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 »

Mexico’s Marriage Contracts

Not too many innovations come out of Mexico’s ruling white elite, but this legislation seems to fit the bill.

The left-leaning assembly is studying a new initiative to introduce temporary marriage licenses that would expire after two years if the couple so desires.

The proposal, intended to reduce the bureaucratic costs and emotional toll of divorce, has garnered as many fans as foes: Some see it as a pragmatic alternative, while others, including the Roman Catholic Church, see it as an attack on family values. It comes as Mexico grapples with its own culture war in the world’s second-largest Catholic country. […]

To its authors, the proposal reflects social changes in Mexico City, where they say most divorces occur in the first two years. If after two years, couples decide to [stay married] until “death do us part,” they can renew their licenses. If not, the proposal specifies how children and property are handled.

“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” Leonel Luna, the assemblyman who co-wrote the bill, told Reuters. “You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce.”

Divorce is now woven into the cultural fabric of most modern and modernizing nations. It’s entrenched, and while rates seem to be leveling off in the US, there is no indication that lifelong marital vows are making a comeback. In fact, the lower, and later, rates of first marriage are  likely the primary cause of the leveling of the divorce rate: with fewer couples getting hitched, and fewer still getting hitched at a young age when options are highest and instability is greatest, there are fewer bad marriages coming to fruition and boosting the divorce rate. Selection bias.

The marriage contract is a last-ditch attempt to address the ill effects of the divorce culture, and it may be a lifesaver for Western men who have been getting the ass ramming end of divorce court since the 1970s. Wifey drifting away and implicitly threatening you with theft of your house and half your savings? Just opt out when the two year contract hits its renewal date. Marriage still going strong (i.e., wifey still gobbling your knob)? Renew, baby! For another two.

I even wonder whether children would suffer any more under a marriage contract system than the no-fault, female rape-y one we have now. If you’ve got a couple of kids and you’re on your second marital renewal at four years, is the amicable opting out of the marriage any worse than the rending of a surprise divorce? Naysayers may argue that marriage contracts encourage abandonment, but I dunno about that. It’s a good bet that societal shaming mechanisms would organically come into place that limit the ease with which spouses turn to leaving contracts. And it’s kind of like abortion: when you know you have that option to end the marriage after two years, you are probably more likely to be relaxed (read: more alpha, sexier) with your partner and therefore more inclined to do the exact opposite of behaving in a way that the contract system is designed to mitigate.

Read Full Post »

Bad Omen

When you reward fat chicks, you get more of them.

Although, to be fair to this guy, the beta looks strong in him. He probably had few options and settled when the specter of involuntary lifelong celibacy burned his dreams to the ground.

Read Full Post »

Why Alimony Must End

A girl pal was telling me about the uncle of one of her friends. His wife had left him, moved way out of state, and met some new guy who became her live-in boyfriend. Get this: the ex-wife refused to marry the live-in bf because she wanted to keep the alimony spigot open. Years later, she’s still unmarried, still boffing the bf, and still collecting alimony from the ex-hubby beta uncle, who, by all accounts, is a stand-up guy that everyone (except, apparently, his ex-wife) really likes and admires. He doesn’t know where the money goes because the kids are with him most of the time. He thinks most of it funds his ex’s vacations with her lover.

The problem with America’s anti-male marriage and divorce industrial complex is that it allows women’s normally inhibited cuntery — when just and fair, and some might say patriarchal, rules constrain their choices — to effloresce beyond the bounds necessary to maintain a healthy, functioning society. A good rule of thumb: if a woman thinks she can get away with sticking the shiv in a beta to redound to her personal advantage, she will.

There is no feminist in the world who can twist her hamster logic enough to convince anyone worth convincing that legally forcing a man to pay alimony to an ex-wife who refuses to remarry so that the alimony gravy train keeps riding is even remotely within the universe of fairness. A fucking two year old can tell you that this is bullshit on stilts.

Since feminists are so irrational, it’s best to ignore them and focus on persuading people who matter of the rights or wrongs of certain laws and policies. Unfortunately, the number of persuadable people who matter is next to zero in the funhouse amusement theme park formerly known as America.

Assuming for a moment that the elites currently womanning the legal, political, academic and media institutions haven’t gone completely insane or malevolent (a big assumption nowadays), a sensible correction to this blatantly man-hating legal policy (greased by the oily secretions of the world’s number one parasites — divorce lawyers) is a new policy which states in unequivocal terms that any alimony to an ex-wife ends as soon as the tip of another man’s cock pierces her outer labia.

And that’s just a minor concession to fairness. In a truly sensible world which took account of the changed modern mating landscape, there would be no alimony at all. The whole thing’s a fucking sham — like just about everything else that oozes out of courtrooms, boardrooms, ad rooms and legislative committees these days — designed to steal redistribute wealth and prestige from rules-playing beta suckers to bloodsucking grievance groups. You wonder if someday the dutiful and honor-bound betas will wake up to their dispossession, but then you have to remember that impotently bending over and taking it up the poop chute again and again is probably encoded in their DNA, so they really can’t help themselves.

Read Full Post »

More Science Confirming Game Concepts: Long-Term Relationships Can Bring Out The Worst In Couples

Digging through the archives of the Chateau Heartiste library, we find a post about the hazards of LTRs and marriage.

Now you can’t do anything without her, and she you. In the beginning, this is a necessary process to build the level of trust and bonding that distinguishes the LTR from any run of the mill fling. But it morphs into a hermetic pair-bond cocoon, a soft escapable prison that shields from the outside world more than it protects. Increasingly consanguineous, the LTR alienates friends and slackens ambitions.

Scary stuff. Science has something to say about the deleterious effects of marriage on the female body, as well:

•Women in their teens and early 20s who continued to date but didn’t cohabitate gained an average of 15 pounds over five years; their male counterparts added about 24 pounds.

•Newly married women in that age group packed on 24 pounds in five years; newly married men gained 30 pounds.

That degree of gain wasn’t seen in couples who were living together but not married. Women gained 3 pounds more than their single peers — 18 pounds — and men gained 24 pounds.

When you see photos of the groom stuffing the bride’s mouth full of wedding cake as she licks down every last ounce of sloppy creamed filling, you may as well be watching the groom disposing of his sex and love life down her maw. But as we all know, men get very, very stupid about marrying the first semi-decent pussy who comes along.

The latest from the scientific front presents more CH-confirming evidence that LTRs and marriage have negative consequences for their practitioners.

For better or for worse, in sickness and in health – there’s a long line of research that associates marriage with reducing unhealthy habits such as smoking, and promoting better health habits such as regular checkups. However, new research is emerging that suggests married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each other’s unhealthy habits as well. […]

Corinne Reczek, a UC assistant professor of sociology, reports three distinct findings into how unhealthy habits were promoted through these long-term, intimate relationships: through the direct bad influence of one partner, through health habit synchronicity and through the notion of personal responsibility.

Reczek reports that gay, lesbian and straight couples all described the “bad influence” theme, while in straight partnerships, men were nearly always viewed as the “bad influence.” [ed: there go women again, abdicating all reason and accountability.]

[…] “Third, respondents utilized a discourse of personal responsibility to describe how even when they observe their partner partaking in an unhealthy habit, they do not attempt to change the habit, indicating that they were complicit in sustaining their partner’s unhealthy habits. The final theme was described primarily by straight men and women,” says Reczek.

So if your partner has unhealthy habits, (smoking, drinking to excess, overeating, underexercising, staying up late to watch Modern Family recordings or Jon Stewart smugly sing to the SWPL choir), you will likely pick up those bad habits. And thus we see how the fat acceptance movement gets its steam — osmotic inevitability. (In related news, according to the Red Cross, there are more obese than there are hungry in the world. We’ve entered the era of globulization.)

Of particular interest in the above study is the evidence that women, and presumably their lapdog betabitchboys, placed the blame for being a bad influence squarely on the men’s shoulders. It’s obvious to those in the know that this blame-shifting is complete bullshit, since (just to pick an easily discernible example at random) there are innumerable couples where the woman has gotten fat while the man stayed slim. Nothing will kill a man’s desire to please his woman in every way faster than the disfigurement of her body caused by bloating up from bellying up to the buffet.

Is there an enterprise in existence where women will blame themselves for something bad they did? To ask the question is to laugh at female absurdity. The rationalization hamster is a cosmic force on par with dark matter; you can’t see the little bugger, but goddamn is he everywhere, redirecting galactic phenomena at will.

Also interesting is the last line quoted above from the study. Partners are complicit in sustaining their SO’s bad habits because they don’t call them out on it. I think we can figure out who is most responsible for this dereliction of duty: sackless beta males who are afraid of the divorce raping and/or sex withholding they will assuredly receive if they displease their queen sovereigns by timidly mentioning in squeaky-voiced passing their increasing girth. Women, for their part, don’t attempt to change their partners’ bad habits for a different reason: they don’t have a clue how to articulate what is wrong with their beta boyfriends and hubbies.

This post, and others like it, is a helpful reminder to the “marriage is best” crowd that marriage — and, similarly, LTRs — hold special dangers for the man who allows himself to become ensnared. An LTR is a beautiful thing with the right woman and undertaken with the right alpha attitude, but it isn’t a panacea for all psychological, emotional or sexual needs, and it isn’t without its own problems that men who serially date don’t experience. When you commit to a woman with the intent of remaining monogamous, you acquire new obstacles to navigate and problems to avoid. Failure to recognize those LTR-inherent deficiencies and counteract them will lead to exile in betaville, where begging for blowjobs once per year and praying you don’t get reamed in court if she gets bored become part of the wonderful fabric of life.

As with everything you venture to explore, do it with your eyes open. Otherwise, you may as well hand your decision-making process over to a committee of cog-molding industrialists and ball-chopping feminists.

Read Full Post »

The Modren Man

The only thing this picture is missing that would make it the absolute perfect representation of the de-balled and de-souled modern SWPL man-lite is a “vibrant” infant tucked into the fat bride’s meatloaf arm.

secret secret, i’ve got a secret!

You might call this the 21st century Western equivalent of the drawing and quartering.

Read Full Post »

An Alpha Male And His Women

On this Father’s Day, it makes to sense to honor the lives of men who have forsaken the path of beta domestication, fat mortgages and fat wives to live the swinging single life of the harem king.

Hugh Grant, middle-aged alpha male, canoodles with one two seven college coeds. His face is the picture of unbridled joy. This is one happy man. You will never see this kind of blissed-out look on the faces of men married for years to the same aging wives. Only young, fresh pussy can inspire such a glow.

The photo comes from an article by a 40-something careerist spinster who bemoans the fact that she can’t find love with the men she wants. In her words:

when I look around at my girlfriends – bright, attractive, successful, fabulous women in their 40s who are single – I sincerely begin to wonder: Is there even one solvent, kind, desirable, heterosexual single man in his 40s left in Britain?

My friends and I have a horrible suspicion that the answer is no.

The topic was much debated when I went on a detox holiday in Morocco at Easter with nine single women, ranging in age from mid-30s to late-40s and all looking for love.

At first I thought it would be an oestrogen-infused nightmare, but as I got to know the women, all well-educated and successful (including bankers, a lawyer, a top fashion buyer, a media executive and an art historian), we bonded over our inability to find our male match.

Some of the bankers confessed to resorting to affairs with married men at work, which was depressing, but mostly we concluded we were unable to find what we were looking for because like-minded men of our age didn’t exist.

Like most delusional, over-educated termagants, she believes her accomplishments and intelligence — those things that are more naturally suited to the domain of men — entitle her to a fabulously successful, good-looking and kind alpha male in his 40s. She is heartbroken to discover that most men her age want nothing to do with her, or her similarly situated klatsch of Cosmo readers. One of her friends moans:

My friend Lizzie, a 43-year-old art director, says it was a real surprise to start dating at 40 after her marriage ended.

‘I’ve always had boyfriends before, but I’ve been single for three years now, as I’m not so attractive a proposition any more. I’ve had a child and have responsibility, which these immature men of our age see as terrifying baggage – which is hypocritical when many of them have ex-wives who are bringing up their kids.’

Yes, the reason could only be “immaturity” why men don’t want to date aging single moms. Maybe the reason why men “see” your kid from a previous marriage as baggage is because… wait for it…

it is baggage!

The hamster is in overdrive in this one, his wee tongue hanging out, gasping for breath, the axel on his wheel coming off.

The author has even coined a cleverless gibe to describe these age appropriate men who dare to follow their hearts and date much younger women: “kidults”. She wonders why these older men — who BY RIGHTS should be dating HER, don’t you know it’s how things are done in polite society — treat her with such perfunctory disdain and act as if they are the prize. Well, lady, I got news for ya. When you have aged out of your prime attractiveness years (15-25), the men you want to date ARE the prize, compared to you.

On and on she bitches, with one insult after another hurled at the impertinent men who dare to pass her over for the younger, hotter competition. “Misogynist”. “Hateful”. “Arrogant”. “Vile presumption”. “Secretly hate women”. “Dysfunctional”. Such a colorful repertoire of psychological projection to soothe the butthurt ego. Unfortunately for her, the cold machinations of the sexual marketplace do not operate by adjectival decree. No, the answer why she goes unloved by the men she desires is much, much simpler:

Read Full Post »