’s earned wealth:

A previous study by economists at Emory University in 2014 found that the more expensive the engagement ring, the more likely the couple would get divorced later.

Once you establish a dynamic of giving a woman everything she wants, she has no reason to work for your love and the challenge of pleasing you goes missing, leaving her adrift in anhedonic limbo, waiting for the first excuse to step out.

A reader writes,

Damn, I must be better looking than I thought.  My wife to be only wanted a simple quarter caret ring.  I offered more, but that’s what she wanted.

How do you know when you have your girl on lock? She agrees to stay on as your kept concubine for the low low price of your intoxicating cock.

Read Full Post »

70% of divorces are initiated by women. Now a Pedestalman might say that’s because more than ever men are horrible, but a Pedestalman would say the same if 70% of divorces were initiated by men.

Kids, don’t do pussy pedestals.

The truth about the Divorce Industrial Complex is exactly as I have described it here on this blog: INCENTIVES MATTER. And American women respond to the personally advantageous incentives of the divorce market which massively redistributes money and children away from ex-husbands to ex-wives at no cost or stipulation to the women.

Proof? It’s as plain as the mangina in your midst who never took a risk with the opposite sex in his life. But if you prefer STATS AND DATA, here you go:

Rise of women backing out of divorces as court settlements shrink

Women are backing out of divorce cases because settlements are becoming less generous, experts have said.

Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.

This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.

Yo yo yo….ayo hol up….so what you’re sayin is….

WIVES DON’T FRIVORCE WHEN THE GRAVY TRAIN IS SHUT OFF

How about that! Women ARE rational creatures! This is an astounding discovery to the world of white knights who had been laboring under the belief that women bear no moral culpability for social ills, nor exercise any self-serving sex-based calculus which might fray the social fabric.

I’m happy to see that at least in some White redoubts the direction of reform is heading away from incentivizing EatPraySlut frivorce rape and toward equitable treatment rooted in a wise understanding of the inherent, innate, and intractable biosocial differences between men and women.

Read Full Post »

Poor guy. He shoulda bailed with one of the bridesmaids.

Fame Game is all-powerful, so don’t expect many women to be able to resist smiling ear to ear when in the presence of a famous man. What you should worry about is when your wife can’t summon the same smile on her wedding day that she did standing next to Rob Lowe for 30 seconds (that we know of).

Game can’t stop a woman from auto-splooging around famous men, but it can sufficiently turn on her heart light so that she doesn’t look like she’s being forced into an arranged marriage with John Scalzi during the wedding day photo shoot. You want your girl smiling as broadly with you, in grateful acknowledgement of the sacrifice you’re making to be with her alone and to foreswear all other poon, as she would be smiling when posing for an Instawhore pic with 55 year old Rob Lowe. Or: If your girl acts like your groupie, you’re doing it right.

(This brings to mind a good rule for any kind of relationship: I call it the Smile Disparity Rule. If your girl smiles less than you in photos, you need a relationship course correction. If you both smile equally, have fun but don’t get complacent. If she smiles more than you do, she’s your love slave. Be discreet about your mistresses but don’t fret if your main dame discovers one of them. She’ll cry about it for a few minutes then concede she can’t stop loving you.)

More than anything, the photo comparison above exposes female hypergamy in its full flower. Ecstasy is her reaction when an alpha male so much as grazes her shoulder or asks for the time; barely concealed disappointment is her reaction when she knows she’s settling for ol’ dependable beta male who will provide her a lifetime of comfort and adoration. Not every woman will act on her hypergamy, but every woman will feel its tremors deep in the pit of her womb.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reorient society so that informal regulations on the ability of women to satisfy their hypergamous urges are established for the benefit of civilization. Good luck!

At the very least, don’t be a self-deprecating cuck and act like there’s something funny or endearing about your woman swooning for another man while she looks at you like you’re ball-less ballast. If your wedding pic resembles the one above, prepare now for the inevitable divorce industrial complex ass ramming, and start sexting Schneiderman’s brown slave exes. Their nights are free now (praise be upon Trump and his long memory).

Read Full Post »

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).

***

Update

I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Johnny Redux nails the answer to this post’s title with an ugly truth few men, let alone women, would be willing to confront head on, obliquely, or deniably:

A sexless marriage, in many (if not most) cases, is the result of a man marrying a woman his own age, and after time losing all sexual interest in her as she quickly morphs into an old woman before his eyes, much quicker than he is aging.

Men are maximally attracted to young women.

Men age more slowly than do women. (At least going by outward appearance.)

Men’s sexual worth climbs through their 30s and 40s while women’s sexual worth declines through their 30s and 40s.

Put the three preconditions together, and marriage between “age appropriate” men and women is a recipe for sexlessness, followed by lovelessness, and then finally divorce.

Which is why I advise men, if you’re gonna do something stupid like get married, make sure the deal is as sweet as it can be for you by choosing a younger woman to be your monogamously avowed last fuck. You’ll come to appreciate her extended shelf life when your married buddies are staring down the barrel of a dumpy hausfrau and dreaming of escape. You don’t want to wife up a woman on the wrong side of supple.

PS This post explains the true cause of “mid-life crisis”. The crisis is the rapidly diverging SMV values of the husband and wife. And the cure is trading up, fapping off, or dropping out.

Read Full Post »

Read this depressing but illuminating account by JudgyBitch recalling her wicked mother alienating her and her siblings from their father, and how it affected the children. At the end, a redemption and the victory of truth will lift your spirits, because this is one sad tale that is repeated all too many times in post-America.

There are two pills to swallow from this story. A Red Pill on the divorce industrial complex and how it effectively shields bad mothers and wives from punishment while shafting fathers and husbands with extreme prejudice, and a Crimson Pill on the primal sexual nature of even good-hearted, well-meaning women.

First, you take the Red Pill:

[My father] met my mother when she was just nineteen years old and he was considerably older.  He never told her about his family back in Germany, and they married and had four children by the time my mother was 25 years old. My three brothers, and me.

And they were fucking horrible parents.  There is no nice way to spin it.  They embraced a religion that encouraged extreme violence against children.  Their philosophy was that a child’s will must be completely broken so that the child will then accept the will of God.  My mother was ecstatically violent, and my father less so, but they were both culpable. Their particular brand of religious violence continues in America to this day.

[…]

And then….my mother discovered feminism. She exchanged one violent, irrational, dehumanizing ideology for another, and she soon decided that she needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. After countless physically violent arguments with my father, including one episode where she hit him in the head with a cast iron frying pan and left him for dead on the front porch, he turned his back and walked away from us, just like his first family.

One day we woke up and he was gone. My mother was quick to inform us that he simply walked away, and left us to starve in the streets, and that she alone would be the sole reason we survived and prospered. She never missed an opportunity to curse him.  She told us about his first family, and how she did not need to divorce him, because they were never married in the first place.  She hated him and hated all men and our daily lives were filled with her anger and vitriol and violence.  She never gave a moment’s thought to what her hatred of men and our father was doing to her sons. She gave us daily rations of rage and blame and every bad thing that happened was always his fault.

Being a child, I believed it.  So did my brothers.

And we loathed him for it.  How could he leave us with such an evil woman? My mother once held a knife to my throat and made me beg for my life.  When I was eleven. And I remember going to bed, thinking not how much I hated her, but how much I hated HIM for leaving us to her devices.

Turning children against fathers has been a female specialty since forever, but only the post-industrial man-hating femcunt dystopia we know as the progressive West institutionalized and weaponized this malevolent female predilection, by removing moral culpability from women and adding a presumption of guilt to men.

The Red Pill payoff (you knew this was coming):

And then I received a phone call.  It was my father, calling to tell me that my mother’s mother had passed away, and that I should let her know.  So much of the pain had seeped away that I felt confident confronting my father, and I asked him why he had done it.

Why did you just turn your back and walk away?

And then the truth came to light.  He hadn’t walked away.  He certainly had not left us to starve.  My mother had filed for an annulment and requested a restraining order, which she was granted. When I finally saw my father again, he had two boxes with him.  One was filled with income tax returns showing that he had never missed a child support payment, and court orders preventing him from seeing us based on his violence towards my mother, along with supervised visitations that were all scheduled for when he was overseas, working to meet his child support payments.

The other box contained cards and letters.  Birthday cards and so many letters.  All returned.  By my mother.  He never stopped sending them, hoping one of us would one day get the key and fetch the mail, but my mother was always adamant that the mail was her business.

As an adult, it makes so much sense.  How did we continue to live in our house?  How was my mother able to afford food and clothing and YMCA memberships for four children without my father’s support? Of course she had his support.  But she hid it from us, and poisoned our minds against our father.  It’s called parental alienation, and she is not the first, nor the last woman to destroy her children in this way.

It’s a special kind of evil.

In the end, she meets her father, he asks her forgiveness for the way he raised her before her mother excised him from his kids’ lives, she forgives him and welcomes him into her family, he gratefully becomes a much better grandfather to her kids than he was a father to her. As for the awful mother, JudgyBitch did to her what mom did to her dad: removed her from her life.

Nestled in the middle of this story is a Crimson Pill so big it’s a choking hazard.

Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly.  I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father.  Quite the opposite.  I didn’t seek out pain in an effort to work through what I had suffered.  I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy.  He was the gentlest man I have ever known.  And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.

He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to acquiesce to what I wanted, even though I never wanted anything bad.  I could trust him to treat me with the utmost kindness and care, but I could not lean on him.  That was impossible. I declined his proposal and moved on.

Appeasing, supplicating niceguys turn off women, because women perceive their niceness for weakness. And sometimes, the women are right. Very nice men who give women what they say they want, and who dutifully parrot feminist boilerplate and share the household chores under the false assumption that equality out of the bedroom is carnality in the bedroom, sow distrust in women.

Women trust the jerk because they know the jerk won’t tell them whatever he thinks will win their approval. And THAT’S how the jerk, ironically, wins their approval. By not trying for it.

A big reason women are attracted to jerkboys is the aversion jerkboys have for acquiescing to anyone’s demands, let alone women’s demands. That delightfully novel and romantically exhilarating jerkboy self-regard leaves a potent impression on women, who see refracted in the trait a forthrightness and strength of character and purpose that is lacking in niceguys.

Recall the CH Poon Commandments: You are the oak tree, immoveable and solid, under which she frolics and runs to when the rains come. She senses this strength in jerkboys because she can trust them not to bend to her whim, unlike niceguys who do nothing but bend and bend until they’re licking girls’ boots. And no tingle ever gushered for a polite lackey.

***

safespaceplaypen comments,

Thesis:

Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly. I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father. Quite the opposite…

Antithesis:

I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy. He was the gentlest man I have ever known. And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.

Synthesis:

He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit logic bullshit logic bullshit I declined his proposal and moved on.

Heh. The Tingle is Synthesis. And Syllojizzm.

Read Full Post »

A heartwarming story for the holidays.

Tales of woe and perfidy like this one abound. The sexual and marital markets are two way streets. It takes two to tango. If our culture and society degrade or flourish, it will be because men AND women contributed in their particular ways.

Ignore this lesson to polish the pussy pedestal, and you are complicit in whatever social dissolution follows.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: