Stupidest Anti-Game Meme On The Internet

“The alpha male isn’t the one who can get the most hot women, it’s the one who leaves behind the most children. By that measure, childless gamers are beta.”

This is so silly it hardly deserves a rebuttal, but I’m in the mood to ruin some femicunt’s or whiny promise keeper’s lunch.

Alpha males who use game to attract women are doing those things which favor passing on their DNA in the state of nature, but they are thwarting the final step in the reproductive process with modern contraceptives. The use of the condom or Pill to prevent pregnancy does not render the successful alpha male womanizer any less alpha; a legal ban on all contraceptives would quickly restore his primacy in the snot-nosed litter market.

Read Full Post »

Hillary Clinton Is Wrong: It Doesn’t Take A Village To Raise A Child

This is getting to sound like a broken record. Yet another liberal shibboleth is discredited.

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child after all, according to University of Michigan research.

“In the African villages that I study in Mali, children fare as well in nuclear families as they do in extended families,” said U-M researcher Beverly Strassmann, professor of anthropology and faculty associate at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR). “There’s a naïve belief that villages raise children communally, when in reality children are raised by their own families and their survival depends critically on the survival of their mothers.” […]

In her study of the Dogon, Strassmann found that children’s risk of death is higher in polygynous than in monogamous families. This reflects the hazard of living with unrelated females whose own children are competing with the children of co-wives for limited resources.

Supporting this finding, Strassmann cites “Hamilton’s Rule,” established by British evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton in the 1960s. It is the first formal, mathematical description of kin selection theory, the idea that the degree to which we are willing to invest our resources in another person depends, in part, on the degree of genetic kinship we share with them.

It should also be noted that different human population groups, adapted to their specific environments, practice different reproductive strategies. In Africa, where this study took place, monogamy is less the norm than it is in Europe or Asia, and fathers come and go and have less certainty of paternity. This encourages an r-selection strategy where women pump out lots of kids and hope for the best, as opposed to a k-selected strategy in groups where enforced monogamy is the norm and fathers have more certainty about paternity. In the latter, you can expect to see more fatherly devotion and resource provision to his family, and more ill effects when the father abdicates his duty or the children are bastard spawn raised by single moms. (The author of the study commits a laughable PC error when she says that Bill Clinton is proof that kids of single moms turn out all right. No, that is proof that kids with extraordinary IQs and a particular suite of personality traits can overcome a crappy single mom family environment. Some of these social scientists should refamiliarize themselves with the axiom that exceptions prove the rule.)

Read Full Post »

Another Feminist Myth Debunked: Women’s Sex Drive Is Not As Strong As Men’s

Feminists love to claim that women’s sex drive is as strong as any man’s. They assert this because it would be a blow against their crippled, withered ideology to accept that there is a sex-based difference in libido. Acceptance of this reality would also undermine a key tenet of left wing women’s studies programs that the crazy things men do for access to hot, young, slender women are motivated not by sexual urge but by “social conditioning” or power dynamics. And, in what is probably the most galling humiliation should the truth supplant establishment lies, it would silence the tankgrrl and slutwalker battle cry that they love to slut it up just as much as men, and can do so without suffering any of the trite emotional consequences which they have convinced themselves are nothing but a manufactured burden foisted on them by the patriarchy.

Too bad for feminists the science totally refutes their core beliefs. Across a slew of studies, the conclusion is unavoidable: men have stronger sex drives. Via Randall Parker over at Parapundit, the following study:

The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex.

It’s been written on this blog before that a woman can be just as voracious in the sack as a man, as long as she is in bed with a man she desires. But discrete sexual voracity is not the same as generalized sexual appetite. Wise women know better than to confuse their unleashed libido in bed with a man they love for a lusty exuberance to do every inspiring member of the opposite sex within their visual field. The latter is the domain of men, and men alone.

Women have some preternatural sexual abilities and reservoirs in bed that many men would envy, like multiple orgasms and erogenous zones, but no woman, except the rarest outlier, experiences the clawing, wall-climbing, unrelenting horniness to mass pound brigades of complementary genitalia like men experience every moment of every day.

If you like your smartphones and Netflix and just about anything that is a grade above grass huts, it’s a good thing they don’t, either.

Read Full Post »

False Equivalence Of Desire

There is a muddying-the-water tactic that feminists and their sympathizers employ whenever the subject of chicks digging jerks comes up. They like to ask, under false pretenses, why men prefer hot bitches instead of hot non-bitches.

Unfortunately for them, the equivalence isn’t true, except in the minds of the most gullible. This feminist meme is simply an attempt to divert uncomfortable attention from the female predilection for assholes by asserting an imaginary equivalence with a supposed urge by men to date only hot slutty bitches.* The truth is that most men like hot, loving, devoted women. Very few men, betas or alphas, prefer the long term companionship of disloyal, bitchy sluts.

Men, whose eros is largely motivated by a woman’s looks, will of course occasionally dump a raunchy fuck in some hot, slutty bitch. But when a woman is under consideration as girlfriend or wife material, her bitchiness or sweetness plays an important role in how much commitment a man is willing to give her. The bitchier she is, the less likely a man will want more from her than a few nights of feral passion.

And of the men who do find themselves hitched to bitches, we often find an assortment of option-less betas who put up with the bitchiness for the pussy, but who would, given confidence in their ability to seduce women, leave the bitches for equally hot but temperamentally sweet women.

This is in stark contrast to women, who, in numbers far exceeding the meager few high value men who actively pursue bitches for LTRs, fall head over heels IN LOVE with assholes, stick with them for years after their assholery has become apparent, and who even bear the assholes’ children, risking the stigma of single momhood in the process. Furthermore, and unlike the beta males stuck with bitches, it is often the HOTTEST GIRLS with OPTIONS who willingly choose to be with assholes and suffer their putative torments.

No, the desire for jerks is, and has always been, mostly a female phenomenon. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air; there is a basis in reality for them. And the stereotype of chicks digging jerks is as widely-held and historical as any other noted difference between the sexes. Perhaps moreso now, thanks to the tireless (and fun) efforts of this blog’s crusade to illuminate the truth.

*Hey, but at least feminists have tacitly admitted that chicks do indeed dig jerks.

Read Full Post »

Marilyn Monroe Was Skinny

I really love these posts that rip feminist mythology to shreds (a fun and easy sport even the kids will love!). You can just imagine their porky forehead veins throbbing with rage as they read the following article by Virginia Postrel:

We should never again hear anyone declare that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12, a size 14 or any other stand-in for full-figured, zaftig or plump. Fifteen thousand people have now seen dramatic evidence to the contrary. Monroe was, in fact, teeny-tiny.

The 15,000 were the visitors who turned out over eight days to oooh and aaah at the preview exhibit for the June 18 auction of Debbie Reynolds’s extraordinary collection of Hollywood costumes, props and other memorabilia.

The two comments heard most often in the crowded galleries were (to paraphrase), “Wow, they were thin” and “It’s such a shame. These things should be in a museum.” […]

The auction’s top-ticket item was Monroe’s famous white halter dress from “The Seven Year Itch,” the one that billowed up as the subway passed. It sold for almost $5.66 million (including the buyer’s premium) to an unknown phone bidder. Sharing a rotating mirrored platform with Hedy Lamarr’s peacock gown from “Samson and Delilah” and Kim Novak’s rhinestone- fringed show dress from “Jeanne Eagels,” Monroe’s costume was displayed on a mannequin that had been carved down from a standard size 2 to accommodate the tiny waist. Even then, the zipper could not entirely close.

But that’s just one dress. Perhaps the star was having a skinny day. To check, you could look across the room and see that Monroe’s red-sequined show dress from “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” was at least as petite, as were the saloon costume from “River of No Return” and the tropical “Heat Wave” outfit from “There’s No Business Like Show Business.

