Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Relationships’ Category

Peacemaker Putin notes the importance of the same sex parent-child relationship.

The impact a Father has on his son cannot be overstated. Same goes for the Mother on the daughters. Modeling is powerful.

Behavioral modeling by children of parents is a bit of a sketchy proposition given what we now know about the large contribution of genetic inheritance and the relative paucity of shared environment (i.e. parental) effects on kids’ outcomes.

But in my opinion there is something to the notion that parents have different, and unequal, impacts on their same-sex versus opposite-sex kids’ development. Parents exert their influence (however little it can be quantified by current measurement systems) through two ways: presence and modeling (or what could be called “character appropriation”). The former is predominant in the development of opposite sex children and the latter on same sex children.

For example, a father’s presence shields daughters from becoming cock carousel femcunt mudskanks, and a mother’s presence guides sons towards social engagement. The parent-child interaction gets much more interesting and subject to vulnerabilities from disruption when the sexes are the same.

In the realm of modeling, fathers are a crucial decanter from which sons imbibe so many valuable lessons: toughness, grit, confidence, spirit, and the fulfillment of the all-important need of a son to look up to an older man. Mothers likewise impart their daughters with the wisdom of chastity and faithfulness, and the power of femininity and sexual guardianship.

The above formula requires unpolluted input variables. A slutty single mom isn’t going to impart anything good to her daughter, and a violent, disparaging, AWOL father will activate all sorts of negative gene-environment feedback loops in a young son’s spongiform brain.

Perhaps this presence-modeling theory of sex-differential parenting explains the social phenomenon of the association between longer-lasting marriages and birth of sons. Fathers instinctively and subconsciously know that their steady and reliable guidance will be a lot more critical to their sons’ positive development than to their daughters’.

Btw if CH is the first Shivmaester to come up with this theory, please feel free to lavish me with oodles of ego canoodles.

***

Commenter tteclod adds something with which I can find no fault,

CH: You may not have considered the interaction between heritable traits and learned adaptation of heritable traits, or at least didn’t say anything about it.

Let’s put it this way: the difference between the 90% heritable success and the extra 10% parental contribution is the difference between an A student and a B student, or a star athlete and an also-ran teammate. In a competitive environment (all of planet earth), these differences define social strata.

My son is smart. That’s genetics. My daughter is also smart, but not as smart as my son. Also genetics. However, the success of both my son and my daughter is augmented by my participation in the education of each, most especially because they are very much like me (nature) and I know how to be like me successfully (nurture). Without me, each child fumbles through life not knowing how to succeed except through learning from experience. That’s stupid. Every man knows it is best to learn from the mistakes of others, not his own.

Throw in incremental generational improvement in nature (slow) and nurture (fast), and you have the difference between r-selection and K-selection. K-selection assumes the opportunity to build incrementally upon civilizational augmentation of progeny, whereas r-selection hopes for some success among much failure. I prefer the putting my finger on the scale in favor of my children.

Read Full Post »

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read Full Post »

Moments Of Beta

A handsome couple – she: tall, easy on the eyes, he: older, shitlord face – walked by me and I overheard the following:

Her: “You’re always questioning what I do.”

Him: “No, I don’t do that…blah blah”

He trailed off, but I heard enough to know that this man was a paper alpha, hidden beta.

Simple little beta male tells like that say so much. He got defensive. He fell into her frame. He made excuses/apologized for his behavior, with a very predictable reactive wince.

There are so many ways this man could’ve replied that projected an aura of irresistible charisma. It’s not that hard to be the alpha male women love. All you have to do is THINK DIFFERENT. Get out of that obsequious mental space where all that matters is appeasing your woman and “making it all right”. For instance,

Her: “You’re always questioning what I do.”

Him: “YUP. Someone’s gotta run a tight ship in this relationship.”

Does the right phrasing elude you? Never mind! It’s your head space that you need a handle on. In my example, the man does NOT get defensive (if anything, he gets OFFENSIVE), he does NOT fall into the woman’s frame (he makes his own frame), and he does NOT make excuses or walk back his impertinence (he instead implies she’s to blame for her complaints).

When you have the right head space, the right words will flow like a river. As will the poosy tingles.

***

themanofmystery2 asks,

CH, how do you feel about the disdainful “are you fucking kidding me?” glance with no words followed by a conversation started with someone else? Alpha for not falling into frame and making her feel inferior to your power, or beta for letting her get away with her snippy bullshit?

