Is The Sexual Market Efficient?

In yesterday’s post, it was posited that later marriages are less likely to end in divorce because older spouses have fewer options in the dating market. A 24 year old wife contemplating divorce has more opportunity to jump back in the saddle than a 34 year old cougar tired of her nuptials. So according to dating market value theory, we should not be surprised to see that marriages at a younger age tend to be less stable than marriages at an older age.

To continue on this theme, commenter Sidewinder proposes a flaw in the sexual market theory of options as the limiting factor in relationship stability (i.e., the more options you have, the less likely you are to be monogamously faithful):

Women get much more feedback in the sexual marketplace than men. But you are only getting feedback on immediate sexual interest, not long term sexual relationship interest. This could explain the market error re female divorce choice. Their perception is skewed by short term sexual interest, leading to divorce based on artificially inflated sexual market value. Once single, and after a few pump and dumps, their true sexual market value is revealed, and they have to settle for something within their shrinking relationship options.

As we know here at the Chateau (but you wouldn’t know by reading only the MSM), the majority of divorces are initiated by women. It stands to reason, then, that a lot of marriages dissolve because the wives get bored of the arrangement, or agitated with their husbands’ domestication. In other words, the martyr theme that women, with the help of their feminist enablers, have carefully crafted for themselves over the decades is a cartload of bullshit. Women are perps as often as, if not more often than, they are victims.

A lot of women initiating divorce probably feel that they have plenty of good years left to snag another man of at least equal value to the husbands they are leaving. It would be more accurate to say “of greater value”, because women hardly ever leave relationships for a shot at a man of the same value. Due to her gender’s hypergamous algorithm, a woman in flux between relationships or freshly out of marriage will be compelled to seek out men of higher value than the man she just left. Until she has had her heart broken one too many times.

The problem, as Sidewinder astutely noted, is that the sexual market is efficient at offering immediate feedback on the kind of sexual interest that a woman can command, but not so efficient at offering feedback on her value as a long term relationship partner. A woman can walk down the street and know instantly by the number of men’s eyes which glance her way, and by the obsequiousness with which men relish her company, how easy it will be for her to arouse a man to want to sleep with her. But she cannot know how many of those men willing to fuck her are also willing to invest in her and nurture a loving relationship with her until she has herself invested time in them. Most men aren’t going to come right out and tell a marginal fling that she isn’t cut out to be his long term girlfriend or wife.

So you see the quandary that women are in. The dating market is great at giving them information on their sexual desirability, but not so good at giving them feedback on their relationship desirability. The later is usually learned by experiencing relationships with men of varying market value to determine a best fit. If she shoots too high, he pumps and dumps her. Too low, and his provider stability isn’t wanted.

And time is no friend to women, whose attractiveness window is shorter than men’s, being as it is contingent almost solely upon their looks. A man’s attractiveness window can conceivably go right to the end of his life, if he has compensating alpha traits for his declining looks.

The problem is compounded for married women, who presumably have been out of the dating scene for years. A woman sheltered in the confines of marital piss has lost touch with distant memories of the alpha males who used her for sex and ignored her need for love and commitment. The memories of inglorious pump and dumps that followed from shooting out of her league have faded, replaced by a feedback mechanism that relies solely on sexual interest, thus titillating her ego as if she were a fresh-faced teenager again.

A woman who thinks inspiring a man to get erect is the ultimate arbiter of her relationship worth is in for a world of pain. It is a harsh lesson many women seem to forget as they are gleefully anticipating dating life after escape from marriage to a beta provider.

You might say there is price inelasticity in women’s long term mate value. The most powerful agent working against falsely held perceptions of men’s long term sexual interest in a woman are memories of past relationships that ended badly when she tried to date out of her league. But in a multi-year marriage, those memories tend to fade and so we get the phenomenon of women initiating divorce with the belief that they can get as good as they got when they were younger.

Reality soon disabuses them of that notion, and the aging divorcée either settles with a man of lower value than her husband was when she met him, or she persists in her delusion aided by the hallucinatory effects of mimosas, cockhopping and cheerleading spinsters like herself.

Read Full Post »

Why Are Later Marriages Less Likely To End In Divorce?

Because older divorcées have fewer options in the dating market.

Picture two married couples. Couple A got married at 21. Couple B got married at 31. Assume for the sake of simplicity that the spouses in each marriage are the same age, and neither one has had children.

At year three, Couple A stops having sex on a regular basis. Arguments become a daily feature. The wife begins pulling a beta valentine on her hubbie’s ass because she is turned off by his gradual betatization. They are now age 24, and divorce is whispered. Both of them survey their options should the unthinkable happen. Both realize, based on subconsciously acknowledged experience in the real world, that they could find new lovers in short order should the marriage fail. Divorce proceedings, while a testament to failure, don’t inspire them with fear and dread. There are green fields just past that horizon.

At year three, Couple B suffers the same fate as Couple A. The marriage has lost its allure. But this time, the response to impending divorce is different. The now 34 year old wife has stopped receiving glances from men when she walks around town to do errands. She senses, though she will never admit it even to herself, that her salad days are over and being single would not be the fun adventure it was when she was 21. The husband also believes (wrongly) that he has fewer options, because his marriage has made him rusty and dependent upon regular female companionship. He has doubts in himself and can’t imagine life as a single man. Both dread the repercussions of divorce and what it means to be thrust into a cutthroat dating market for which they are ill-prepared. So instead of divorce, they grit their teeth and he retreats to porn and poker while she has an illicit affair with her boss.

So there you have it.

Options = instability.

This is the kind of psychological analysis that you just won’t glean from a dry social survey that is prone to false information, particularly from female respondents.

Read Full Post »

The Beauty Of Long Term Relationships

All the benefits of marriage, with none of the costs.

Read Full Post »

The Price Of Female Hypergamy

It was a banner week for alpha males. The Terminator blasted inside a housemaid and had a kid named John Connor with her ten years ago, who will grow up to defeat the evil cyborg governators under whose watch debt and native displacement exploded. The head of the IMF — some feminism-embracing leftie anti-American transnationalist open borders nutjob, no doubt — was arrested for raping a (possibly) AIDS-infected hot Muslim black chick in the mouth. (See pic of her here, courtesy of In Mala Fide.) Is it even possible to mouth rape without some modicum of consent? Women have teeth; they could just chomp down.

I won’t bother getting into the political and ideological ironies of a liberal Republican governor impregnating a Mexican and sticking it to his loyal Kennedy wife, or a good-standing member of the global illuminati raping a third world immigrant. That ground has been covered well enough on other blogs. And anyhow, it speaks for itself.

The Arnie and DSK scandals illustrate an important dynamic that is often missed in these discussions of alpha men behaving badly: female hypergamy comes with a cost. Alpha women (i.e. beautiful, young women) who are able to fulfill their hypergamous instincts often suffer negative blowback in the form of cheating partners, withdrawn love, illegitimate kids and even in extreme cases, rape.

Women who want a top dog for themselves have to be ready to take the bad with the good. Top dogs enjoy plenty of attention from women, all of them potential interlopers, and top dogs don’t face nearly the same obstacles that beta males do in the pursuit of sexual gratification. The result is that many alpha males are going to find it incredibly easy to fuck around, to have kids with maids, and to get away with raping hotel staff (until they commit their rapes in hotels owned by allies of political foes.) In other words, to utterly humiliate their loyal and loving wives.

And yet, the pull of the alpha male is so strong that many of these humiliated wives not only wearily abide the indiscretions, but they defend their cheating bastards beyond all rational reason for doing so.

Women are aware of the downside risk to winning an alpha male’s commitment in the hypergamous sweepstakes, (at least, they are subconsciously aware), and some who have the goods to get an alpha’s putative commitment will nevertheless settle in due time with a provider beta, when their looks have faded and they (conveniently) discover within themselves a well of renewed appreciation for the man who won’t stray or knock up maids. These women merely nurse a sense that sounds something like this: “Sure, my devoted herb hubbie isn’t very exciting, but christ almighty I’m pushing 40 and my emotional sanity just can’t handle another six month fling with a cheating bastard.”

But that is not nearly the majority of women. Most will instead take their chances, should they have the chance to snag an alpha, and some will wind up like poor put-upon Maria… older, wrinkly, man-jawed, no chance now in her deteriorated physical state to meet another man of the caliber of Arnold. Sure, she’ll do like most post-wall victim divorceés in these situations do, and manage to move on with her life and hamsterize that her replacement beta boyfriend is better than Arnold, but we’ll know the truth.

The Arnold scandal is interesting in another way: it holds a mirror up to our discriminatory, absurdist legal system. As Helen Smith says, what if this had been Maria’s kid? In today’s anti-male legal climate, Arnold would have been on the hook for child support if Maria had a ten year old kid by another man on the downlow. The courts and their femcunt foot soldiers would say “in the interest of the children” and “a bond has been formed” and all that self-serving horse shit that is nothing but cover for institutionalizing the second-class treatment of men. And then Arnold, still reeling from the news that Maria had been cheating on him, would suffer the additional body blow of financial responsibility for raising the bastard spawn of Maria’s infidelity.

Of course, no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver. There’s no court in the land that will saddle Maria with an order to pay up for Arnold’s love child. If they did, Oprah would command an army of yentas to storm the Capitol building until legislators changed the law, quaking in fear before all that female empowerment.

And yet, according to most women and their male sycophants, it’s perfectly fine, nay even morally just, to exact this same malevolent injustice upon men.

To that I give a hale and hearty FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUU.

The awesomeness of alpha males following the dictates of their genes and behaving badly with impunity is surpassed only by the audacity of feminist hypocrisy when the roles are reversed.

Read Full Post »

Engagement Ring Quandary

A reader asks:

I know you don’t advocate marriage or spending money on an engagement ring.  However, if I decide to buy a ring, what is the better practice –  A) Buy the ring on my own, with no consulting the girl, her friends or her family.  B) Bring her along in advance to try on rings.  C) Ask her what she likes.  D) Ask her friends or family what she likes.
 
I’m thinking option A.  Asking for her input appears needy, and it could be a collossal shit test capitulation to dutifully produce a ring to her exact specifications.  Bringing her along seems even worse because it will put more expensive rings in her field of vision, and who knows what subtle emasculating digs the salesperson will get in.  Talking with her friends and family would almost surely get back to her, so in the end it may be just as bad as asking her directly.
 
There is some dignity in the attitude of “we’re getting engaged on my terms, I’m picking the ring, and she doesn’t need to tell me what she wants or know what I spend.”  It shows confidence, and if she likes the ring she will appreciate it more than if I just follow her instructions.  If she doesn’t like it she won’t tell me (at least as long as she stays attracted to me) and the mindset of her loins will still be better than if I had asked her what she wants.  Maybe she’ll bitch to her friends that she’s the one to wear the ring and she should have had input, but the effect on her hindbrain is what I care about.  Involving her makes me seem afraid that she won’t love me if I pick wrong.  Doing it on my own seems like the way of a confident man.  Am I correct in this thinking?

Answer: E. Don’t do it!

Ok, seriously, if you insist on going this route, the answer is…

E. Give her a (cost-free) heirloom ring.

Or if that isn’t an option…

Answer: A. Buy it on your own with no input from her or anyone else.

The reasons you gave are all valid. There is also something gauche and dispiriting about taking the recipient of your gift along for the gift-buying process. It is indeed emasculating… or, to pull a term from the feminist cuntionary, *objectifying*… to offer yourself up as a wide open wallet from which she may withdraw liberally to spend on herself. This is the foundation upon which you want to rest a modern, companionate marriage of love? Fuk dat noize.

No woman with any character at all is going to tell you the ring sucks (which, in womanese, translates as, “this ring is too small and inexpensive”). If she frowns and complains when you give her the ring…

RUN. And don’t look back.

You’ve just gotten all the evidence you need that she is not worth your monogamous commitment.

You shouldn’t be spending much on rings anyhow. After all, it is men, as the naturally promiscuous and freedom-loving sex, who give up more when they get married. By rights, the tradition should be that women propose to men with overpriced rocks as barter, as they are the ones winning out by getting betrothed.

You might also think about fooling her with a cubic zirconia. Why? One, CZ is hard to detect without equipment. The average normal chick won’t know the difference. Two, if she does go out of her way to disprove its authenticity, you will know it’s true love if she decides to stay with you.

The collapse of the diamond market can’t come soon enough. American men have had a bill of goods foisted on them by the diamond cartels and Cosmo.

Read Full Post »

On Bended Knees

Royalty doesn’t wait.

(hat tip: JT)

(caption contest time! any reference to “polishing the royal sceptre” will earn double bonus points.)

Read Full Post »

Game And Life Trajectory

Game is, above all, about options. It is a toolkit and a psychological mindset that increases the number and quality of women available to you, and strengthens the attachment that women feel toward you. For the keepers of the societal cog assembly line, this is very bad news indeed, because men with options are men willing and able to put off or even entirely forego marriage and kids.

Options = Instability

For the typical man, game is probably the most powerful weapon in his arsenal of seduction that he has at his disposal. Few lifestyle changes can expand the pool of available and willing women as definitively as a concerted effort to learn game. A sudden infusion of wealth or fame, or a miracle of plastic surgery for the uglier men, would have a greater immediate impact than game, but for most men most of the time for whom fame and wealth are out of reach or would require decades of hard work to achieve, nothing gives a bigger bang for the bang than game.

This increase in sexual market leverage does come with a cost, depending on your philosophical view of the inherent tension between individual aggrandizement and societal well-being. As new vistas of poon open wide to the man who accepts the carnal word of game into his life, the context for the choices he makes and the big stages of life he is expected — worse, obligated and duty-bound according to some whiny women — to navigate are irrevocably altered. He no longer feels the pressure to accede to custom, to accept his lot like a good provider beta gear in the machine, or to join the herd of those corralled in claustrophobic pens of restricted options.

Such a man who possesses facility with attracting the opposite sex subconsciously regards his girlfriend (or girlfriends) with a utilitarian eye. He knows that should something go wrong, should she grow — heaven forfend! — bored with him, or he with her, he can find a replacement woman of equal or better quality with a few weeks effort. This self-awareness of his options, based in the reality of his experience, colors every choice he makes. And, more importantly, it instills in him a discreet take-it-or-leave-it demeanor that is unmistakeable, and unmistakably alluring, to women. It is the attitude of sex panther.

The man with options often decides, with justification, to say fuck it to marriage and all that soul-sucking suburban indentured servitude. Thus, knowledge of game and the larger selection of women it offers to the practitioner play a substantial role in the direction his life takes.

Reader Rum comments:

Getting a good grasp of game DOES disrupt the (supposedly) normal progression of life events. Indeed, it makes it dramatically more likely that you at 47 will get lascivious attention from “in-appropriately young” women. But, the thing is, with ordinary luck, you will be getting the same kind of vibes from that same chicks mother. (Its weird the way they smell the same).

So you will have to make a definite choice. Choose without thinking too much. Then pretend the mom thing never really happened. It might work.

This is no doubt true, as any man who has reaped the benefits of game will tell you. The socially-approved timetable of life stages is simply wiped clean, conventional expectations are brought to heel, and the horizon of choice pussy extends along every compass point.

The normal, 21st century progression of life events for the average beta bear who knows nothing of game looks like this:

– hit puberty
– masturbate for ten years
– attend sex ratio-skewed college full of slutty women and get lucky once or twice, despite social awkwardness
– enlist in cubicle farm, ogle sexy co-workers at sexual harassment seminar
– manage to land a 4 or 5 girlfriend through drunken social circle
– date her for two years until she dumps him
– drown sorrows for one full year torturing self with repeated viewings of ex’s Facebook relationship status updates, (“Currently in a harem!”), including make-out pics with new biker boyfriend
– meet an “amazing” 5.5 chubby girl with “more to love”
– propose 1.2 years later
– get married, have kids
– watch as his soul drains away from enforced monogamy and ingrate spawn
– surprise divorcebuttsecks!
– pay half for the lingerie ex-wife buys to titillate her new succession of fly-by-night lovers
– contemplate killing self
– work self to bone for a corporate behemoth’s bottom line
– after ten years being single and paying alimony, meet a 45 year old divorcée lawyer with saggy tits and flat ass
– “court” her, or a reasonable facsimile thereof
– suffer the indignity of pretending to enjoy kissing her as her hot daughter traipses around the house in short shorts
– live out waning days accompanying hag second wife to arts and crafts boutiques
– get sent to nursing home by “compassionate” children for sweet deliverance from the prison of wrecked flesh that holds the last vestige of his faintly man-like soul

Ok, now here’s the 21st century progression of life events for the man who knows game and uses it to successfully meet women:

– hit puberty. If a born natural, begin fucking “underage” (it’s all relative) high school girls. If not a born natural, learn from naturals, mimic them, and discover the crimson arts
– have a sweet sixteen girlfriend (or two) he will never forget, and who he will always compare, usually favorably, to future lovers, to keep those future lovers off any pedestals he may be inspired to erect in their names
– fuck like a rabbit in college if early start. Otherwise, fuck like a rabbit for the next twenty years after college
– somewhere along that timeline, meet a great girl who he rationally tells himself would make a good wife
– reminds himself that marriage is an irrational choice. Then reminds himself that he loves flirting with the cashier at the supermarket, and he marvels how easy it would be to snag her number
– laughs to himself at thought of proposing. (“Bended knee, my ass!”)
– good girl dumps him for wasting her prime years. In his sorrow, he responds by traveling and banging a couple of international hotties
– his divorced and financially raped male friends glom onto him. His harried married male friends secretly envy him
– work is just another word for lifestyle enabler
– spend waning years dating relatively younger and younger women, watching the age gap widen and his married chump friends waking up to the realization that they are shackled by law to wrinkly old bags
– society hates him. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t give a shit
– die post-coitus from a heart attack. Leave the world alone to enter a void of nothingness, no different than all those married schlubs who toiled for years to nurture and raise a legacy of strippers and delinquents

Any questions?

Oh, yeah, there is one question I have. I understand the Chateau has been mentioned as an outpost of loathsome, bowel-shaking truth in Kay Hymowitz’s new book Manning Up. Dearest Kay, please tell the Chateau readership…

What exactly does marriage offer to guys like us who have the tools to meet, fuck and love women?

It’s not like marriage by its very nature isn’t a raw deal for men. Even the supposed health benefits of marriage for men are a lie. Assuming the law was fair and not the man-hating femcunt swamp of legalistic ass-rogering that it is today, marriage would still be a bigger sacrifice for men than it is for women, simply because men are more naturally promiscuous than women and thus have more to lose by cuffing themselves to a legally enforced institution of monogamy. But now throw in the divorce industrial complex, the house, the kids, alimony, a washed up pussy distended from riding the cock carousel during her lean years and all the rest and that just makes the case against marriage even more airtight than it was before.

PS: Any appeals to nobility or honor will not count as a valid answer. Instead, they will be seen for what they are: a flagrant, flailing attempt to shame men into making choices that further feminists’ interests while undermining men’s interests.

Read Full Post »