In fact, the average waist measurement of the four Monroe dresses was a mere 22 inches, according to Lisa Urban, the Hollywood consultant who dressed the mannequins and took measurements for me. Even Monroe’s bust was a modest 34 inches.

That’s not an anecdote. That’s data.

The other actresses’ costumes provided further context. “It’s like half a person,” marveled a visitor at the sight of Claudette Colbert’s gold-lame “Cleopatra” gown (waist 18 inches). “That waist is the size of my thigh,” said a tall, slim man, looking at Carole Lombard’s dress from “No Man of Her Own” (a slight exaggeration — it was 21 inches). Approaching Katharine Hepburn’s “Mary of Scotland” costumes, a plump woman declared with a mixture of envy and disgust, “Another skinny one.”

The pattern she noticed was real. At my request, Urban took waist measurements on garments worn by 16 different stars, from Mary Pickford in 1929 (20 inches) to Barbra Streisand in 1969 (24 inches). The thickest waist she found was Mae West’s 26 inches in “Myra Breckinridge,” when the actress was 77 years old.

The average waist size of American women in 2011?: 34.5 inches.

The insistence by fatty fat fatty apologists and the misfit motley crew of “cultural conditioning” feminists that Marilyn Monroe was a plump woman, a chubby chick, Rubenesque, zaftig, or, (my personal favorite), cuuuuuuurvy is nothing but the oinks of lying propagandists who want you to believe that men have since been somehow magically programmed by… who, exactly? Government agents? Hollywood? Frat boys? Stuxnet?… to prefer anorexic chicks over their true preference for supposed chubsters like Monroe.

For a long time this claim went unanswered; one, because no one bothered to fact check its self-evident PC truthiness, and two, because loudmouthed, ugly femcunts have cowed journalists and pundits into abject submission. But now the facts are in: Marilyn Monroe was a SLENDER BABE. There wasn’t a BBW bone in her skinny sexy body.

Women REALLY WERE thinner back in what the feminists call the bad old days. There wasn’t some fairytale fatopia in the 1950s when the men lusted for rotund mamas, and women were real women with curves and meat on the bones. Nope, women of the past were definitely thinner, and they were even thinner than what we would consider a thin girl today! That’s how warped our professed standards in female beauty have become. Men and women alike have drunk the feminist Koolaid, and coupled with the inability to avoid the sheer numbers of fat chicks rumbling over our frappuccino plains the result is a grudging, deflating acceptance that bigger, fatter, heftier women are here to stay, and baby you better believe they are HOT STUFF. A lot of men, seeing how few options they have when 9/10s of their prospects roll with a mushroom cloud top, are gonna revert to the one face-saving ploy in their arsenal: sour grapes.

“Hey man, I don’t want some anorexic bag of bones. Fat-bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go round. A whole lotta woman needs a whole lot more. Big girls you are beautiful!”

Nice try, JoeBob, but I know what you’re really thinking.

(Ever notice how gay male rockstars love to sing the praises of fat chicks? Wazzupwitdat?)

This is all part and parcel of a cultural plumping up of the American woman over the last half century to go along with her actual plumping up. Dress sizes have changed to accommodate the tender egos of the lardasses thundering around clothing stores now, so that, for example, what once was a size 10 dress is now a size 6 dress. What was considered a really fat chick in 1950 might’ve worn a size 15, but today the typical fat chick is so much fatter than her 1950s counterpart that she slips into the equivalent of a dainty size 38 number.

You can’t blame the retailers and clothing manufacturers, though. They just want to turn a profit, and if that means giving fatties an artificial high from being able to claim they wear a smaller size than they really do, then they’ll minimize dress sizes forever. If present trends are indicative of future results, a size 0 dress will soon be able to double as a mosquito net.

The fattening of American women is a goddamned fucking TRAGEDY. It robs the country of beautiful women, and thus robs American men of tactile sexual pleasure and aesthetic visual pleasure. A direct analogy would be if the nation’s men all decided to quit their jobs, shart on first dates, act like nervous dweebs and change diapers for a hobby. Yeah, don’t sound so hot, does it ladies? Now maybe you can grasp why every evangelical equalist effort to normalize expanding waistlines and rolling waves of blubber is a sin committed against beauty, and thus, against truth.

Game isn’t so much about being able to play the field in perpetuity as it is about navigating a shrinking dating pool of sexy slender chicks getting squeezed by an advancing army of fat chicks. It’s been written here before: as the expendable sex, men react to conditions in the sexual market; they don’t create those conditions. And right now conditions are Code Well-Fed, mothafuckaaaaaa.

PS I’d like to start a new advocacy group called the National Association for the Advancement of Half-Weight Women. God bless those half-weight women we’ve lost to the tidal wave of sugar and midnight snacking. Boners unite under the banner of Half-Weight Women! Raise your flag and smite the enemy Double-Weight Women! Smite them with a cupcake avalanche!

Read Full Post »

The Pedophile Libel

A 51 year old actor married a 16 year old woman and the comments section exploded in accusations of pedophile. Here is a pic of the newlyweds:

His posture is a bit beta, but can you blame the guy? He hit the jackpot. He even got her parents’ approval.

Whenever an older man hooks up with a much younger woman, there is a chorus of haters from almost every demographic smearing the guy with the pedophile label. It’s a malicious slander. These dimwits quick to hurl the pedo insult need to be educated on some basic facts about human biology.

Pedophilia is sexual attraction for biological children. Note I used the qualifier “biological”. Technically, in many jurisdictions, a 17 year old is legally defined as a child, but most 17 year olds have already developed adult bodies. True pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children who have not yet developed secondary sex characteristics. Real pedophiles have a brain malfunction and need to be kept as far away from kids as possible, because their disease is incurable.

To make the point clearer for the idiots, malcontents and misandrists who can’t stand to see an older man dating a younger woman: Sexual attraction for a woman who has gone through puberty and has a sexually developed adult woman’s body is not pedophilia.

It is not pedophilia for an older man to be sexually attracted to a 16 year old girl who has breasts, wide hips, a round and full ass, and a feminine face. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an ignoramus or is engaging in propaganda war, truth be damned. The older women who love to throw around the pedo libel whenever a man their age chooses a younger woman are known as… oh, great Odin’s raven, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yes… cunts.

C

U

N

T

S.

But hags and spinsters aren’t the only ones who freely fling the pedo accusation. Plenty of white knighters and sour married men do it, too. The reasons why they do it are obvious. Older women dread the younger competition and use shame to influence men’s behavior more to their liking. Men who aren’t dating young, fresh flowers shame those who do out of red-hot envy. Feminists do it because they loathe male desire. And so we have an alliance of nearly every demographic against the minority of men who have the skill to land significantly younger lovers. With such a stacked deck, it’s a small miracle that love is able to overcome a malicious mass lie.

It’s all part and parcel of the last fifty years of feminized Western culture pathologizing normal, natural male sexual desire. A sure sign of cultural decay if ever there was one is the demonization of maleness. Feminists and the whole of the liberal media have done their job codifying the currently reigning zeitgeist that male sexual desire is aberrant and uncivilized while female sexual desire is the very pinnacle of saintliness.

Well, this armed outpost of blogdom is here to set the record straight. To expose the lords of lies for what they are, to grind their shitfuck faces in their falsehoods, and to taste the unfathomable sadness of their bitter tears.

Mmm… tastes so sweet, like illimitable pain.

So to help bring balance to the force, I propose an equivalent lie to demonize natural female sexual desire. We don’t really see enough of this, so let’s start with female hypergamy, the powerful primal force that compels women to date higher status men than themselves, and preferably to date the highest status man possible. Let’s call it by the DSM IV term it deserves:

Strataphilia, -noun, 1. a deviant sexual attraction predicated on the social and economic stratum that a man occupies.

FYI: A true pedophile is not the 51 year old in that photo. Far from it. A true pedophile thinks more like this:

Read Full Post »

Is The Sexual Market Efficient?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »