Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Relationships’ Category

Hypothetically, would you care that much if your gf/wife/placeholderpussy cheated on you?
If yes, keep on lovin’ her.
If maybe, give it three months.
If no, end it.

HTHealstheearth

Read Full Post »

If you come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Details.

A private friendzoning is a punch to the nuts, but a public friendzoning….well that’s just a drawing and quartering of a man’s soul. Unnecessary cruelty.

A day-spa visit to the Chateau imbibing the lessons herein could’ve saved this man such a public humiliation. Not to mention spared him the time and energy he’s obviously wasted chasing a phantom pussy.

Remember the patented CH Jumbotron Test?

Every text or email or recordable instance of conversation [or attempted lip-kiss] you have with a girl must follow this simple rule:

If it were given a public airing, let’s say on a blog or a sports stadium jumbotron, you should feel comfortable with what you have written [or executed] for the world to see.  You should not feel an urge to wince, because it will be clear to everyone reading [or watching] it how alpha you are.  If the thought of someone other than you and your girl reading [or watching] your permanently archived romantic exchanges makes you cringe with embarrassment, then you are doing something wrong that will eventually lead to your girl dumping you [or publicly thwarting your romantic yearning].

This fledgling womanizer at the Rockets game failed the Jumbotron Test in the most cringeworthy way imaginable.

A word of advice to the men assembled: When the kiss cam swings your way, jerk your ice cream cone away from the girl you’re with. That’s far more likely to win over a woman’s lust than taking advantage of the moment like a weaselly beta male to steal a kiss that you can’t be sure will be reciprocated (many such cases).

Don’t try to kiss a girl in the public eye, unless you know she’ll return the ardor. The alpha male first kisses a woman’s id before aiming for her lips. The beta male gets it backwards: estranged from a woman’s id, he tries to access it by sneaking in an opportunistic kiss on her lips. Naturally, she turns the cheek to him for assuming her heart would follow his kiss, and secretly relishes the cruelty she inflicted on her hapless blue balled orbiter.

Read Full Post »

Some words should never be spoken aloud….unless speaking them aloud is personally advantageous.

Once upon a tingle, I had gotten into a shouting match with a girl I was dating. As is the wont of her sex, she quickly wound herself up to a height of melodrama and hysteria on the flimsiest and stupidest of pretexts, emptying a deluge of emotion that was really about an old resentment having nothing to do with the reason given for her anger in the moment.

But the shrieking and carrying on had cracked my coolasfuckness. Even an Amused Master has a breaking point. My hand slashing the air between us, I growled,

“You don’t get it! I need you less than you need me.”

Boom, drop the shrike.

Now, my statement happened to be true, but it didn’t need to be true for it to hit her id dead center. A silence swept over her, lips trembling, eyes rattling in her sockets, and her face reddened, like a baby caught in a body-quaking anticipatory soundlessness just before unleashing a wicked wail.

But instead of corking off with a femme finale of righteous rage, she physically crumpled and loosed a bitter mewl…if that’s the way you feel about me….is that the way you feel?….cause that’s just an asshole thing to say….

Reading between the lines, I knew she was saying, “I’m not ready to let go of you, so I’ll step off this ledge I walked out on.” When a girl exhales a vulnerability like “cause that’s just an asshole thing to say”, you can be guaranteed two things: she hasn’t stopped loving you, and she needed to hear that from you.

The Game lesson is to remember “I need you less than you need me” by heart, because it’ll be useful if you spend any significant time with the furor sex. It’s a condensed and concentrated form of Dread Game, which when deployed will demoralize even the most combative girlfling. Your reward will be a renewed flowering of her adoring femininity…..for a while. Generally, though, the long term prognosis for relationships that have shared a vitriol to match in vitality any love that might be present isn’t promising. Rut and roam, gentlemen. You’ve only so much life to blow on poison giney.

Read Full Post »

Fake it till she betrays it. A study found that a woman who fakes her orgasms a lot is also more likely to cheat.

According to a new study, published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, women who regularly fake orgasms were less faithful.

The survey studied 138 women and 121 men in heterosexual relationships and asked them about climaxing and cheating.

While the intensity and frequency of female orgasms had little bearing on whether women had cheated before or were likely to cheat in the future.

But there was a definite link between the number of times a woman faked her climax and how likely she was to cheat.

Women have a dual mating strategy. They evolved to reassure beta providers, and to rock their ovaries with fly-by-night alphas. A woman who is especially skilled at, and motivated to, fake her orgasms is a woman pursuing her dual mate strategy of comforting a lovemaking beta and convulsing with a raw dogging alpha.

Be aware of the female infidelity red flags, especially this giant banner. The healthiest relationships are those entered with clear eyes, full heart, and Girl Two in the kitty.

Read Full Post »

Are you familiar with the sound of a rhetorical shiv piercing mangina hide and splintering id-bone? It sounds like this feeble defensive mewl from John Scalzi, the world’s most foremost beta male feminist emasculate.

Following a shock and maul CH campaign on both Twatter and at this ‘umble blog belittling the remnants of Scalzi’s manhood and everything he stands for, El Castrato finally cracked and Twat-streamed this effluvium of butthurt katzenjammer:

∑T = ∑E

That wedding photo is so very revealing. Megawife must’ve been ovulating on her wedding day, because she doesn’t want Scalzi’s supplicating seed anywhere near her eggs. I haven’t seen a “lean out” like that since Sheryl Sandberg’s husband set his treadmill speed to “the sweet relief of marital release”.

Naturally, I stuck the shiv once more in the undulating mass of Scalzi’s swolelessness.


Uxorious, adjective
– doting upon, foolishly fond of, or affectionately submissive toward one’s wife.

Scalzi is the Uxorious Male personified. His debased kind seem to be blossoming like dainty wildflowers all over Gaymerica, sending airborne tufts of estrogen to signal high T pollinators that their women are open to illicit dalliances.

The Uxorious Male is in reality a red flag of relationship disquiet. A man who ostentatiously and publicly bends the knee to his woman and considers it an act of sexual polarity-inverting rebellion against masculine norms instead of what it really is — a craven display of sycophantic shamelessness by an LSMV manchild — unintentionally announces to any spectators that his relationship or marriage is not what he wants it to seem.

Male uxoriousness, especially the variety that seeks a public platform, is a flamboyant concealment of relationship trouble. This trouble can take many forms:

  • the male feels an urge to cheat, and is ashamed of it
  • the woman is emotionally and sexually disconnecting from the relationship
  • both partners have checked out and are now in the business of keeping up (laughably try-hard) appearances
  • the male has experienced a sudden increase in financial or social status and subconsciously feels impelled to reassert his fidelity
  • the woman has experienced pleasing attention from other men and behaves in an emotionally distant way that triggers the male to uxorious mate guarding
  • the male is extremely low value relative to his woman and believes, mistakenly, that cloying displays of faithfulness and admiration will keep her as interested in him
  • both partners are sexually low value and each of them abides the uxorious male’s exaggerated show of fealty because it pumps their flagging egos

Dear girlfriends or wives reading at this outpost of outrageous truth,

DON’T TRUST A MAN WHO WANTONLY GLORIFIES YOU

He has an ulterior motive, is feeling guilty for something, or you can do better and he knows this (even if you don’t…yet).

CH Maxim 88: The fervor of a man’s public declarations of fidelity to his woman positively correlate with an increased risk of cheating by either the man or the woman.

Scalzi is not just a psychologically disfigured beta bitchboy; he’s also an anti-White virtue signaling whore. And as long as the Chateau stands in defiance of the Degenerate Freak Mafia, anti-White empty virtue whores like Scalzi will no longer be free to indulge their smarmy habit unopposed. It’s a new day.

More Scalzied chew-toy fun:

Read Full Post »

Sluts do not come “in all shapes and sizes”; they fall into archetypes that are noticeable to even the untrained beta goober eye. This post briefly profiles the stereotypical slut appearance and behavior, with the caveat that these observations by yours truly are broad (heh) generalizations. Plenty of exceptions to the rules exist, and this is so because nature has deemed it beneficial to bestow women a valuable coin of the reproduction realm: skill in the art of deception, of others and herself.

For instance, despite my general impression that ultra-feminine girls are less slutty than mannish girls, there are certainly very dainty, coquettish, eternal ingenues who play men like a fiddle for their resources and pack on a surprising amount of cockage over the years as man-eaters in pixie’s clothing. So the wary (or opportunistic) man reading this post would be wise to use it as a loose (heh) guide rather than a precise schematic.

FYI, “cock count” is a lovingly scientifical term to describe how many sex partners a woman has had in her life to date.

Women with the highest cock counts tend to be

  1. sassy/neurotic
  2. liberal
  3. androgenized (narrow hips, manjaw, short temper)

Women with the lowest cock counts tend to be

  1. demure/deferential
  2. conservative
  3. estrogenic (hourglass figure, neotenous features, nurturing temperament)

Why do masculinized, liberal women have higher cock counts? My theory — one that will no doubt be validated by SCIENCE! in a few months’ time — is that the key variable isn’t the intensity of female horniness but rather the presence of female disinhibition. Masculine women, like men, skew toward risk-taking and have fewer inhibitions than feminine women. They are less coy about their wants and (probably) less regretful about fulfilling those wants (at least during the immediate aftermath of their hookups). And liberal women, like liberals generally, have a stronger novelty-seeking compulsion and higher disgust thresholds, which together mean they aren’t as prone to existential crises about noncommittal casual sex as are conservative women.

I don’t see that feminine, conservative women are any less horny than masculine, liberal women, but they are certainly less inclined to act on their horniness with the perfunctory freewheeling attitude that your garden variety slutty urban SWPL chick brings to the bedroom.

Men can do one of two things with this darkly dank information: help them identify which women will go all the way right away… or which women would make good LTR girlfriend or wife material. The two goals are mutually exclusive in the whole (allowing for overlap at the margins).

Be careful with this knowledge. There’s no free munch. Long-term, low cock count women are a much better bet for relationship stability (and hence, for paternity certainty and divorce theft avoidance). But those low cock count women come with a price: lower sexual drive. If you like to bang, and bang a lot, you may become unhappy with a chaste low N girl who’d rather dream of babies and gossip with her girlfriends than ride you through the night into the morning. One mitigating advantage men with aggressively high horny levels have at their disposal, should relationship stability be their primary concern, is that, as a reader has reminded, on average men have a higher sex drive than women anyhow, and it’s “better to ‘work [a low cock count woman’s libido] up’ (probable) than to ‘tame [a slut’s vivacity] down’ (not possible)”.

Men care more about any particular woman’s cock count in proportion to the length of time they want to spend with that woman. A woman’s cock count cutoff for a man is highly dependent on his intentions with her. ONS? No cutoff. Fun fling? A cock count higher than twenty will gross a man out (even if he won’t admit it). Marriage? Any number over ten will seriously make a man question his decision to nuptially shackle himself. Ideally, most (non-black) men would love to marry a woman who’s a virgin, or more liberally (given current sexual market realities) who has accumulated no more than three cocks in her lifetime.

One of the illest feelings in the world for a man is to find out post-cock ergo cocker that the woman he loves and committed himself to has a sexual history that would rival Genghis Khan’s. This feeling will percolate no matter how much his woman loves him presently or swears her fidelity to him in future; these are primal attractions and repulsions that modern society with its platitude carpet bombing and gogrrl glorification and emasculation affirmations will never banish from the hindmind of man. That’s why it’s so critically important that alpha males teach beta male buddies, and shitlord dads teach pre-brainwashed sons, how to identify sluts and exploit them for pleasure biding or avoid them for patriarchy building.

Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: