Deserve’s Got Nothin’ To Do With It

This hamsterbation on Jizzebel is a couple years old now but it may have broken an all-time record for number of CH readers who forwarded it requesting a satisfying takedown. All you have to do is read the title to know you are about to enter… The Hamster Zone. (At this point you visualize a hamster wheel spinning through outer space.)

What kind of guy does a girl who looks like Lena Dunham ‘deserve’?

What kind of apex predator can turn down sinking his teeth into that juicy bait?

The “””article””” is about that insipid show Girls (has it fallen off the air yet?) and specifically about the episode when lumpy moocow Lena Dunham’s character gets into a relationship with an older, handsome doctor.

Yeah, try to contain your credulity.

Apparently, feminists are offended (what else is new?) that some viewers have expressed the doubleplusungood opinion that Dump-ham didn’t deserve the blind good doctor.

As Will Munny said to Little Bill before shooting him dead: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

No woman, or man, “deserves” a certain class of lover. Anyone who says that (and it’s mostly women who say stuff like this) is intoning a palliative for her bruised ego. Everyone has a value on the sexual market, and if you want better choices of partners you have to work to make yourself more valuable.

asdf comments:

The key takeaway from this Girls episode is no matter how much of a loser a woman is she can sleep with top quality men simply by lowering the price enough.

Not really. Girls is unrealistic. A fantasy itch for Lena. IRL, a 4 like Dunham doesn’t get sex from handsome doctors, let alone commitment. There is this meme floating around the omegasphere that all kinds of ugly and fat and old and thunderously-thighed women can get sex from alpha males at the drop of a hat, but that is a fevered concoction badly extrapolating from a loose interpretation of the functioning of the dating market. Men, especially White men, and particularly popular White men, do discriminate when choosing which women they will bang, and their discrimination will become more intense, violating all sorts of EEOC laws, when considering a woman as a long-term girlfriend or wife prospect.

Lena Dunham is repulsive to most men with options, and she will be passed over by those men for sex with prettier women, even if it means the men pay a higher price in energy and time devoted to the pursuit of prettier girls. The only way the Lenas of the world can compete with better women is by slashing their prices so low that they are practically giving away their LSMV pussies. And a bargain bin price drop is no guarantee of sex for the bottom 10-20% of women who are so gross to look at that most of them won’t get any man’s attention, let alone an alpha male’s, with their legs wide open and a neon red vacancy sign pointing at their crotches.

This is a sexual market reality that trips up a lot of bitter men who have a weird need to imagine women have it incredibly easy and men must do all the lovelorn suffering. The dregs of womanhood will suffer incel spells, and longer insol spells, although the frequency of dry spells and the duration of each dry spell will be generally less frequent and shorter for women than they will be for men of equal low mate value.

Another sex-based distinction is that women will better tolerate periods of sexlessness than will men, while men will better tolerate periods of lovelessness than will women (as long as the lovelessness is substituted with casual sex).

Now this is not to say that women, ON AVERAGE, don’t have an easier time than do men getting sex when they need it. While both men and women are discriminating in their mate and marital choices, women can afford to be more discriminating pre-sex, because the average woman’s sex is worth more than the average man’s sex. But that’s where a lot of men and women have their perspectives skewed — a man’s worth to women is not his sex so much as it is his *commitment* and *survival utility*. The woman who can extract commitment from an alpha male is a winner. The woman who can only get pumped and dumped by desperate goons is a loser. And she knows it.

So, no, the Lean Dunhams of the world are not getting banged out by high status docs, and they certainly aren’t getting proposals from them. Instead, the Lena Dunhams are dumpster diving with dirty, socially maladroit, dull, whiny milquetoasts.

And deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

Read Full Post »

The Sly “Game Contradictions” Troll

There is a relatively new class of troll who bears a striking resemblance to the well-known “concern troll”, but who is in some respects far more insidious in his methodology and ability to derail comment threads on blogs devoted to the teachings of the charisma arts. I call this new breed the “game contradictions troll”.

A classic example of the game contradictions troll is this comment by “The Shrike” (who may not necessarily be an insincere troll, but whose complaint nonetheless serves as an ideal representative of the sort of comment a game contradictions troll would leave).

A lot of sound advice in this post. It looks like the author is slowly shifting away from the unabashed, detached Lothario pose to a more conservative outlook on life. Conservative values are not my own, but it seems that this is a more consistent approach when it comes to the opinions often professed by the author and most of the commenters here. A recurrent theme is the impending collapse of the Western civilization, largely caused by female hypergamy. The majority seems to abhor the fact modern women ride the proverbial “cock-carousel”, seemingly forgetting that no amount of game would be effective against uptight prudes who only ever do it after marriage, and only to procreate.

Game contradictions trolls thrive on a studied ignorance or disavowal of the true fact of life that there are different standards for the sexes, and that these standards are not set by men, but by nature, and men merely conform to these sexual market standards and rationalize their fairness (or unfairness) when it suits them, (we are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species).

No one on this board has claimed that female hypergamy is the prime cause of Western decline. Female hypergamy is one of those differing sexual market standards that apply to women and not to men, and that can’t be wished away. The assertion often made at CH is that female hypergamy is a real phenomenon, and it is best to accept the reality of it and MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU rather than shake your fist ineffectually at it in hopes women magically cure themselves of their evolved desire to mate with, and extract the commitment of, the highest status men that their looks can realistically afford.

Riding the cock carousel is NOT necessarily a manifestation of female hypergamy. The cock carousel is the consequence of socially atomized anonymous urban environments coupled with contraceptives and economic self-sufficiency providing cover and incentive for women to indulge the part of their sexuality that yearns for dominant, charming, jerkboy cads who are hard to pin down into committed relationships. This is not female hypergamy fulfilled, but female hypergamy THWARTED, as it is the Darwinian directive of every woman to land the most desirable alpha man and to KEEP HIM AROUND.

There is an interesting clash of contradicting attitudes here. Not arguments between different posters, but internally inconsistent opinions voiced by the same people. Game is still a hallowed topic, not to be touched with a mortal hand, but it runs counter to the otherwise conservative leanings of the commenters. A stable family-unit, also much cherished around here, is mutually exclusive to widespread promiscuity exemplified by men who “game” women, and women who are willing to play along.

Another category error made often and reliably by trolls and anti-game haters. “Game” is not synonymous with promiscuity, although game certainly aids the pursuit of promiscuity if that is what is desired. A man could just as easily use game — aka learned charisma — to meet, seduce, date, and when the time is right, marry the most beautiful oneitis he has ever laid eyes on. I wouldn’t recommend it, but there you go.

Ultimately, there is a choice to be made if a man is to be congruent at the most basic level. Either champion a virtuous society where loyalty matters a lot, and people pair up with the intention of forming serious relationships. Or support the cad lifestyle where jumping from one woman to the next without any consideration is the norm.

Men have a longer SMV window than women and bear a smaller cost for each act of copulation than do women, which means in practice each man can, and should, get some romantic experience under his belt (heh) and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman. The fact of biologically grounded sex differences which aren’t going anywhere means that cadding about is always going to be less psychologically, reproductively and emotionally expensive for men than slutting around will be for women.

If it’s the latter, then it’s difficult to blame women for trying to do the same.

First, most women aren’t interested in doing the same, despite transparently try-hard protestations to the contrary by fat, bitter feminists. Second, it’s not difficult to blame the women trying to emulate the lifestyle of the alpha male cad for their short-sightedness. Different sex-based standards in the sexual market, and different sex-based psychosexual temperaments, are an emergent fact of life, not a directive handed down by the invisible pimp hand of the patriarchy.

If it’s the former, then much of the game concept goes out the window, though some aspects of getting a chosen female interested presumably are still useful.

How about, “game gives men the tools to successfully attract and keep women in sexual and emotional relationships.” There. That’s not so hard now, is it?

Read Full Post »

Optimism Pushers

You’re going to hear a lot of mewling by cuckservatives this election cycle — as you have heard from them for the last, oh, eight election cycles — about the GOP needing to be more “optimistic”, because “Americans want to hear a message of hope, (not nasty dispiriting truths).”

Ignore it. Do you know what an optimist buried to his neck in a rising tide of shit is called? A fool.

“Optimism” is cuck-code for “sweeping reality under the rug and continuing the sell-out of white Americans”.

PS Here are some ❤️heart-warming photos❤️ of international border walls from around the world.

Read Full Post »

Sexist Men Are Quite Literally Winners, Common Sense (And ♂SCIENCE♂) Finds

Vapid shell entity Caitlin Dewey is at it again, snarkily uptalking in her late Millennial patois and squirting out mental masturbation material for bitter feminists left behind by a merciless sexual market. She links to a study which found that male Halo players who were losing the video game badly were aggressively hostile to female players and aggressively submissive to better male players.

Dewey uses the “””findings””” that are a little too conveniently friendly to feminist shibboleths to grind her cunty battle axe. Unfortunately for her religious tenets, the study is so flawed as to make it nearly self-debunking.

Nowhere in the linked source for the study did I see a reference to ages or races of the study participants. Were these all white kids trash talking what they thought were female teammates who were letting the team down? Or was there an unfortunate racial skew the study researchers felt disinclined to note?

And what about the ages of the male players? 12 years old, or 25 years old? This makes a huge difference. No one should be surprised when a 12-year-old boy lashes out at UGH GIRLS. But these natural and normal development behaviors of boys tend to dissipate by adulthood.

Here’s an ugly scientific and common-sensible truth with which the Caitlin Deweyettes of the SJW world should acquaint themselves: Sexist men are more attractive to women. Or, in urban SWPL ditz parlance, sexist men are QUITE LITERALLY winners.

Here’s a quote that will simultaneously trigger Caitlin’s man-hating ego and jerkboy-loving vagina.

And, in what is sure to be a shot straight to the flabby feminist gut, women are more sexually receptive to assertively sexist men.

Sexist men are socioeconomic winners and sociosexual winners. Women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who scoff at feminist poopytalk.

Now, this is not an endorsement of the 12-year-old boy variety of hostility to women. The sexist adult men who win women’s hearts are best classified as “benevolent sexists”; that is, they aren’t hostile to women; they are patronizing to women. Chicks dig a man with amused mastery. You know what chicks don’t dig, in the digging way that truly matters? Avowed male feminists sucking up to them at every turn.

Read Full Post »

America, Fantasy And Reality

Fantasy:

Reality:

Update: SCROTUS has ruled in favor of fantasy America.

Read Full Post »

To Whom Should Men Turn For Advice About Women?

In a Steve Sailer comment thread to a post about Tim Hunt, (the Nobel Prize winning scientist who made the reasonable observation that women scientists are emotionally fragile and can’t take criticism), commenter Ozymandias, responding to some female commenter demonstrating women’s ability to take things personally, wrote,

Unfortunately, what many women consider to be friendship is little more than them cultivating sexual attraction in men they have no interest in, so that they can harvest ego strokes. That’s why any man worth his salt knows the number one rule: never take advice about women from women.

Common sensible and often true, even if women and their beta white knight lackeys don’t like to hear it. The seminal post on when and how men and women can be friends is here. It’s the only thing you need to read on the topic that bears any resemblance to reality as it is for most normal human beings.

Steve, in all his down-home, around-the-way, congenially nerdy Steve-ness, responded to Ozymandias,

Guys, listen to your mother, grandmother, aunts, and sisters about women.

*Godzilla face palm*

Your grandmother… maybe, if she’s at least 90 years old, born well before the post-America funny farm opened its doors. Your mother, aunts, and sisters? No. Women not only give wrong advice to men about how to seduce them, they usually give advice 180 DEGREES removed from what actually works! This is a bug in woman code that men must accept and work around.

The person a man should listen to for advice about women is another man who has both a track record bedding and loving beautiful women and has the self-awareness and mental acuity to know what it is about men like himself that women love and to effectively communicate his knowledge.

Read Full Post »

A Woman’s Looks Are *More* Important To Her Marriageability

The Chateau has been a destination for Crimson Pill pilgrims a long time, yet confusion about the functioning of the sexual market continues bedeviling a fair number of click-by readers. And not just at CH, but at other ostensibly Realtalk outposts. A recent example of this entrenched ignorance comes from a commenter at Alpha Game, who is under the impression that a woman’s looks are *less* important to marriage-minded men than to fling-favoring men.

It is probably a bit true that men will make some trade offs in favor of intelligence and other factors against looks in a long term partner relative to a short term one.

But that would be like choosing hot but crazy for a weekend but putting for a bit less hot but sane for a wife.

Of course looks are less important in a wife than in a one night stand. But only in a holistic sense. You don’t really care if a one night stand can read or count past 10 without taking her shoes off. You probably would care the mother of your children can.

“Of course” looks are less important in a wife? Da’Fuc? I don’t know how one could hold this opinion when the real world evidence points in the complete opposite direction. Take a tally of all your married male friends. If you’ve been friends a while, you’ll be able to compare their ex-girlfriends to their current wives. I bet nine out of ten of them have wives considerably hotter than the average of their ex-girlfriends.

The reason why this is so is simple: When a man is seeking to settle down with a lifelong lover and mother of his future children, he wants the BEST DEAL HE CAN GET. If he plans to invest everything in one woman, you bet he’ll make sure he’s getting good return on investment.

It’s similar to buying perishable goods versus durable goods. Toilet paper? Yeah, you don’t want it tearing apart in your ass forest, but you won’t care much about the advantages of 10-ply over 9-ply. You’ll buy a good value TP, a brand that’ll do the job but won’t cost more than a decent cheesesteak.

But a more durable good, like a car? You will care about every detail of that purchase — looks, power, efficiency, reliability… “leg” room. You’ll spend a lot more time mulling over your auto options than you will your TP options.

It goes the same with women. A one night stand or a short fling? Sure, you want the hottest girl you can get, but you’ll make sacrifices if she’s good to go. Maybe you allow yourself to tolerate a one point beauty deduction for a two point increase in sexual availability.

But a potential wife… ah, that’s serious business. Now you definitely want the whole package — beauty, youth, femininity, dependability, fidelity, and smarts that are in the ballpark of your own intelligence. Emphasis on beauty and youth.

Christ, people, use your heads. Do you really think the typical man would be LESS concerned about the looks of a woman he’ll be staring at for YEARS?!

Oh, but you know a man who married poorly. Yes, those men exist… they’re called betas with no options. Men with options are VERY discerning about the women they will bless with their full devotion. You can bet that uglier women, fatter women, sluttier women, and crazier single moms have as much, and likely more, trouble finding a marriage-minded man who isn’t a total loser, as charmless beta males with nothing to offer but their wallets and sympathy hugs have finding a merger-minded girl who just wants to have fun.

Read Full Post »