Second Thoughts

Imagine you ignored everything you read here and proposed to your girlfriend. She accepted. Would you have second thoughts if you saw her Facebook page the next day and she had changed her profile photo to this? (hat tip: Lance Armstrong’s Molester Mustache):

The poor bastard who married this girl is in for a world of hurt. He will

NEVER

STOP

PAYING.

Read Full Post »

Ass Saving and Wife Taming

Reader GdI wrote in the comments to yesterday’s post:

All very interesting but I miss CH, whose near-daily offerings were that rarest of things online: unique. Funny, pithy, deeply irreverent, yet also profoundly based on a coherent and totally counterrevolutionary (and utterly reality-based) worldview. As Ken Tynan said, “Write heresy, pure heresy …” And so it was.

Occasional forays into paleo-punk politics and HBD-istan are are well and good, but Citizen Renegade ain’t doing it. This CH-lite-by-committee thing ain’t working.

Bring back The Dark Lord!

I see his point. This blog has been missing satan’s spittle lately. Henceforth, the dude who’s been writing the mid-week posts has been reassigned temporarily to Vladivostok. Now let’s get down to business.

Got mistress? If your woman finds a pair of earrings in your bedroom that aren’t hers, simply tell her:

“I was doing some spring cleaning and I found those. I figured they were yours.”

This is an impenetrable defense. The phrasing leads her to think the earrings are from a girl many years ago. You get the double plus goodness of insta-absolution plus the resume booster of female preselection.

Real Men of Genius called; they want this blog’s knowledge.

***

There’s this scene in “Death at a Funeral” that involves Uncle Russell, Norman, a toilet, a hand, and a runny shit deflected mid-expulsion. When I think of marriage, this is the scene that comes to mind — trapped under the maelstrom of an agitated anus. And yet, despite my words of warning, some of you will be damnfool enough to go ahead and get married.

Ok, then, if you want to march into the iron maiden with a dopey grin on your face, at least nudge the very bad odds slightly in your favor.

Rule #1 for men who insist on marrying the pussy they’ve been getting for free:

Make her propose first.

Yeah, this won’t be easy. How many women do you know who proposed marriage to their recalcitrant boyfriends? I know one. ONE. But that one gives all men hope, for where there is one, there can be many.

What’s the big deal about getting her to propose, you ask? Oh man, you have no idea how much misery you’d be saving yourself. Every time there’s an argument, and wifey is tempted to play that favorable divorce card with all the gatling guns of the misandrist industrial complex pointed squarely between your eyes, she’ll remember that time she dropped to one knee to ask — or more likely to beg for — *your* hand in marriage, and her rationalization hamster will whisper in her brain that the argument must be her fault, because why on earth would she have proposed to an annoying loser? No, it must be that there’s something wrong with her, not you.

When a woman proposes, it is she who invests in the marriage. She becomes the chaser instead of the chased. It is her ego on the line; her judgement. A woman in this psychological lockbox will be a lot more apprehensive about walking away from the marriage. She will autonomically defer always and forever to the premise that all bitter arguments and all traveling tingles must be unfair to her husband somehow. After all, she proposed marriage to a WINNER. What girl in her right mind would propose to a chump?

Unfortunately, steering a girl to do the humiliating work of proposing is not easy. She has to be head over heels in love, for one thing. And she has to feel acutely the dread of loss. Hints at marriage won’t cut it. She has to say the words “Will you marry me?”. Variations such as “Let’s get married” or “I feel we should be married” are acceptable.

Only masters of the game should attempt the parallel universe proposal. Newbs will get dumped.

***

Need a quickie conversation boosting routine? Tell a chick you’re thinking about getting a dog. Then segue… smoothly, like a single malt… into an observation about how people’s dogs match their personalities. Tell her she looks like the type who would own a jack russell terrier. When she asks why, you say “Oh, you know, always jumpy, kinda funny in an accidental way, and full of energy.” (When negging a chick hard, Uzi style, you’ll want to pair two negative connotations with one positive connotation. You want to deflate her bloated ego, not crush it into a powder that can be snorted.)

This is a powerful neg that serves the dual purpose of giving you reams of conversational material so you don’t run into the dreaded wall of awkward silence.

The hotter she is, the gayer/nastier/goofier the dog to which you will compare her. If she’s a 9, tell her she’s a chinese crested kind of girl. If she’s a 10, she’s the type to own a fat, farting basset hound. Save the noble dogs like german shepherds for the 7s and below. If a hot chick gives you a hard time about being compared to the personality of an incontinent chihuahua, accuse her of ignoring the beautiful parts of a chihuahua’s personality, like its fierce loyalty and big dog syndrome. She will start to feel bad for being mean to chihuahuas. Pat her hand as she reconsiders her malevolence.

***

Chicks who read comic books are slutty. They will bang on the first night. Don’t ask me why this is, it just is.

***

If you haven’t touched a girl on the forearm within ten minutes of meeting her, disengage. Your pickup is toast. If you haven’t touched a girl on the thigh within thirty minutes of meeting her, cut your losses and start fresh with a new girl.

Let me explain. In every one of my successful pickups, sensual touching occurred sometime within the first half hour. If you find yourself talking to a girl for longer than ten minutes without any touching taking place, you are perched over the LJBF abyss. Her erotic charge has been drained to less than 50%. And don’t be fooled by her smiling and laughing along with your witticisms and cutesy quips. Her lips may be curled in a smile, but her untouched body is withering into a cloistered nunnery of pussy dust.

Kino is king. Escalation is eminent. Zap these golden maxims into your wet head ham.

***

You can catch a lot of pretend-pious SWPL chicks off guard with this simple line:

“So how are you helping the environment for earth day?”

If she’s a status-jockeying hipster, expect a glorious apologia of defensive posturing. And where are tingles birthed? In the defensive crouch, of course!

If she’s Dana, expect her to laugh in your face. Then grab her and give her a deep, penetrating kiss. Sneak in a little tongue.

Read Full Post »

What Is The Best Type Of Person To Marry?

Reader el chief asks:

Dear Sir,

1. What is the best type of man for a woman to marry? For both the man and the woman.

It ain’t the badboy, cuz he will cheat or fuck off shortly after they marry, if at all.

It ain’t the beta, cuz she’ll be miserable the whole time, and then so will he.

Is it the Good Alpha? Does that exist?

The best type of man for a woman to marry is a man she loves. Sounds trite, but without that prerequisite in place, the marriage is doomed to either divorce or dissimulation. Maybe arranged marriages work better than love marriages on paper, but a loveless, arid business arrangement designed to smoothly usher in the next generation of cogs for the belching corporaglobomilitaryeducationalswplstatuswhoring machine is no way to go through life, son. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get down to brass tacks.

He should be higher status than her, i.e. superior to her in some observable trait or accomplishment. That status can come in many forms. He could be better educated, smarter, richer, funnier, more socially savvy, better connected, more charming, more confident, more dominant, better traveled, more artistic, or really really good at inspiring interest from other women.

But there are two big caveats. One, he should not be much higher status than her. A large discrepancy in status between a husband and wife — where the wife’s status is measured by her looks, not her accomplishments — virtually guarantees his straying. For instance, a man with 9 status (let’s say he’s a war zone photographer who travels the world for work) will cheat if the woman he marries is only an 8 or lower in looks, and the frequency and haste with which he cheats will be in proportion to the gap between his status rank and her looks rank. So if his wife is a 9, there is a 50/50 chance of monogamous bliss. If she’s a 10, he will be less likely to stray than he would be to remain faithful to her. But if she’s a 6, he’ll be cheating with a bridesmaid in the upstairs bathroom during the reception dinner.

Two, under no circumstance should he be better looking than her, regardless of his non-looks status. This is the one area where a woman’s status must reign supreme for there to be harmony in the land. Of course, it’s difficult to directly compare men’s looks to women’s looks. Cross gender beauty comparisons must rely on contrasting two distinct templates without much overlap. But generalizations can be made. Does he look like a male model and she look like a plain jane? Release the cheats! It doesn’t matter if he’s unemployed or dumb; if he’s better looking than his wife he will feel a strong primal pull to leverage his looks for short term flings with better looking women. A groom’s wedding vows are only as strong as his bride’s looks. If the wife looks comparatively less good-looking than the husband, she has completely relinquished any power over him. This is a recipe for marital unrest.

Maxim #59: The most successful marriages are those with a balance of power that slightly favors the husband’s status over the wife’s looks.

So what does this mean for women attracted to bad boys? Well, bad boys have status in the areas of social savviness, dominance, confidence, and usually charm. A woman who wants a bad boy — that is, she specifically wants a man who is good at getting other women — needs to parse the lesser bad boys from the greater badder boys, based on an honest assessment of her looks. If she’s a hard 10, she can shoot for the baddest boys. Bad boys are more likely to stray than other men in almost any scenario, but even they have weak underbellies. A bad boy engaged to a bodacious woman will work harder to curb his instincts than he would with a more average woman, especially if that bodacious woman has credible options in the dating market.

My advice for women seeking to maximize their domestic bliss windows at the expense of their drama windows is to avoid the bad boys or date one with a steady job and at least ten years older. The age gap will make him more grateful to be with you, and his primal pull to spread his seed will have mellowed.

Betas need not feel left out from all this fun. There is an army of fatter, uglier women out there who will be relieved happy to settle in their 30s for a beta.

I don’t want to shit all over the betas. There is hope. Plenty of betas get married. If you are a beta with no game, the key is to marry a woman not too much hotter than what you can normally get, and to be excellent in at least one pursuit. It could even be computer programming. As long as you can lord one accomplishment or status marker over your wife, her attraction for you will percolate. But betas would be much better off learning game. That well-paid computer programmer with an understanding of relationship game can safely marry a woman one or two points higher than what he could otherwise get, without worrying too much that he’ll be cuckolded.

2. Is a woman’s attractiveness absolute or relative or both? Does Brad Pitt think that a 9/10 woman is still hot? Or is she ugly, cuz he can bang 10s on the regular?

I believe that positive pheromones are correlated with good looks. Does that mean a 9/10 stinks to a 10/10, or do they still smell good?

Thanks

el chief

A woman’s attractiveness is an absolute. There is no Uglitopia where Rachel McAdams could go that would make her look ugly and Cigstache look good. Brad Pitt, no matter how bored he gets fucking the same 10 over and over, will always recognize that a 10 is a 10 and a 2 is a 2. When Brad Pitt cheats, 99% of the time he’ll cheat with other 9s and 10s. If female beauty weren’t an absolute, Pitt would randomly cheat with whichever woman was available, and that would include fatties and uglies. In fact, with obesity in the US at record levels, a “beauty is subjective” world would feature lots of high status men cheating with fat, ugly women. But that is not what we see.

Pheromones are an interesting clause to the above truths. Evidence is mounting that smell — the scent of our lovers — plays a role in how attracted we feel to them. Women who smell the yellow pits of t-shirts worn by men with histo-compatible profiles feel more strongly attracted to them. Personally, I know that from my own experience two women of equal looks can trigger divergent boner responses from me if I prefer the smell of one over the other. None of this is conscious, by the way. A lot of this pheromone stuff happens at the subconscious level. So maybe women should cut men a break when they catch them sniffing their panties. We’re just checking to see if you’d make a good wife.

Only once the basic biomechanical criteria are met should a man or woman prospecting for a marriage partner begin the task of gathering clues from his or her lover’s personality that would indicate a predilection for faithfulness or for unreliability. Does he actually remember small details of what you say? Check one for the keeper column. Does she get a little too irate when she catches you innocently flirting with women at a mixed social event? Check one for the chucker column. Do this for six months, then tally your keeper and chucker columns. If 3/4s or more of your check marks are in the keeper column, you may risk marriage and its attendant drudgery.

But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Read Full Post »

The Number One Dead Giveaway That Your Wife Is About To Cheat

The wicked knowledge is disseminating to the masses that women are natural born cheaters at heart; perhaps not as indiscriminately promiscuous as men, but neither as angelic as the Victorian and Christian ideal. Husbands all over the world are slowly becoming aware that their wives are compelled by ancient biological forces to cheat during the fertile time of her monthly cycle, and given the right incentives will act upon that urge to infidelity, usually with a higher status man, in order to acquire the beneficial genes in hopes of having a superior child which she can then foist upon her duped husband to help raise.

The princess pedestal has had three of its legs knocked out from under it, and the last leg wobbles precariously. Dark robed shadowy denizens of the Chateau welcome newcomers to its velvet-curtained corridors, where the last semblance of naivete will be stripped from you.

What to do with this knowledge?, some men will ask. Apply it!

First, you will need to know the details of your woman’s monthly cycle. You will need to acquaint yourself with “fertility awareness“.

Find out when your woman has her period. The monthly cycle begins from the first day she bleeds. Women ovulate about midway through their cycle (days 12-14), and sperm can survive inside a woman’s hoo-ha for 2-5 days. So from the middle of the second week to the beginning of the third week (days 10-16) is when your girlfriend or wife will be at her most fertile, i.e. most receptive to getting impregnated by whichever sperm happens to wander in during that time frame.

This fertile window (days 10-16 of her monthly cycle) can accurately be renamed “the cheating window”, because it is then that a woman will feel the strongest horniness for the seed of an alpha male. If she’s going to cheat, she is most likely to do it on these days. If you are a beta provider husband or boyfriend, you are in danger of being cuckolded on days 10-16. If you are an alpha husband or boyfriend the danger of betrayal is still there, because there is incentive for a woman to acquire the seed of multiple competing alpha males. However, alpha males have less to worry about than beta males, as women with alphas tend to be happier, both psychologically and sexually, and thus less prone to satisfy a gina tingle through infidelity. Even when women aren’t happy with their alpha mates, and seek the sexual embrace of Mr. Sensitivo for the emotional connection alpha hubby won’t or can’t give her, she is more likely to cheat with the soft-hearted betaboy fling during the infertile phase of her monthly cycle. Thus, the alpha husband/BF has less to worry about than the beta husband/BF should his woman wander.

Since a woman contemplating cheating during her fertile window subconsciously wants to ensure that any fertilization is done by an alpha male’s seed, and only an alpha male’s seed, she won’t want her vagina polluted with your tepid beta spooge. She will do everything in her power, in fact, to prevent you from penetrating her while she is ovulating.

Armed with this knowledge, we now know the number one dead giveaway that your wife or girlfriend is about to cheat on you:

Is she withdrawing sex during days 10-16 of her monthly cycle? Then you, my friend, are about to be betrayed.

If you hear from your woman “I have a headache” any time during her peak fertility, she has either cheated on you, is thinking about cheating on you, or is getting sufficiently turned off by your burgeoning betaness that cheating will soon become an option in the calculation of her moral universe.

Once fertile window sex withdrawal (FWSW) happens, particularly if you notice a trend of this happening over two or more monthly cycles, then you had better be ready to respond appropriately. By “respond appropriately”, I mean “get the upper hand”. Here are your choices:

1. Preemptively dump her. (Husbands are shit out of luck on this option.)
2. Game her. (As LTRs inevitably soften men, you will have to shake the rust off and return to pre-LTR form.)
3. Take a mysterious leave of absence during her fertile window. (Counterintuitively, a sexually inquisitive wife or girlfriend will be less likely to act on her cheating impulse if her beta mate isn’t around to remind her why she loathes him so.)
4. Preemptively cheat. (If you’re banging ass on the side, you won’t feel the sting of her sex withdrawal and possible betrayal as much.)

There is one caveat. The pill potentially fucks up the FWSW-cheating nexus by screwing with women’s hormones. If it’s true that women on the pill prefer less masculine men at whichever time of the monthly cycle, then it’s less predictable that her cheating with a more alpha lover will occur during ovulation. Betas take note. Your best bet for avoiding a rape-equivalent cuckolding is to date only women on the pill. Of course, this will mean she won’t have any kids with you, either, but childlessness beats unknowingly raising another man’s child any day of the month.

Read Full Post »

One Key To Marital Success: Have Fewer Options

A dozen readers have emailed me these two articles about the state of American women and their marriage prospects. One even breathlessly asked if this “disproves the CH worldview”. Leaving aside for the moment the oddity of terming a keen grasp of reality as approximating something close to a “worldview”, I had a curious look at the articles. Both articles were written by women (*cough* lesbians *cough*) who don’t much like the recent cultural trend imploring American women to mind the wall and settle for Mr. Good Enough before it’s too late.

Want to Be Happily Married? Go to College.
New research shows women with degrees are luckier in love.

[…] “Marriage rates in the U.S. for college-educated women have risen enormously since the 1950s,” Stevenson said. “In 1950, less than three quarters of white college-educated women went on to marry by age 40 [compared with 90 percent of high-school graduates]. But today, 86 percent marry by age 40, compared with 88 percent of high-school grads.”

Another way of stating this is that by age 40, it continues to be the case in 2010 that more high school-educated women than college-educated women get married. The problem with this study’s conclusions are twofold. One, very few women were attending college in the 1950s. When a huge rate increase is experienced, as in the case of women attending college in the 1950s versus 2010, you run into problems with outlier bias. That small cohort of women going to college in 1950 may have been disproportionately lesbian or ugly or socially maladroit. Trendsetters normally have something odd about them which sets them apart from conventional society, as would be similarly the case for those trailblazing emo dudes who first stormed the vaj walls of formerly female-only colleges like Vassar.

Two, “marriage by age 40” is a poor metric. By age 40, most women’s shelf lives have expired. Thus, all you are measuring is a bunch of overeducated women who delayed marriage to men they truly desired and were forced to settle for a schlump once their looks began the cruel fade in earnest.

Of course, expectations have changed dramatically in the last half century. “In the 1950s, a lot of women thought they needed to marry right away,” Coontz said. “Real wages were rising so quickly that men in their 20s could afford to marry early. But they didn’t want a woman who was their equal; they wanted a woman who looked up to the man. Men needed and wanted someone who knew less.” In fact, she said, research published by sociologist Mirra Komarovsky in 1946 documented that 40 percent of college women admitted to playing dumb on dates. “These days, few women feel the need to play down their intelligence or achievements,” Coontz said.

Maybe I missed the goldmine of statistical inference, but where is the countervailing research showing that “these days, few women feel the need to play down their intelligence or achievements”? Some of these people write as if they haven’t been on a date in ten years. I can tell you that, yes, educated women continue to play down their educational credentials, if not directly then indirectly by avoiding talking about them in favor of interrogating the man about his credentials. This is the case even when their credentials and accomplishments pale in comparison to mine. It is the nature of women to want to look up to a stronger man.

The new research has more good news for college grads. Stevenson said the data indicate that modern college-educated women are more likely than other groups of women to be married at age 40, are less likely to divorce, and are more likely to describe their marriages as “happy” (no matter what their income) compared with other women.

Options means instability. At 40, a woman has fewer options in the mating market, and so she is less likely to be tempted to leave a marriage for a better prospect, or even a different prospect. It is no surprise then, that divorce rates are lower for couples who got married later in life. If you want marital success (I hesitate to call it happiness) then the key is to limit your options. The human rationalization hamster, punch drunk on fermented sour grapes, will then rev up and provide all the excuses you need for maintaining the illusion of marital accord. It’s funny how quickly a lack of choice can render a less than stellar life situation immediately and palpably bearable. “Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be”.

The marriages of well-educated women tend to be more stable because the brides are usually older as well as wiser, Stevenson said.

And uglier.

“When a man with only a high school degree marries by age 20, there’s a 49 percent chance that he will be divorced within 10 years,” she said. “Compare that with the man who gets married in his mid-30s who has a college degree. Ninety percent will still be married 10 years later.”

Time for a game-approved reframe! “When a man with only a high school degree marries a coed hottie by age 20, there’s a 49 percent chance that he will be divorced within ten years, because his sperm and her eggs are itching to dive back into the sampler platter before their windows of opportunity close. Compare that with the college-educated man who gets married in his mid-30s to a mangy cougar on the prowl. Ninety percent will still be married ten years later, because no one else will have them.”

See how illuminating the social sciences can be?

College-educated couples are also more likely to marry for companionship and love and compatibility rather than for financial security.

Translation: College-educated women who delay marriage no longer bring the goods to the table to snag an alpha suitor. College-educated men who marry one of these older college-educated women for lack of options have willed themselves to believe compatibility is an acceptable substitute for hot and sexy babealicious looks.

“For women, financial stability used to be the most important reason for marriage,” she said. “Today, educated women are a lot less concerned about how much their husband earns,” she said, and more interested in whether “he is willing to share child care and housework.”

Keep telling yourself that, sister. To all the men reading this: For the unholy love of the great biomechanical machine in the sky, do not ever allow yourself to listen to women and become a kitchen bitch. That’s a one way ticket to marital oblivion.

Over the last half century, more women and men have been putting off marriage, and the group of women who have never been married at age 40 has grown over time.

This to me seems the most relevant factor in discussions of marriage and divorce rates.

But even among this group, Stevenson said, college grads who want to get married eventually have an advantage because they are  “twice as likely to marry in the next 10 years” as unmarried 40-year-olds with just a high-school degree.

If a beta chump is forced to settle for a past-prime 40 year old woman, it makes sense he would at least find an employed woman who isn’t going to suck him dry with her paint huffing habit. And let’s face it, most of the women in the “unmarried 40-year-old with just a high school degree” group are likely single moms towing around a broodclan of bratty snotnosed ingrates. College-educated spinsters at least have had the decency to refrain from blasting out their wombs with the multiple spawn of past lovers and foisting the product on the schmoes she’s resigned herself to dating.

The data also point to significant racial differences. While white women with college degrees are slightly less likely to marry than their less-educated sisters, a different scenario emerges among African-American women. Today, 70 percent of black college-educated women marry by age 40, compared with 53 percent of those who never finished high school. In the 1950s, black college-educated women were much less likely to marry than those with less education. “What all this tells me is that our perceptions lag behind the reality of our time,” Stevenson said. “College-educated women have been closing the gap very steadily.”

Gee, funny that they left this part out until the very end of the article. So college-educated white women — you know, the type of woman who reads articles in Slate and Newsweek — are less likely to marry than uneducated white women, and that the biggest reason for the change in overall marriage rates of college-educated women is the rapid increase in marital rates of educated black women. I think there’s a story here.

So if you’re looking for another reason to encourage a young woman to get her college degree, add this one to the list: chances are, you’ll be luckier in love.

Not quite, unless by “luckier in love” she means “luckier despite love”.

Read Full Post »

What Does It Mean To Be Off The Market?

Maxim #98: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.

Corollary to Maxim #98: Singleness is no guarantee of full sexual market participation.

Expert level commenter Whiskey left a comment about the Tiger Woods affair on a blog I read (at the moment I can’t recall the blog) in which he stated plainly that each woman with whom Woods had a tryst was one less woman available on the dating market to other men. His point was that twelve (in reality, triple that number) Tiger mistresses (or whores, or skanks, or courtesans, whatever you want to call them the concept is clear) means twelve beta men go without a woman at all. Some of the commenters took Whiskey to task, noting, perhaps not illogically, that a woman living as the sex toy of a billionaire golfer is not necessarily off the market. There are six other days in the week, after all. The typical fuckhole might see Woods once a month, which leaves her plenty of time to date other men.

Comforting thoughts, but I’ll throw my experiences with and observations of these kinds of women in the ring and lend support to Whiskey’s point of view. On a ledger sheet, sure, these provisional paramours have lots of downtime to date other men. But a woman’s emotional contours are hardly amenable to the ledger. Unlike men, most women are averse to boffing multiple concurrent partners. It is simply not in the nature of women to be psychologically equipped to handle with grace and steadiness the crass rutting with Cock A one day and Cock B the very next day. Women don’t operate like that. They see a cock they like, they want to be with that cock, and if they succeed all other cocks recede to invisibility, at least until either their preferred cock leaves for good or they grow weary of that cock.

What I am describing is not a slut apologia. The infamous cock carousel that spins like a possessed Stephen King-ian carnival ride in our major urban centers is open for business. But it’s a turgid carousel of consecutive rides, one women normally jump off of before clambering back on to sit on a new, fresh horsey. They aren’t attempting to straddle all the horsies at once.

Now some women of the craving simultaneous schlong variety do exist. But they are extremely rare. Aside from prostitutes (who medicate their perforating souls with the salve of money, drugs, and complete submission to the pimp), only the foulest sluts and most rapacious sociopaths are constitutionally capable of concurrent cock hopping for pleasure and personal gain. Some of these stone cold sluts were likely positioning themselves in Tiger’s target acquisition periphery, and he clumsily obliged like the stiffly off-putting former beta droid he is. But it is also likely that some of his mistresses genuinely fell for the tingly feelings his power and fame gave them, and they forsook all other men to focus solely on Tiger, even if it meant seeing him just once a month.

So Whiskey’s observation has merit. If a man is alpha and unburdened by moral considerations, he will have mistresses and flings and hotel bar hookups. And in turn, those mistresses and flings will drift off the dating market, de facto if not maritally de jure. When an alpha captures a woman’s heart, even if for only a few times a year, her yearning focuses like a laser beam onto him to the exclusion of more available betas in her midst. She will be happier daydreaming of her unavailable lover than talking in real life with second rate suitors.

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

The Tiger Woods bimbo eruption has clarified the seedy underbelly of the sexual market within which we all operate, no matter how many Hallmark platitudes we recite to the contrary to assuage our pestering fears. People get wrapped up in the salacious gossip and revel in the downfall of a celebrity, but behind the jokes and snark of the gawking masses percolates a silent unease. Women spare fleeting thoughts that the men who love them might trade up to a younger hotter model if offers suddenly emerged. Men hide a slow moving but deep river of envy for any alpha male who makes the news by monopolizing enough women to sexually nourish the IT department of a large corporation.

Yes, in 2009 America, there are men who rule over harems. And there are many more men who are eunuchized by this dirty little reality.

Some of the quotes from Tiger’s flings are a case study in female rationalization.

Jamie Jungers (fling #??):

Jamie, 26, who bears a striking resemblance to Elin, recalled: “Tiger and I went back to the room and just started making out.

“It just went from one thing to the next. We ended up having crazy sex for two hours. I remember him picking me up and putting me against the wall. And that’s when it turned into wild sex. It was really good.

“Later I said to him, ‘I don’t know a whole lot about your marriage situation. I know it is very fresh. I know you just got married. I mean, is it going OK?’ He said, ‘Yes, it’s fine, she’s in Sweden with her family’.”

She’s banging a dude who just got married and she asks if his marriage is going OK. No one is that stupid. She asked because by asking she absolves herself of any guilt or accountability for what she is doing. This is how women think. They are submissive, empty vessels to their core.

Jaimee Grubbs (fling #???):

TIGER Woods was rated as “horrible in bed” by one of his lovers, it was revealed yesterday.

The damning verdict came from cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs, who says she had a 31-month fling with the married golf superstar.

One would think 31 months is a long time to fuck a man who is “horrible in bed”, but alphas get a lot of leeway. Or she’s just pissed she was turned in for a flashier upgrade.

The 24-year-old mistress told fellow contestants on US TV reality show Tool Academy she had also “hooked up” with George Clooney.

But while she was full of praise for the movie heartthrob, she mauled Tiger.

Telly pal Krista Grubb, 27, told The Sun: “She was showing all these texts saying they were from Tiger and George.

One she said was from George said, ‘When can I get in there again?’ He signed it G.

“She said she met him while working as a cocktail waitress in Los Angeles and they would meet up in Vegas and he was a lot of fun.

“Jaimee said George was amazing but wasn’t so nice about Tiger. She just kept saying he was horrible in bed.”

Let this be a lesson, men. If you want rave reviews from pump and dumps, live your cad lifestyle without apology. Women not only respect that in a man, they love it.

Read Full Post »

Tiger Woods Or George Clooney?

Which man is smarter today? Tiger Woods, who got married? Or George Clooney, single and never without a happy smile on his face?

If Tiger had read my blog and taken my eminently sensible advice he would not be facing the dire prospect of a nine digit cut in pay for doing EXACTLY what his wife, Elin Nordegren, did when she married one of the most desirable bachelors in the world — namely, fulfilling the alpha directive. As alpha females should be free to pursue and coax commitment from the highest quality men, so too should alpha males be free to pursue and bang numerous hot women. It would only be fair.

Beta males at least have an excuse for getting married. They might not find another woman. Alpha males have no excuse.

As Nike might say to Tiger: “Just don’t do it.”

Read Full Post »