The Reality Of Male Choice

Satoshi Kanazawa, a popularizer of evolutionary psychology before Psychology Today canned him for insufficiently footnoted and massaged crimethink, has frequently been fond of asserting that women exercise ALL the choice in the mating market. Men are just along for the ride, hoping to be one of the chosen. (Kanazawa’s absolutism on this matter is particularly galling, since he should know better. His claim is easily refuted. For example, I’ve had chubby chicks come onto me, and I’ve turned them down. Direct, stone cold rejection must feel a hundred times worse for women than it does for men.)

A certain breed of slutty tankgrrl feminist likes to claim the same thing; that women can have all the sex they want, whenever they want, and with whomever they want, and men have no say in the matter. A willful ignorance — or, more accurately, a clinical self-delusion — about the wall and men’s attractiveness standards is required to hold this position.

Then there are the beta and omega male trolls, a truly abhorrent species who occasionally squirt their tepid loserjizz in the comments of this blog when they announce — almost gleefully — that women rule, and men are hopeless horndogs who happily fuck fat and ugly chicks, making life difficult for the betas who have to deal with ego-pumped fatties.

They’re all wrong. Men do exercise choice in the dating market, and men with options — the men most desired by women — exercise the most choice of all, usually with extreme prejudice.

A simple program of getting out of the house and mingling in a social context should suffice as all the proof of male choice that you’ll need, but since a significant percentage of internet theorizers appear to be shut-ins or trollish cranks, it sometimes helps these wayward souls if a scientific study or two is posted to clear their muddled musings. In this study, evidence is given that men with more resources raise their mating standards.

Resources are a cardinal component of male mate value in the sexual exchange between men and women. Inspired by theories and research suggesting a link between mating and resource constructs as well as studies linking money and valuations of others, the current study tests the hypothesis that cues to resource availability may lead to higher mating standards for men, but not women. Participants were exposed to either stacks of paper, a small sum of money (104 Singapore dollars ∼USD$84), or a large sum of money (2600 Singapore dollars ∼USD$2100). Consistent with the hypothesis, after male – but not female – participants handled a large sum of money, they raised their minimum requirements for a date. [Physical attractiveness requirements drove this effect most significantly.] We discuss how the results are consistent with an evolutionary perspective on mating and how future research can further investigate environmentally contingent self-assessments and strategies.

The short and sweet of it: when men get more money, they start to screen for hotter chicks. That is, men with cash CHOOSE better looking girls.

I’ve no doubt similar studies that examined the relationship between social status, fame and game would find that men who acquired more of these positive traits would also begin raising their standards in what they will tolerate in a sex and love (but I repeat myself) partner.

It should be noted that studies like this demonstrating the reality of male mate choice do not imply that men exercise as much choice as women. That is false. Women are, by virtue of their more expensive and scarce reproductive life source, the more discriminating sex. It is absolutely true that a lot more men are willing to dump a lazy fuck in a fat chick than there are women willing to spread for a degenerate omega male.

But it’s simply a mistake to then extrapolate this relative leniency of male standards into evidence for a total lack of any male mating standards. Girls do experience rejection by men. The rejection may be more often indirect than direct (i.e. girls rarely approach, so when you don’t return their eye-play, or when you ignore their flirting, it subconsciously registers as the equivalent of a direct rejection to them), but it’s rejection nonetheless. Men with a thing or two going on will reject plenty of less attractive, older, sluttier and fatter women in their lifetimes.

The men having sex with all those fatties, fugs, sluts, single moms and cougars are not the high value, in-demand alphas that whiny beta trolls like to claim they are. It’s the loser males and the expedience cads — the men either most desperate for sexual intimacy or most uninterested in long-term commitment and a woman’s “special qualities” — who drop their standards to roll with a hippo for a night.

So the common trope that fat chicks are getting laid with no trouble is misleading; they’re getting laid, but it’s not with quality. And for women, quality is job one. Few women except the most deluded freaks feel good about themselves or confident in their sexual market value after enduring years of excessively short-term hookups with losers, or repeatedly failing to extract long-term commitment from the occasional dumpster diving winner. This is why it’s more common for ugly women to go years without sex; women, far more than men, prefer the life of celibacy to the life of being reminded of their low value by loser lovers.

For men, standards rise and fall with one’s relative status, social savvy, charisma, looks and resources. When any or all go up (looks being somewhat age-dependent), men tend to filter out less attractive women more aggressively, and pursue hotter chicks. When any or all go down, the opposite happens. A man’s options will dictate how ruthlessly he weeds out unacceptable women.

For women, standards are mostly set by conception, and cemented by birth after the hormonal chaos in the womb has been integrated. The looks a woman is born with will, with minor exceptions (for instance, sex ratios), determine her mating standards later in life, up until the age when her appearance begins to abandon her.

This is the one, intrinsic advantage that men have over women in the eternal and escalating reproductive arms race: a man has the opportunity to improve his lot in life, or improve his attributes, and mate up the attractiveness ladder. With this opportunity comes risk; a man can also find himself mating down the ladder. Women, by contrast, have no such opportunity. They are issued a short list of achievable standards at birth, and this list cannot be altered; it is only revoked at such time that she has exhausted the mate capital she was bequeathed before she even gained consciousness.

Read Full Post »

Alpha Male Of The Month

Before you read this post, I want you to remember something written here many times. The alpha male is not necessarily the admirable man. The alpha male is the guy who does really well with young, hot (read: high quality) women, because women love everything about him. You may not like the character of such men, but a lot of women sure do. So redirect your blame where it rightfully belongs, if blame you must.

That said, and without further ado, behold the winner of the Alpha Male of the Month award.

For the lovelorn nerds in the audience, that’s what adoration looks like. And, for that matter, that’s what cocky confidence looks like. The two tend to go hand in hand in matters of the smitten heart.

The details behind this loving photo aren’t exactly the stuff of after school specials (or maybe they are now?).

Last year, Jordan Powers was just another student from Mr. Hooker’s class. Now she’s his live-in girlfriend.

James Hooker — the 41-year-old married father who left his wife and kids for his 18-year-old-student — might be the worst teacher ever. Last week, he resigned from his job at Enochs High School in Modesto, California over the scandal that’s shaken up a community and pit one mom on a crusade to save her daughter from a man she calls a “master manipulator.”

Jordan met her teacher as a freshman, but both maintain nothing physical happened until she turned 18 this past September. Hooker claims he saw Powers as “just a student” and had no romantic feelings toward her at first, but when her most recent birthday came around, things changed.

They changed so much, in fact, that Hooker, left his wife and three kids (one of them a 17-year-old Enochs high school student as well) so that he could move in with Jordan.

It doesn’t get much more ALPHA than winning the utter devotion of a hot babe half your age. For those wondering, I consider leaving your loyal wife and kids to live with a younger, hotter woman to be legitimate grounds for the wife to initiate divorce proceedings and extract some type of payment for damage inflicted. Shocking that you hear a man like me say this? Well, what this guy did was break a deal. Broken deals usually come with consequences. This is why I counsel men to avoid modern marriage altogether: it’s a RAW FUCKING DEAL for men because it requires most of the sacrifice to come from the man’s end of the bargain. A man has to turn his back on much more of his natural sexual predilection in the decision to commit to marriage than does a woman. Why do you think women are so eager to rush into the nuptial shackles bond?

The more interesting angle to this story is how it operates at the level of what I call a reverse Rorschach test. Given an unmistakable picture of an in-shape, confident man with a much younger, sexually developed woman obviously in love with him, we get to examine in technicolor glory the psyches of people, particularly older women, whose instinct is to recoil at the sight. We get to see, essentially, an enraged, fearful mind create an inky blotch out of a clear picture.

Lets follow the cunty brick road down the article author’s mindmap for an illuminating glimpse at her terrorized id thrashing violently against the bars of its cage. Note: Author is an older woman. As are the other women, besides Jordan, quoted in the article.

If this all sounds suspicious to you…

Jordan, a quiet, fragile-seeming young woman, who looks closer to 15 than 18 years in age…

gazed up at her former teacher, a man that looks every bit his 41 years…

Desperate for her child, Tammie has turned her own Facebook page into a “most wanted” profile for Hooker…

Since the story has been picked up by national press, she’s been flooded with messages of support from strangers….

“Nancy’s always been a victims advocate and fights for justice,” Tammie wrote on Facebook. “That’s the goal here, justice.”

Sounds suspicious, older man must be up to no good, possibly firing mind rays into girl? Check.

Helpless, fragile 18-year-old woman who could be mistaken, if you stare hard enough through a gauzy filter, for a prepubescent girl with no boobs, hips or ass? Check.

Man therefore a creepy pedophile? Check.

41-year-old man looks his age so why isn’t he dating women like me? Check.

Mother desperate for her legally adult “child”? Check.

Insinuation that man should be on a Most Wanted List? Check.

Armies of women circling the wagons around mother, shaming man into ostracizing himself? Check.

Older man in a loving relationship (and, yes, you bet it’s loving) with younger woman now a matter of “justice” and “victims”? Check.

Oh, my sides! These are the pretty lies older women tell themselves to calm the fear and terror inspired by their sexual obsolescence. It’s so obvious to anyone with the eyes to see: the craving for a world that is aligned with older women’s fragile, helpless egos, a craving so powerful that rivers of deceit, distortion and defamation spill from their lips and pens in an effort to obscure the dread, dark reality. And that reality is this–

Every older husband — every fucking one of them — is turned on by the sight of hot women half his wife’s age. He imagines scenarios… transactions… with these younger babes, thrillingly vivid and the stuff of older wives’ nightmares, and no amount of religious upbringing, tortured self-abnegation, hypocrisy or womanly shaming will cleanse his mind of these delicious thoughts.

Most men don’t act on these thoughts, because most men don’t have the option to act on them. But some do. If they are smart, they mouth feminist platitudes to distract the loser brigade while nailing the ass of some fine buxom coed. Just ask Hugo Schwyzer.

Update

I find it funny that the mother of the young woman is attempting to smear the guy by pointing to texts he sent her just before she turned 18. That kind of charade puts the lie to the intentions behind age of consent laws. It’s ridiculous to insinuate, as this mom is doing, that her little girl was a radically different woman incapable of making decisions for herself just a few months before she turned 18. The mother is appealing to a legalistic, arbitrary age demarcation — in this case communication that occurred only a few months on the “wrong” side of the law — as proof that Hooker is a pedophile in all but the clinical definition. I understand the mother’s fury, but her actions do nothing but discredit the real impetus behind AOC laws: to protect sexually undeveloped children from the predations of real pedophiles.

Relatedly, almost every scientific study I’ve seen has concluded that girls mature earlier than boys on a whole host of emotional and physical metrics. An 18 year old woman is more capable of choosing to be the lover of a 41 year old man than an 18 year old man is capable of choosing to go to war.

Apparently, the mother is a single mom. The girl grew up with no father. Well… wadaya expect? The odds that the daughters and sons of single moms grow up to be sluts and delinquents respectively are higher than they would be had they grown up in two-parent homes. The usual caveats about causality implied, I think most everyone, including the experts, agree that a mom+dad is better for kids than a mom alone. In that spirit, a vigorous public shaming of single moms is good for the children. So…

you suck, single moms! Way to be bad mothers! 😆

Read Full Post »

Hypergamy, Sluts And Smart Women

A reader emailed a recent fascinating study that, AS PER USUAL♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, confirms many core Chateau concepts and related game strategies.

Although robust sex differences are abundant in men and women’s mating psychology, there is a considerable degree of overlap between the two as well. In an effort to understand where and when this overlap exists, the current study provides an exploration of within-sex variation in women’s mate preferences. We hypothesized that women’s intelligence, given an environment where women can use that intelligence to attain educational and career opportunities, would be: (1) positively related to their willingness to engage in short-term sexual relationships, (2) negatively related to their desire for qualities in a partner that indicated wealth and status, and (3) negatively related to their endorsement of traditional gender roles in romantic relationships. These predictions were supported. Results suggest that intelligence may be one important individual difference influencing women’s mate preferences.

Anti-game haters and various sore losers in life: reread the above for comprehension before commenting. You’ll save everyone a lot of scrolling effort to glide by your blockheadedness.

Let’s tackle the conclusions of this study one by one.

1. Smart, educated, careerist women (aka urban SWPLs) are more likely to want to ride the cock carousel (i.e., “engage in short-term sexual relationships”). That old game hater saw that only low self-esteem sluts and dumb skanks like to play the phallus field is the complete opposite of reality. It’s the smart, educated chicks who dig the cock and, by deduction, it’s the smart, educated chicks who will fall for short-term pickup game more than dumb chicks.

In one fell swoop, a cherished feminist and beta male shibboleth gets crushed into dust and blown away.

2. Smart, educated, careerist women are less interested in a man’s money or career status. This dovetails perfectly with the Chateau contention that female economic empowerment has led to a sexual market where soft polygamy — the clustering of financially independent women at the peak of their fertility (and beauty) around charming alpha males — is the new norm in blue state meccas. If money and occupational status mean less to smart girls, then guess what means more to them? You got it. Game. And who loses in this arrangement? Yup, boring provider beta males.

3. Smart, educated, careerist women are more likely to eschew “traditional gender roles” in romantic relationships. So it is the smart girls, not the dumb ones, who say screw it to marriage, dating, fidelity and lifelong monogamy while they are in their primes, and who are more open to fucking around, casual hook ups, cheating and, ahem, serial monogamy. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a description of a pickup artist’s paradise. Smart girls do eventually get married at higher rates than dumb, lower class girls, but the relevant factor to the typical urban beta male is how many girls in his milieu are ready for marriage and/or long term relationships *during their 20s*, when women are at their most desirable. If the rising age of first marriage is any indication, not many.

Bottom line: your typical slut is a smart, educated woman.

So what does this have to do with that noted force of nature, female hypergamy? Well, if we premise our argument with the claim that female hypergamy always exists, and is always operational and acting upon women’s mate choice mechanisms (a claim entirely consistent with observed female behavior), then, given the study conclusions above, we are presented with the possibility that smart, financially independent chicks emphasize different male attractiveness traits when choosing mates than do dumb, financially insecure chicks. What are they?

Charm. Wit. Looks. Confidence. Social savviness. Social status (as distinct from wealth or occupational status). Charisma.

Most of these male attractiveness traits favored by smart chicks, yes, even including social status, can be grouped under the game umbrella. Game makes men more charming, witty, confident, socially savvy and charismatic. It even boosts a man’s social status. (Being known as a ladykiller is chicknip.)

Looks are the one thing game can’t change, but in most men’s experiences, women’s judgment and emphasis of male looks doesn’t much vary between the lower and upper class women, or the dumb and smart women. The study does suggest, though, that economically empowered and übereducated women probably will put more emphasis on male looks than will economically insecure, less educated women.

Now you know why poor, dumb religious girls swoon (settle?) at younger ages for provider betas relatively more than well-off, smart, secular girls. And why the latter can be found hanging off the arm of your local indie band singer before doing the smart thing and marrying a beta as her expiration date looms.

The trends in female mate choice I have described in this post go a longer way than any economic or class argument I’ve read to explain the coming apart of the white race in America as detailed in Charles Murray’s new book. Anyone who wants to take a long, hard look at social trends and the phenomena of “men dropping out” needs to incorporate into his thinking the cold, merciless, unrelenting reality of female hypergamy. To do less would be… uncivilized.

Read Full Post »

Hugo Schwyzer’s Phony Feminism

Our favorite false flag limpwrist, Hugo Schwyzer, is licking the hairy taint of feminists once more in a vomitous piece about the popularity among men of “barely legal” porn. He really tries hard to put a feminist-friendly (read: anti-male) spin on the uncomfortable reality that men naturally prefer the stimulating sight of lithe, supple, fully ripe young women.

Across the web, videos and images featuring 18- and 19-year-olds — or actresses in their twenties trying to look younger — are by every measure the most in demand. “Teen porn” is the most common genre-specific term used in Google searches, and teen-themed videos dominate the top 25 most-viewed videos on YouPorn. (Link is absolutely NSFW.) […]

Beyond Derbyshire, the most common explanation given for adult men’s particularly intense attraction to teen girls is reproduction. But on closer scrutiny that theory falls apart. Women’s fertility peaks between 22 and 26, well after their “salad days” have come to a close.

The argument that men in their 30s, 40s, and beyond are evolutionarily hardwired to lust after girls just above or below the adulthood threshold has less merit than we think.

One alternative answer has much more to do with adult men’s anxiety than with their reproductive longings. In the fantasy world of “barely legal” pornography, the teen girl is an ingénue longing for sexual initiation at the hands and body of an experienced older man. For an older man (the average male porn user is over 30) perhaps intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of his own female peers, the imagined naïveté of a much-younger woman is a source of comfort. The less experience she has, the less likely she’ll mock his clumsiness and the more likely she’ll appreciate whatever savoir-faire he does possess.

[ed: alert! feminist feelgood twaddle incoming] The reality is that only those who are wise and confident enough to challenge us can help us grow. Age isn’t just a number; that confidence and wisdom takes time to emerge. So when men eroticize the young, the tentative, and the innocent — for whatever reason — they’re possibly just eroticizing their own reluctance to accept adulthood and responsibility. In that scenario, everybody loses.

This guy can really fling the bullshit. Only someone with intimate knowledge of the subject of barely legal teens can so effortlessly BS his way into nonsensical alternate explanations for male sexual behavior that are otherwise easily explained by a naturally evolved male preference for peak fertility women with little baggage. After all, he’s gotta cover his ass for past, uh… indiscretions. As Bill Clinton understood, nothing distracts feminist attention from one’s own very unfeminist lifestyle like mouthing the platitudes feminists want to hear.

I was once a broken, bad man taking advantage of young women, but now I have seen the light! Praise the bog! Men suck! Men have issues! Men are intimidated by older women! Speaking of which, let’s you and I go for a drink after class today and discuss our mutual loathing of rape culture. I’ll pay just the tip. Heh heh heh.

First, Schwyster is wrong about women’s peak fertility. He pulled his number from Wikipedia which should be a clue to take it with a grain of salt. The age range varies in the studies I’ve seen, but basically most peg female peak fertility in the 18-24 year range. Since barely legal porn filmmakers, by law, can’t hire girls under 18, the most important premise of Schwyster’s argument falls apart before he’s even out of the gate. Instead of confirming Schwyster’s fevered pathologizing of normal male sexuality, the evidence that men prefer watching porn featuring 18-21 year old girls, who are within the peak fertility range, simply affirms the evolutionary theory that gives hives to feminists and feminist suck-ups like Schwyster.

Second, men lust for younger women because those women are less likely to be saddled with other men’s children, or to be pregnant by other men. A young woman’s implied virginity means that fucking her results in a greater chance that any kids she pops out will be that man’s kids. This is important to men, as evolutionary theory would conclude, because men, unlike women’s perfect knowledge of maternity, do not have guarantees of paternity. So men must rely on other signals, such as the youth, fidelity and relative inexperience of their lovers.

Anxiety, or that catch-all feminist trope “intimidation”, has got nothing to do with men’s preference for younger women. It’s all about the sexy biology. By way of analogy, if older men are intimidated by the “erotic and emotional demands” of their female peers, then using Schwyster’s reasoning we may assert that women, who exhibit preferences for higher status men and older men, are intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of younger men and lower status men. Of course, no one ever makes that claim. Because it’s stupid on its face. Much like Schwyster’s claim that men are intimidated by older, less fertile, less attractive women is stupid on its face. Women aren’t attracted to lower status men, just as men aren’t attracted to older women.

Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.

PS Hugo, word of advice. You can get a lot further with better looking, mentally stable women by not sucking up to them so badly. Chicks dig unapologetic men.

Read Full Post »

Not All Bodies Are Good Bodies!

A delusional feminist (but I repeat myself) who started a Facebook group called “Pinup Girl Clothing” (don’t ask, it’s stupid), has uploaded a photo of five women with less than ideal bodies and a helpful caption explaining her reason for doing so:

There’s another one of those “this is sexier than this” photos going viral right now, so we’d like to offer an alternative. ALL women are “real” and there is no wrong way to have a body. ♥ Vanessa

The two things feminists hate most: standards, and men who make no apology for their sexual desire.

Let’s have a look at that photo demonstrating the equivalence in attractiveness between women of… unconventional body shapes:

What we have here, from left to right:

1. dumpy, hipless plain jane tatted up to distract from her prepubescent boy’s body
2. morbidly obese cow
3. thin chick whose torso is stretched too long in proportion to her legs
4. obese behemoth
5. masculinized cougar

What immediately jumps out is that the photographer chose a spindly, weirdly contoured chick to stand in for the conventional hourglass-shaped slender babe that nearly all men love and desire. Had a normally proportioned thin girl like this one…

…been chosen instead, then the other four girls would look so much worse in comparison, and we can’t have that reality upsetting the narrative. Nonetheless, even with her body flaws, the thin, pretty blonde in the middle is the most bangable. Tatboy would barely inspire a half-mast chub, the Jabba twins are right out, and most men don’t want to caress rippling triceps and six pack abs on a woman. Especially a woman cresting the hill and in sight of the wall.

Women who can’t compete with the most desired women, or who fall tantalizingly short of competing, or who once competed by now no longer do, must get some kind of deep, ego-sparing emotional satisfaction by telling themselves blatant lies about the reality of female attractiveness and male attraction standards. If women didn’t have an IQ-lowering herd mentality and an obesity epidemic disfiguring the majority of them that prompted them to sing amens in unison every time a femborg shrieked out another reality-denying whopper, we’d hear far less of this crap blaring from all our media channels. Loser chicks would go back to licking their ego wounds the old-fashioned way — by taking up poetry and staring pensively out a bedroom window.

So, for the short bus regulars (this includes you, ♥Vanessa)…

Beauty is objectively measurable. Slender women are more attractive than fat women to the overwhelming majority of men. There was never a time when men liked fat women. A 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio is the most attractive body shape for a woman. A BMI of 20.85 is the most attractive weight for a woman. A young, healthy woman with clear skin is more attractive than an old, unhealthy woman with blotchy skin. Yes, ♥Vanessa, there is a sexual marketplace, women are just as much a commodity to be bartered in this marketplace as men are, there is no alternative to this reality, and there IS a wrong way to have a body.

Hope this hurts.

But at least some women get it.

Brianna Montana: the girl in the middle is not too skinny by far… Shes just in the middle of 2 fat bitches so it makes her look exxxtra tiny.

Read Full Post »

Long-Term Cohabitation Is Just As Good As Marriage

Many conservative, religious, anti-game and traditionalist types like to claim that this blog underplays the advantages offered to men by marriage. They redundantly quote studies purporting to show that married men live longer, healthier lives than single men. We here at Le Chateau have balked at such assertions, helpfully reminding our traditionalist, neoBiblical brethren that the same benefits found in marriage can be had living in long-term, loving relationships.

The reasoning is simple: the pro-marriage studies are conflating the benefit of living with someone under marital contract with freely living with someone who loves you. Sex, love and affectionate companionship don’t feel any more fulfilling when a piece of paper is signed. If you really think about it, it makes no sense that a man’s health would improve and his lifespan increase because he signed on the marital dotted line. Something else is at work here, and that something else is long-term shared love, with or without the imprimatur of a marriage license.

Of course, haters miss the nuance and continue their rampage against the dissolute lifestyle of the “player”, which they mistakenly believe this blog advocates. (In point of fact, this blog advocates learning game and the way of the alpha so that men have the freedom and the options to pursue whichever type of relationship with women they want, whether that be marriage and its attendant risks or frisky one night stands and their attendant, albeit lesser, risks.) “PUAs are wrong! Marriage is good for men!” they wail, refusing to even tackle the debate points to the contrary that crop up on this blog.

The Chateau warned the trads and supposed “realist” thinkers (this post at Audacious Epigone is a good example of the kind of statistical legerdemain I’m talking about) that the studies claiming health, sexual and psychological benefits accruing to men from marriage were comparing the wrong variables. The comparison should not be between married men and single men, but between married men and ALPHA men in unmarried relationships. Single, quasi-celibate betas and omegas bring down the averages for single men as a whole, and make married men look fucking great in comparison.

The claims about marriage benefits disappear once you alter the variables to reflect a fairer comparison:

1. Unmarried men in long-term relationships receive just as many health and happiness benefits as married men. The crucial variable is not the marriage certificate; it’s the love.

2. Unmarried, cohabiting men enjoy the pleasure of thinner lovers than the fat wives enjoyed by married men. Strike one against the notion that men enjoy better sex within the confines of marriage, even if they are getting more of it than single betas. All indicators are that, once married and backed by the long arm of the law, women pretty much let themselves go to pot.

3. Unmarried players are just as desired by women for marriage as beta providers, (but unmarried players just don’t tend to commit to women as readily.) So marriage tells us little about the quality, or alphaness, of the men who willingly take up the shackles.

4. There is no evidence I’m aware of that married men have more frequent sex with their indentured sperm receptacles aka wives than unmarried men *in relationships* have with their girlfriends. That’s the key distinction. My bet, if such data could be extracted, is that unmarried men with girlfriends, and particularly those who cohabit, have more sex than married men. I throw the challenge out to the GSS nerds to unleash the data.

5. Finally, why do pro-marriage anti-gamers always assume that maximizing sex frequency is the desired goal for men? Quality matters. One hundred sex sessions with a seacow will be less satisfying for most men than one session with a knockout. Go ahead, ask any man about his fondest sex memories. That one night with the bombshell will immediately leap to the front of his mind, crowding out the three years of sex with his dumpy wife. Not to mention, many men will gladly trade lots of one pussy for less of many pussies. Variety is the spice of life.

But wait, stop the presses! Look what we have here. Yet ANOTHER study confirming the Heartiste worldview.

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period. […]

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time. […]

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth” said Musick.

I think we can at last put to rest the myth that marriage is some kind of uniquely beneficial arrangement for men.* As this blog has been saying for years, you can get all the benefits of marriage in a loving long-term, unmarried relationship, including cohabitation, without the unbelievably shitty risks.** And now science proves it. Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.

*Note: Claiming that a particular romantic arrangement is good for individual men is not the same as claiming it is good for society. While cohabitation offers many advantages to single men, it is probably better for a heterogeneous collective and its mutant posterity that society organize itself around the institution of marriage and the two-parent family. That means making marriage more enticing, not less, for the typical shoe-gazing beta stuck in diversityland.

**As more men come to understand the tangible and intangible benefits that cohabitation offers, and embrace the lifestyle, expect to see hordes of feminists and pilgrim johns try to regulate it so that it begins to resemble in burden the same crumbling wreck of marriage that men are abandoning in droves. There’s no way those interests are gonna let a cash cow in the form of transfer payments from men to women just disintegrate overnight. And make no mistake, or be deluded by the sloppy romanticism with which beta males imbue the institution: marriage is a sacrifice for men, and a gain for women. There are no two ways about it. Men have to surrender fealty to their primary directive to spread their seed in exchange for second-rate benefits that can be had just as easily within unmarried LTRs, while women get sustained material and emotional provisioning that more closely aligns with their innate monogamous proclivity. All the sacrifice from legalized commitment, in other words, is born by the man. Cohabitation is an escape clause that no feminist or tradcon, if they give it some thought, can allow to persist unimpeded.

Read Full Post »

Things That Make You Go Hmmm

Barack Obama, June 4, 2008 (via Mangan’s):

Now let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.

. . .

Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders.

Barack Obama, January 6, 2012:

Illegal immigrants closely related to U.S. citizens would no longer have to leave the country to try to obtain legal status under a proposed change in immigration policy announced Friday by President Barack Obama’s administration.

The change, which would greatly reduce the amount of time U.S. citizens are separated from undocumented family members seeking legal status, is the latest attempt by the Obama administration to use its authority to implement some immigration reforms without congressional approval.

It makes one wonder. Are the American elite ignorant of their hypocrisy and double standards, or is it that they just don’t give a shit?

PS I have no quarrel with the premise of the quote in the top half of this post.

Read Full Post »