You mean the man responds this way, right? (It wasn’t entirely clear.) Anyhow, this is nasty shit. I’ve seen girls do this sort of thing and it’s such a bitch move. Imo, if for use by a man, this is over the top for all but the most demanding scenarios (i.e., your dignity as a man is on the line). It also carries the whiff of butthurtness/spite/snottiness, which is why it’s more common to see women doing it. (das misogyniss!)

If a woman is snippy with you, remember the clarion call of the alpha male: amused mastery. If she’s snippy with you ALL THE TIME, then you’ve got bigger issues than a nimble tongue can solve. Such a woman was lost to love long before her current imbroglio with you.

Read Full Post »

We share a hearty chuckle over the avoidable miseries of friendzoned beta males, but there are dead serious implications should the practice ever fall out of favor or get deprived of its seemingly endless source stream of dupes, chodes, and tools.

The fewer beta orbiters willing or available to provide sexless emotional and financial support to dual-mate strategizing (“alpha fux, beta bux”) girls, the more pressure is applied to the alpha male lovers of those girls to assume the “beta bux” relationship responsibilities abjured by the former friendzoned betas.

In theory, this gutting of the friendzone industrial complex should result in three dating market adjustments:

– Girls choosing less conspicuously caddish jerks as lovers. Men who can’t or won’t offer any relationship dependability will have a harder time “locking in” girlfriends for the long haul.

– Girls becoming less disposed to take beta male attention for granted. This will mean that when betas do show romantic interest, they won’t immediately get stuffed into the LJBF hugbox.

– Girls experiencing more difficulty advertising-by-beta orbiter proxy their “no muss no fuss” sexual accessibility to roving alphas. As shartiste explains,

I’m growing more fond of my theory that girls use friend-zoned guys as signals to draw in low-investment alphas. Call it the Conspicuous Cuck Strategy. Look at her, framing him as a prop while she eye-fucks the camera and displays cleavage for any alpha onlooker. Come and get it, I know you’ll fuck and run but the cucks all ready!

I no longer hookup with attached girls, but I did a few times in less discriminating days. The girls ALWAYS talked about their bf/husband in the most beta terms possible, even though reality was probably a bit more shade of grey. They’d talk him down so hard and pitifully, not for any illusion that she’d dump him or I’d whisk her away, but it seemed more to signal just how bad she needed an alpha fuck, and simultaneously assure there’d be no reprisal. This is “flirting” to them. Its kinda disgusting, honestly.

It takes two to tango, and the female exploiting the asexual provisioning of the cuck is just as complicit as the cuck accepting his role and enabling the girl’s dual mate strategy. In this analysis, the girl is more malevolent, but the cuck is more contemptible.

Nevertheless, I don’t think girls are using beta orbiters as dinner bells for fly by night alphas. Not consciously, at least. It’s more reasonable to interpret a woman’s motivation to establish and sustain friendzoned eunuchs as exactly what it is: a status display to other women, and a practical consideration to “cover all her bases”. One can easily imagine a reproductive advantage in the EEA to women who gathered the resources of both sexual and asexual admirers.

Ideally, women want the cad and the dad in the same über alpha male; and women with very high SMV can pull off this coup. But for the majority of women who can’t, acquiring an entourage of harmless castrati isn’t without its twisted appeal. Think about how much the friendzoned beta orbiter offers women:

therapy.
extreme listening skills.
cashmoney.
endless ego-boosting flattery (without demanding reciprocation).
and, perhaps most crucially, a white knight perimeter defense against hopeful betas (and conversely a character-testing gauntlet for aggressive alphas).

So in theory reducing the frequency of friendzoning in the dating market should redound to the benefit of beta males and the detriment of alpha males.

But theory often gets abused trying to make sense of female sexuality. In practice, as the supply of beta male emotional tampons shrinks, what I think likelier to happen is that the alpha cads remain objects of female desire, but girls will have to find alternate outlets to absorb their bitching and moaning about their jerky boyfriends, which could mean girl friends and family. Hearteningly, or maddeningly depending on your degree of cynicism, it could also mean girls “amp up” their sexual coquettishness around beta males to secure the same amount of harmless male attention they used to get for less effort (and for less risk of misconstrual).

