Marriage Vs LTRs

Let’s compare two men.

Man 1 abjures marriage. He grows older moving from one long term relationship to another, experiencing relative instability in his love life but also the thrill of the hunt and the popping freshness of pussy varietals. As he ages, the number of women who are willing to abide his no-marriage clause shrinks, as does the youthful quality of the women. But he partly compensates for this inevitability with tight game and a charming, devil-may-care attitude, which allows him to punch above his weight well into his dotage. He has no heirs that he knows of, and for some reason this does not bother him as much as people tell him it should, but the fact that he is not bothered does bother him. He wonders, often now that the years ahead of him are far fewer than the years behind him, if one of those women he loved was one to hold to the exclusion of all others. At the end, he wheezes his last with memories of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women — of their loving ministrations and tender caresses and fleeting intimacies between window blind shafts of sunlight — dancing through his head, and in the company of a nebulous regret that refuses to dislodge.

Man 2 abjures bachelorhood. He marries at 30 after a trio of lukewarm short term relationships, and because he is a good man (or, more likely, because he is a man of middling status and dull personality with limited options in the sexual market which alleviates any threats of temptation against his virtue) he never cheats and puts his heart into pleasing his wife, who, because of her biology, inexorably grows less interested in sex with him, as her own attractiveness subsides in accord with her fattening waistline. He is healthy and content, all things considered, and he grows old fondly remembering his wife as she was many years ago, sexy and slender and whimsical, while the allure of her pussy — the only pussy he has seen and felt in twenty years — gradually diminishes, until the time comes he would rather caress pretty strangers with his eyes than caress his wife with his hands. He has two children, of whom he is very proud and loves very much, but still their existence does not relieve the gnawing that grips him in the chest when he thinks of love, and desire, that left him long ago. At the end, he wheezes his last in the company of his old wife’s tears and clouded eyes, and he drifts off to forever with memories he wished he had, and memories so distant they have receded to mere imagination.

Now… ask yourself: Which of these two men had it better?

Read Full Post »

Shacking Up Vs Tying The Knot

What advantage accrues a man who decides to cohabit instead of marry? Well, for one (and it’s a BIG one), women tend to let themselves go once they’ve extracted marital vows from their men. Here’s a referenced study which shows that once a woman gets what she wants from a man, she doesn’t (subconsciously) care anymore about pleasing him. (Study title is hilariously droll: “Entry into romantic partnership is associated with obesity”.)

Several studies examining longitudinal changes in romantic relationship status report a differential sex effect of entry into marriage, with greater weight gain in women (9,10,30). Women may be differentially impacted by transitions in romantic relationship status; for example, through increased social obligations encouraging consumption of regular meals (31,32) and larger portion sizes (33), resulting in increased energy intake (30). Further, entry into cohabitation or marriage is associated with decreased physical activity (34) and a decline in desire to maintain weight for the purpose of attracting a mate (6). In contrast, obese women may be less likely to marry (35). Our longitudinal findings suggest that both men and women who enter marriage are more likely to become obese, consistent with findings from another large, racially diverse sample of young adults (36). Moreover, we found that individuals who lived with romantic partners for a longer duration had higher likelihood of incident obesity suggesting that shared household environmental factors may contribute to changes in obesity.

Cohabitation may not be good for society in the long run (we’ll see how Scandinavia turns out), but in the here and now it is very good for the individual man, and most people think in the latter terms. As a friendly reminder, a wife bloating up and disfiguring her womanly profile is as repulsive to a husband as he would be to his wife if he lost his job and confidence and skulked around the house with his chin buried in his chest, begging for morsels of sexual release.

Again, we come back to incentives, latent or blatant, and their influence on human behavior. Men have “hand” within cohabiting relationships, while women have hand within marriage. Women are on their best behavior — read: their least bitchiest and gluttonous — when they are cohabiting with men who can leave them at a moment’s notice with little cost to the men. A woman in such a precarious circumstance feels inchoate pressure to maximize her sexual appeal, both physical and temperamental.

Conversely, wives who are not kept in desirous thrall to their husbands — read: hubby became a mincing betaboy or lost his social or economic status, or the spark simply vanished from the passage of time and mundane familiarity — gradually slip into their worst behavior, which includes getting fat and ugly, as the science and conventional wisdom demonstrates. Now, women who do this in pre-marital relationships can easily be dumped; but within marriage, not so much, at least not without SEVERE cost to the disillusioned husband. Women know this, on a very deeply primitive apebrain level, even if they don’t discuss it or acknowledge it outright. Which leads to…

Maxim #204: Modern marriage is a waiver of liability that relieves wives of the responsibility to remain attractive to their husbands.

Corollary to Maxim #204: The modern marriage waiver of liability does not extend to husbands, who must remain optimally attractive to their wives so long as the marriage is intact and the cost of failing in this responsibility is excessive.

Let’s be clear about this, so you don’t get the wrong impression reading these issues in the stark, remorseless light in which I prefer to present them. Social, sexual and romantic incentives and disincentives don’t operate in a coldly calculating way — it’s not like a wife punches numbers into a mental spreadsheet or draws up wistful pros and cons lists before willfully deciding that an extra tub of Ben & Jerry’s won’t matter since her husband can’t divorce without losing a lot of money and the house and kids. The differential power structures of various relationship models aren’t grasped by the bit players in anything more than a gut feeling.

No, these still-human behavioral reactions work on the level of the id. Without really thinking about it, the existence of an incentive to behave a certain way subtly and slowly influences a person to act in accordance with their self-interest. What that self-interest is varies by context and circumstance. A single woman seeking love will avoid overeating and take a lot of yoga classes so that her tight bod will catch the eyes of, hopefully, some high value alpha males.

A married woman who has achieved her objective of locking a man into long term commitment backed by the strength of the state will feel imperceptible undertones or impulses that guide her along paths which take her away from staying sexually desirable and toward fulfilling her other hedonic needs. It doesn’t help her attraction for her husband that the threat of state sanction effectively neuters him by rendering his choice to remain married to her one of coercion rather than mutual delight.

Game is a useful ameliorative to these natural human instincts, (and I know how much asserting that gets under the skin of anti-gamers). But I’ve seen it in action; a husband who uses game (or charisma, if it helps your digestion) on his wife will mold her incentive structure so that selflessly pleasing him takes precedence over selfish solipsism. This will happen because, as I’ve said previously, up-front, near, tangible incentives trump downstream, far, less tangible disincentives. A sexy husband woos a wife better than a powerful state and natural inclination woos her away from him.

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 »

His Adultery Spices Up Marriage

Aristophenes writes:

I want to solicit a bit of advice from the commentariat here. I’m 31, married with two young children. I have a high-status career (I’m in a prestigious doctoral program, and I write for a number of elite publications), I am of average, or maybe above average looks, I dress well, and I comport myself well in conversation. I am not intimidated by famous intellectuals or beautiful women.

However: I married my wife when I was 23 – we were both intensely religious and virgins at the time. Since then my religiosity has waned, my wife has gained a good deal of weight, and I’ve become deeply discontented with my sexless, passionless life.

A few months ago, during a long, boozy night at the bar with some colleagues, a couple of my more attractive (and militantly feminist!) female colleagues opened up about their frustration at the lack of masculine men in our department. I drove one of them home, and when we pulled up to her place, I kissed her and told her I intended to have sex with her. There immediately followed two delightful hours of adultery. Since then I’ve slept with another young woman, and have fooled around on a couple of other occasions. I am shocked by the easy availability of sex, given my nearly decade-long struggle to get laid within marriage.

So far, this change has had positive ramifications for my marriage. My wife doesn’t know everything, but she knows that “things” have happened. At the same time, I’ve become more assertive and less whiny / pitiable. I demand sex more, and she seems pleased. She’s known for years that I want her to lose weight, but she’s starting to make some minimal efforts now.

However good things get, though, this will never be ideal. My wife was not an attractive woman when I married her (I didn’t think that mattered then – see religiosity) and she’s not aging well. I will always live with the knowledge that I have much more beautiful, intelligent, elegant women, who more closely share my interests, and are more impressed with my accomplishments. All things being equal, I’d leave tomorrow. But they’re not equal. I am entirely smitten with our son and daughter, and cannot countenance the possibility of their growing up without a father. So here I am.

Here, finally, is the question: Should I keep up with the extramarital dalliances, hoping to effect a sort of Mad Men modus vivendi, in which a lackluster marriage is supplemented by suspected but politely hidden infidelity? Or should I man up, and fight to suppress my wanderlust, contenting myself with what gains can be made at home? I can see pluses and minuses on either side. What do you gents think?

Frenchmen do it right. Have mistresses, but be discreet about it. Aging wives don’t want it shoved in their faces; they want to let their hamsters whir with hints, thoughts, painfully delicious imaginings that their husbands might be cheating on them. This strategy has the dual benefit of satisfying the man’s natural and completely normal urge for pussy variety while keeping the home and hearth stable and reigniting the marriage with the wife’s newfound dread-induced passion.

But the reader is in a predicament; namely, his wife’s weight gain has made her less attractive to him, and she wasn’t that attractive to begin with. (For the ladies in the audience: your weight gain is as mood-killing for men as a man’s weakness and wishy-washiness is mood-killing for you.) Plus, he’s got hotter, younger hopefuls auditioning for his meaty intrusion. Very few men can withstand that one-two punch to their virtuous restraint.

His problem is the reason why men should not even consider marriage until they are well into their 30s, and then only with women at least eight to ten years younger. A man hits his SMV stride more than a decade — oftentimes two decades! — after a woman hits hers, so it makes sense that men are best served cashing in their chips at the height of their power for women at the height of their power. That is, if chip cashing is what he wants. I’m not keen on marriage so I will generally counsel men that they can get all the comforts and love of marriage without signing a legal contract that obligates them to finance an early retirement plan for the wife should she initiate divorce theft proceedings (70-90% of divorces are female-initiated.)

But this guy is a religious bloke and he wanted kids. If kids are in your future, then marriage is the price you pay to ensure the striplings grow up mentally healthy and shielded from the allure of huffing paint or gobbling cock behind the 7-11. He didn’t say how young his kids are, so assuming they are still forming their identities, I would not advise him to abort the marriage. He needs to stick it out for a while longer.

What the reader needs to do to avoid crippling depression is the male equivalent of Eat, Pray, Love: Meat, Lay, Rove. He’s hitting on all cylinders at this moment in his life and it would be a terrible sacrifice to ask of him — on par with requiring a feminist to carry a rapist’s unwanted baby to term, or to have sex with a bitter omega male for ever and ever — to linger for years in his loveless, sexually arid marriage with a fat, unattractive wife. I suggest many “business trips” to exotic locales where he can sate his desire with beautiful lovers and more easily hide his dalliances from the wife. He should continue pushing his wife to lose weight and hinting ever-so-unsubtly at his growing array of sexual market options.

The very real risk of Meat, Lay, Rove is that our intrepid reader will likely fall in love with one of his darlings. Men tend to do that with women they find sexually irresistible. Down that road lies irretrievably broken marriages, for a wife fears a betrayal of love far more than a physical infidelity.

In the end, he will have to answer to his god, and ask him why he was given a working penis if he was meant to suffer unhappily in a sexless marriage with a fat sow.

Read Full Post »

Beta Maleness Is The Real Marriage Killer

Adultery can kill marriage dead. So can sexual withdrawal or the death of a child. Now attention is being drawn to nagging, the tool in trade of the self-entitled shrew.

Nagging—the interaction in which one person repeatedly makes a request, the other person repeatedly ignores it and both become increasingly annoyed—is an issue every couple will grapple with at some point. While the word itself can provoke chuckles and eye-rolling, the dynamic can potentially be as dangerous to a marriage as adultery or bad finances. Experts say it is exactly the type of toxic communication that can eventually sink a relationship. […]

It is possible for husbands to nag, and wives to resent them for nagging. But women are more likely to nag, experts say, largely because they are conditioned to feel more responsible for managing home and family life. And they tend to be more sensitive to early signs of problems in a relationship. When women ask for something and don’t get a response, they are quicker to realize something is wrong. The problem is that by asking repeatedly, they make things worse.

The thousand-yard stare. I like to call it the lifeless gaze of surrender. Or the optical tomb of doom. You see it all the time on the faces of beaten down men married one too many years to fat, insolent wives. Many are quick to blame nagging as a source for this post-mortal condition, but to understand nagging you have to get at the root of the problem: the emotional letdown that compels wives to nag in the first place.

Women don’t nag out of the blue. Nor do they nag when they aren’t “getting their requests fulfilled” as the experts like to claim. And women don’t nag because of some nebulous, ill-defined leftie assertion that they suffer under the weight of social conditioning.

No, the root of it is simple: wives nag because their husbands have turned beta. Less succinctly, their husbands have become weak, enfeebled, grasping, defensive, sycophantic, solicitous “yes dear” yes-men. Strong men — alphas, you bet — almost never elicit the nagging response from their wives or girlfriends, and they aren’t exactly bending over backwards to do 50% of the housework or scrambling to fulfill all requests in a timely manner. The difference is that women never feel a need to nag an alpha lover with innumerable trivial demands, because these women who are so lucky to be with willful men have not had their sexual attraction replaced with the cold, dispiriting mentality of a schoolmarm overseeing errand boys.

Any man who takes the “experts'” advice and begins promptly responding to his wife’s nagging, thinking that resolution of her frivolous demands will resolve their marital issues, will only get more nagging, and more firmly shut legs, in return.

On the other side of the equation, the deteriorating wife syndrome explains many cases of nagging as well. Wife gets fat, old and ugly, husband loses sexual and romantic interest, wife responds by nagging to provoke signs of life from listless hubby. And the therapists and counselors say “just do what she says and all will be better”. What fools. This kind of nagging will never go away until the husband makes clear, one way or the other, that his wife’s physical decline will not be tolerated by him. A happy wife with a good body and an alpha husband is a wife who will rarely experience the incipient female compulsion to nag.

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 »

Why, And When, Women Cheat

Alternate title for this post:

Game and science: Deeply in love!

Once more, from one of my favorite blogs, a study which catalogs the reasons women (and men) cheat, and confirms a few core Chateau concepts as well. None of the study results will be a surprise to regular readers.

We’ll compare the study’s conclusions to claims previously made on this blog. The first one is a doozy, as it validates the very foundation of game and male-female sexual dynamics as elucidated by yours truly.

1) Women who wear the pants in the relationship are more likely to cheat:

The imbalance of power in the primary relationship has been associated with infidelity. Edwards and Booth (1976) found that wives who reported that they “get their way” more often during disagreements were also more likely to have extramarital sexual involvements.

There ya go, fellas. If you’re a beta with your girlfriend or wife, you’re increasing your odds that your “better half” will surreptitiously spread her legs for the veiny cocks of strange men. And she will orgasm with them. Oh yes, she will orgasm. Hard, powerfully and pleasurably.

There are only two paths you can take to avoid that nightmare — the path of celibacy or the path of alpha. Which one sounds more fun?

Beta males cede disagreements with women all the time. It’s their knee-jerk response anytime a vagina talks to them. But women HATE HATE HATE that mincing sycophancy. A woman CRAVES the dominance of the alpha male who won’t take her shit and who will get HIS way more often than not. Beta males, slaves to their fear of loss, cringe at the thought of sticking up for themselves against women who hold the power of pussy over them, but that is exactly what the women in their lives want them to do.

As with all infinite truths, this one was nailed Luther-like to the Chateau doors a long time ago:

This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting – wholly, completely – to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.

All healthy primary relationships have an imbalance of power. But that imbalance needs to go one-way only — in the direction of the man wielding most of the power. The further the relationship veers from that ideal — that is, the closer it gets to equality and beyond into the horrid realm of the woman being more powerful — the greater the likelihood the woman will cheat, her heart filling with incoherent, growing contempt for her pussified lover.

The feminist battle cry for women to take up paychecks and “bring home the bacon” has been nothing short of a genitalcidal campaign against the sexual and romantic desires of beta males. Women who follow the feminist agenda of empowerment are consigning themselves to a smaller dating pool, and broken marriages, because they have turned their backs on their true natures — their will to submit.

2) An imbalance in education increases the chance of cheating:

…in a large U.S. national study of dating, cohabiting, and married women, Forste and Tanfer (1996) found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity; but if the husband was more educated than the wife, she was less likely to philander. Level of education relative to that of the partner appears to be more important than absolute level of education.

Education is a form of power. Women who have more education — i.e. more power — than their male lovers are more likely to cheat on them. Conversely, when the man is more educated than the woman, she does not feel the stirrings of infidelity as strongly. Male power is a female fidelity guarantee. Men would be wise to focus on somewhat less educated women than themselves for marriage prospects. Women who have marriage in mind would be wise to avoid lengthy educational commitments. Again, the Chateau was on top of this a while ago.

3) Jobs have a lot to do with whether people have an affair:

Individuals who work outside the home while their partners remain in the home also express higher rates of extramarital sexual involvement (Atkins et al., 2001), perhaps because the work environment provides the opportunity and time to get to know coworkers (Treas & Giesen, 2000). In clinical samples, 46% to 62% of individuals reported that they met their extramarital sexual partner at work (Glass, 2003; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). The likelihood of extramarital involvement is also related to the degree to which an individual’s job involves touching clients, discussing personal concerns with colleagues or clients, or working alone with co-workers (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

If you are a stay-at-home dad and your wife works outside the home as a personal trainer for rich businessmen, you may as well start ordering the paternity testing kits now and practice your nighttime cheek swabbing technique.

4) The timing of infidelity is predictable:

Among married women, the likelihood of extramarital involvement peaks in the seventh year of marriage, then declines; but among married men, the likelihood of extramarital involvement decreases over time until the eighteenth year of matrimony, after which the likelihood of extramarital involvement increases (Liu, 2000). Similarly, in a sample of couples in therapy for infidelity, sexual infidelity first occurred after an average of seven years of marriage (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). Lawson and Samson (1988) reported, however, that the length of marriage prior to initial sexual infidelity is decreasing with younger cohorts. Certain developmental stages in a marriage, including pregnancy and the months following the birth of a child, are also high risk times for infidelity among males (Allen & Baucom, 2001; Brown, 1991; Whisman et al., 2007).

Don’t forget that women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating. So if you just celebrated your seven-year wedding anniversary, and it’s two weeks past your wife’s menstruation, you need to hire a private detective as a gift to yourself.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, younger marriages experience initial infidelity sooner than older marriages. The explanation is simple: younger wives are hotter than older wives, so they have more options in the sexual market. And since marriage is no escape from the sexual market, it makes perfect sense that infidelity is a more urgent risk with a younger wife.

The study also confirms some age-old wisdom that men are less trustworthy when their wives are pregnant or nursing. It’s the old “cold feet” syndrome that pushes men into the arms of mistresses who aren’t burdened with child, aka duties and responsibilities.

5) Most men that cheat claim to have a happy marriage:

…regardless of the many correlations between relationship dissatisfaction and adultery, Glass and Wright (1985) reported that among individuals engaging in infidelity, 56% of men and 34% of women rate their marriage as “happy” or “very happy.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with women cheating, but I thought it worthwhile to mention because it confirms yet another Chateau assertion: that men are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man. As the study shows, more cheating husbands than cheating wives are still in love with their spouses and thus sincere when they say that their marriages are happy.

There is a big sex difference at work behind this statistic. Men cheat because they desire a variety of pussy. Women cheat because they are unhappy with their primary partner. So for a woman, a necessary ingredient has to be that her current lover is not fulfilling her in some important way. But for a man, dissatisfaction with his current lover is not necessary as a springboard to cheat. Men are prone to cheat if the opportunity, and the guarantee of secrecy, are strong enough enticements, regardless of their love for their wives or girlfriends. That is why an unfaithful alpha husband is less likely to disrupt a marriage, while an unfaithful wife is more likely to end it all in divorce.

So, to recap, here is what you need to know to prevent your woman from cheating on you:

1. Learn game and become the alpha male that women need.

2. Do not allow your woman to wear the pants, unless it is in relation to some trivial point of contention that you let her win to demonstrate your big-heartedness.

3. Be more educated than your woman.

4. Do not, under any circumstances, spend time as a stay-at-home dad.

5. If your wife works, make sure it is in an occupation requiring little travel, where she will be confined to a sterile office surrounded by women and beta males. Any job where a massage table is involved is an example of a job you don’t want her to have.

6. Act a little more asshole-ish and unpredictable when your marriage approaches the seven year mark. Or when she’s approaching her monthly ovulation.

7. Failing all of the above, cheat first. She will smell it on you, and her love will grow in proportion to her fear of losing you.

Read Full Post »