On balance, it’s a good thing to reduce the incidence of friendzoning, even if it means more lesser betas wind up alone with their dignity, instead of alone with a cute girl tormenting them with her unattainable nearness. If betas are unwilling to prostrate themselves to self-aggrandizing girls who will never put out for them, there might follow a morale boost and an impetus to learn and acquire the whole panoply of masculine traits that coaxes from girls the kind of hugs that really matter: post-orgasmic leg hugs.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, girls deprived of pushover eunuchs might start to view those betas in a more sex-positive light.

Read Full Post »

A hefty part of the reason for the high divorce rate has to do with the female version of marital abandonment: obesity.

When a girlfriend or wife gets fat and, ERGO, unattractive to her boyfriend or husband, she has in effect CHECKED OUT of the relationship. (Much like a man who has taken up drink or stopped attending to his woman’s emotional needs has checked out of their relationship.)

The fatted distaff no longer places any value on pleasing her man, and it should surprise no one with integrity that men who have been abandoned by their partners in this way (through a total refutation of the legitimacy of their male-specific desires) react by withdrawing themselves, setting up a reinforcing feedback loop that dooms the relationship.

I bring this up because recently America, fuck yeah! (re)assumed the number one spot on the worldwide obesity charts. Some of this girth increase is the negative externality of the steezer invasion, but not all. White women are getting fatter, too.

Here’s a photo contrasting a typical US school lunch with a typical Finnish school lunch:

Yes, that is a monster chocolate chip cookie in the upper left of the USA lunch tray. And for those wondering, that unidentifiable factory meat constituting the main US course is fried chicken nuggets.

PS: Game can save relationships (and marriages) because it will give men the skills to seduce better (read: thinner) quality women, which will have benefits — both individual and societal — that accrue for years after the first heady tumble in the sack.

***

Reader Benson adds,

The combination of the obesity epidemic and American women complaining about men’s “unrealistic expectations” really chaps me.

American women have it easier than anywhere in the world. Because there are so many fatsos, by just not being morbidly obese, an American woman can put herself in the top 50% of women looks-wise.

Being a healthy, optimal BMI puts her in the top 25%. And if she can manage to be 5 lbs under ideal weight, she is practically guaranteed to be the hottest woman in most rooms.

But even with bar set all the way down to “just don’t be fat”, American women can’t clear it.

Worse, they act like they are angry that they are expected to try.

Benson is right. According to the fundamental premise, men will, as a sex, have to put more work into attracting a mate than the work that women will have to do to attract a mate. (To their advantage, men have far more avenues to increase their SMV than do women, who simply have youth and beauty, and to a lesser extent femininity and faithfulness, to barter.)

Fatted distaffs who bitch about men’s expectations have no idea how little comparative effort they need to make to meet the expectations of the opposite sex. Yet another reason why feminist idiocy and fat apologia are corrosive to societal well-being.

Read Full Post »

Commenter blart observes that a girlfriend who has lost interest in keeping up her appearance is probably a girlfriend who has lost interest in her boyfriend:

Many of the girls I’ve gone out with always dressed hot, wore heels, make up for me. When we broke up…they went back to their old frumpy easy-going ways.

Girls like the feeling of working for something or someone…it’s in their nature to do so. Game is the key to unlocking that desire to submit.

this is an important point. a lot of girls get lazy and do the frumpy thing while they are with a guy. they try to say it’s just that they have gotten comfortable and feel accepted and loved by their men. but comfort like that is really just a sign that she’s not concerned with pleasing you anymore. she’s not afraid to lose you and she doesn’t care about your needs or desires.

you don’t want a girl so insecure that she’s freaked out with fear of losing you every day. that’s a nightmare so you have to give them some comfort. but when a girl stops making an effort to look good for you, she is in the power position. she’s either trying to discourage you from making sexual advances because you turn her off or she just doesn’t respect you or see you as a high value man who she needs to work to please. that’s a bad situation either way.

Comfort + Anxiety. Comanxiety. Cuminsideofme? YES.

The art of seduction is about bringing balance to the force. Too much anxiety will corrode a relationship just as assuredly as too much comfort, although the precipitating chemical reactions are different. (CH suggestion: If you must choose between cultivating anxiety or comfort, choose anxiety. The sex will be hotter, at least for the short, dramatic time you have left together. Plus, it’s easier to pull a girlfriend back from the anxiety brink than it is to push her out of a slippers-and-sweatpants sexless comfort bubble.)

Stay alert to those relationship red flags which indicate a woman’s fading love and peripatetic lust. Yes, women want to achieve maximum gravitational comfort within relationships, but women are also strangely their own worst enemies in their quest for eternal love and happiness. Women will work instinctively and incessantly toward neutering and domesticating boyfriends and enlarging their LTR comfort zone until, perplexed and full of resentment, they have lost all desire for their men. It’s up to men to guide women away from the equivalent of lesbian bed death, and they do this by taking the lead in and out of the bedroom, wielding psychological tools that would make Alinsky blush.

Love is a protracted psy ops campaign with generous benefits.

I should point out the exception to Blart’s Rule about the threatening portent of girlfriends abandoning self-beautification efforts. Be equally wary when your woman has a sudden and inexplicable surge of interest in dolling herself up. She might be signaling a desire to reintroduce herself to the wilds of the dating market.

I know this sounds like contradictory advice, but there are critical distinctions. Lust-curdling comfort zone laziness is a pattern that emerges slowly in a woman. You have time to recognize it and take actions to thwart its progression. Lust-activating makeovers that aren’t a direct response to your seductive wiles are severe relationship weather bulletins. This is usually a rapid change that will appear in a woman without much forewarning, sometimes overnight, and seemingly unconnected to any pattern in your own behavior. If you’re a typical boyfriend blob, and your girl starts the day with lipstick smeared in vibrant cherry eddies across her plump lips, something she hadn’t done during the previous two years, you’ve got competition lurking in the shadows of her snapper.

Read Full Post »

Asshole Game Week: Day One is here. Day Two here. Day Three here. Day Four here.

The Chateau has plenty of readers already in relationships and (lucifer help you) marriage. Many of them would like to know how to apply asshole game to the women they love and are afraid to drive into boredom because of legal ramifications.

The rules of the Game don’t change when you decide to keep a woman around for longer than a few nights. All that changes is the frequency and intensity of your tactical assault. Instead of “shock and awe”, it’s more like “surprise and delight”.

On that dulcet note, reader Sentient demonstrates by example,

A few notes on asshole game from the confines of a marriage/LTR. Now while these may not have the the same storytelling value of asking a single girl to hold your drink while fucking another girl in front of her, they do render the desired nuclear effect on a fully pampered princess bride, who has grown accustomed to her beta lackey hubby:

1. She asks you to fill her water glass with a whiney “i’m thirsty… and a wiggle of a raised glass” and you say “No thanks”.

2. She asks you to run downstairs and get her xxxx from yyyy and you say “I think you can manage that, it’s good for your glutes too”.

3. She informs you that her BFF has arranged a play date for the kids and you and her an hour away from home at some place you have zero desire to go to, and she expects you to be the driver, as always and you say “Have a good time, not interested”.

4. You make a move for sex at 10 PM on a Wednesday night, she gives you the cold shoulder and something like “we just had sex [fill in the blank] days ago”, and you say “Ok, have a good night”, kiss her on the head and leave the house “not sleepy, going out for a bit” your departing words… a furious litany of hamsterese lighting up your phone for the next hour, which you ignore.

5. and the coup de grace, when she wants to have a BIG TALK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP and she says “I don’t like how you have been acting the last [fill in the blank]…” and you look her square in the eye and shrug “you don’t have to”.

BOOOOM goes the dynamite. Relationship reset activated. #winning #welcomebacktestes #tingles

“Relationship Reset” is a good way of putting it. That’s precisely what you want to do. Reset your girlfriend’s or wife’s impression of you. And there’s no hotter button to push than the one that activates a tingle torrent. A million things about you can anger a woman, but if her anger is accompanied by a stirring in her snatch she’ll rationalize your flaws away as if they were puffs of girlish illusion.

Commenter newlyaloof adds a few more Relationship Reset strategies,

#6 Dress/eat differently (adding variety to your life). When wife notices the switch and comments about it, say, “Yeah, I’ve moved on.”

#7 Mention the young, cute girl at the office whenever possible (commute with her if possible too). Instant wife motivator.

#8 Can’t remember who stated this, but if your wife questions anything that you mention, say “Because the words left my mouth, that’s why.”

#6 is thermonuclear, and the blast radius enlarges the longer you can maintain an air of opacity concerning the meaning of your explanation.

I hope everyone enjoyed Asshole Game Week. If popular demand warrants, I may feature another week devoted to the craft of cleaving clefts by psychological axe.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: