Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Relationships’ Category

From commenter Cultural Resilience,

O/T from Managing hysterically Jealous Girl to see if I’m still stuck in mod
I’ve just played this tactic and it worked a fucking treat. I got the sense that the current long term gf has stopped giving of her best. I know that she has checked my phone before so I changed the lock code to one that she would find easy to break. I’ve been having flirty online text exchanges with a foreign girl and started closing my phone of quickly when ever she came near. Sure enough I come home one day and I immediately recognise the atmosphere.

“Something wrong?” “No!” (In that no means yes tone that only a hurting woman can use). “Ok then” I reply, while thinking I bet she doesn’t last five minutes. Sure enough before my post work drink glass frosting has even begun turning to water droplets. “I’ve found those messages on your phone” which, by the way include hot nude pics. “Knew you would” says I. “I feel like its a betrayal” “I knew it would make you feel like that but it didn’t stop me” “Doesn’t is bother your conscience?” “A hard dick doesn’t have a conscience”

A few sulky days laced with occasional comments about wether or not we have a future, tears and of course picture with no sound. (Its cute how they think that a few days free from continual vocalisation of every empty female thought is a punishment.)

Bam! Hot make up sex, and texts confessing undying love and her desire to make everything right with me. This shit just cannot fail. Its a kill or cure strategy, but it is certain to end in cure if properly executed.

Dread Game is like two Quimfinity Gauntlets of Pussy. Two snaps, and all the snapper promptly dissolves into a frantic bawling mess of lovesick conciliation and devotion.

It’s so powerful it has sex-independent properties; it can work on (beta) males as well, although not as powerfully as it works on women and rarely does it work on alpha males with options (it does work particularly well on hot babes with options because they have no defense against it given that they rarely experience it).

The catch is that you need a shiny set of brass ones to pull it off with genuine feeling. You have to be willing to risk total relationship implosion and be ready to walk, no looking back. Many weak-willed betas don’t have the stones for Dread Game, so they get played relentlessly until their half-committed girls tire of their supplications and execute a mercy dumping. (Many girls get so disgusted with the cajoling, cloying behavior of their beta borefriends that they will throw away a reliable source of resources and sounding board feelz just to get away from their betas’ icky kisses and gimp seed.)

If the girl senses you’re bluffing, she’ll double down and turn cold as ice as she calmly explains why “this isn’t working out”. If you’re unprepared for this, you’ll cave like a Florida sinkhole and beg for forgiveness and a second chance. If you were prepared to end it right there and then, you’ll say “Ok” and watch as everything changes between you and her. Where she had been holding all the cards and leveraging her sex and love withdrawal, suddenly you’re sitting in the cadbird seat and she’s hysterically trying to smooth things over so you’ll stay with her.

It’s a brutal psy ops, but no one said the sexual market was a soft pillow landing of genteel trade and barter. The sexes have competing reproductive goals, and though fraternization is the point the battlefield clashes to reach the victor’s tent are winner take all.

It’s not as insurmountable as it sounds if you don’t regularly swing a heavy sack in all your interactions with women. If your girl has “stopped giving of her best”, you have to tell yourself that she’s already one lab flap out the door. She’s gonna leave you in time if you do nothing, so you may as well take a chance on Dread Game. Either she leaves now (rather than in the near future), and you get a few extra months of character building field experience chewing into fresh meat, or she capitulates and returns to giving you her best.

Dread Game is win-win for any man who has the least bit of confidence in his ability to pick up a new chick. But if you’re a quisling beta accustomed to licking the glitter sneakers of your girl hoping your abject uxoriousness will keep her loveless attendance tethered by a frayed string to your life of endless anxiety, then Dread Game is a grenade you’re holding after you’ve thrown the pin into her trench. You won’t be able to handle it hot, she’ll know it, and the damned ploy will blow up in your face because deep down you’re afraid to risk losing her to be alone, sexless and unloved, straitjacketed by your fear of meeting new girls to find a replacement.

I want to add that Dread Game is so powerful it can resuscitate relationships which by cosmic law should die and stay dead. Exploit it wisely. It’s a great relationship management tool for corralling and bringing back under your tonically masculine auspice a wayward girlfriend or permanent girlfriend; but it’s a devil’s bargain if you use it to keep a determined, manipulative whore in line. Accept that if the girl isn’t right for you, Dread Game offers tremendously satisfying short term rewards at the cost of long term frustration and cancerous resentment. If the mutual love is poisoned or missing, you’ll have to administer a constant PIV drip of Dread Game to keep what is essentially a zombie barge afloat. Some men have enough ice in the veins (and fire in the main vein) to happily sign on for such a commitment. But most don’t. Dread Game administration for the duration will eventually heighten the loveless disconnect until it explodes with a fury or deflates to a perfunctory, impassive goodbye long past its due date. And by then you may wonder why you didn’t just cut the cancercunt out sooner so you could spare the time saved for other women who would be a better fit for you.

Read Full Post »

A jealous girlfriend isn’t necessarily an obstacle to an award-winning relationship. In fact I’d argue that a woman’s jealousy is the solar energy of sustainable romance. When she’s jealous, you’re desired. And when you’re desired, she’s not MIA for twisted bedsheet time.

Ideally, you want to stoke a little jealousy in your woman, sporadically and with varying intensity and duration, so that it’s never predictable and she can dismiss it as another one of your effortgoads to secure her love. Too little jealousy is a recipe for cuntplacency. Too much jealousy risks a relationship blowout. Be baby bear’s porridge.

Inciting bouts of manageable jealousy is the heart of Dread Game. However, there will be times you overstep and drive your girl insane in the femmebrain with self-doubt and fear of loss. When this happens, I have a mitigation plan that won’t let you down. When she melts down accusing you of cheating or some other affront to her faithful womanhood, put on your best amused mastery face and, smiling broadly like a cat who just caught a mouse, reply,

“Wow you are REALLY jealous right now. This is so awesome!”

She’ll check herself before wrecking herself. Expect her to be confused or charmed (in women, these two states are often the same), and watch as the ire and anxiety drain right out of her. She might murmur something like “how is this awesome?” or “oooookaaaay…” which is her way of processing an unexpected information flow. (She was expecting your defensive denials.) You will continue in the same vein,

“You love me so much. It’s sweet.”

Her: blah blah don’t think so blah blah you’re so arrogant blah

“I better watch myself around other women! If I check out a cute girl you might buy me a Corvette.”

At this point, she’s either laughing or fuming, or both. Either reaction is good news. The fear has dissipated; thanks to your ASSUME THE SALE and AGREE & NOTIFY ministrations she’s realized how silly she sounded and is mad at you for making her feel that way. The madness will in short order give way to gladness and then to missionary tradness.

The above can be used by stone bold jerkboys who got caught cheating for real but don’t yet want to give up the dream of building a de facto harem of slightly obsessed loverladies.

Read Full Post »

Here’s a good litmus test to determine if the girl you’re dating (read: boffing) is committed relationship material. I call it the Abortion Test, and as a measure of a woman’s commitment worthiness it’s almost as good as the Cock Count Test.

When you get a chance, pry her about her abortion history. Best Girls will not have had abortions, of course, but the CDC reports that upwards of 1 out of 4 American women have had at least one abortion in their lifetimes. (The White woman ratio is likely lower than that; the abortion industry disproportionately serves women of color.) So as an American man you have to figure there’s a decent chance your princess has had at least one prenatal princeling vacuum pumped.

If she confesses to having had a past abortion, gauge her response as she recollects it for you. Is she full of regret and pain in the retelling? She might pass as LTR material. She made a mistake and knows it; she still has a feminine soul.

Or does she recount it with the dead black eyes of a psychokiller, utterly unmoved by remembrance of the ordeal? Perhaps even dismissing it with a selfish “and THANK GOD I did, because I never would have made it through Lotsa Cockas University with my Slut Studies degree if I had to take care of a kid.” Double bag it and hide the valuables, because you, sir, are getting laid tonight! Just remember to leave before the first morning light and never contact her again.

A reader addressed the topic,

…people gravely underestimate the emotional damage [abortions] do to a woman, it leaves them broken, unable to interact with children in a normal way for the rest of their lives.   Everytime they see a child, think of a child, somewhere deep inside a little voice asks what would the child I murdered look like today what would it be doing.

…and the kind of women who aren’t emotionally affected by their abortions?…..you don’t want to be with those kinds. Those women have lost an essential piece of their womanhood, which they aren’t getting back. Or they never had that piece to begin with. Taking a broken bird like that into your kingdom is taking in half of a woman; and the half that’s missing can never be filled by anything a man could offer.

They are affected, they just won’t admit it, they are the most dangerous, they are emotionally ready to explode at any time.

With sexperience, a man will be able to discern which women are sincere in their insistence of emotional disengagement and which women are faking it to protect their tissue paper thin egos. I’ve met both kinds, and while the latter are more common, the former are downright chilling. An emotionally dead woman is a faint echo of womanhood; her coldness on matters fetal belies a pact made with the devil: the nurturing part of her feminine essence in exchange for a veneer of empowered self-guidance.

Read Full Post »

Via Waffles, “As Johnny Depp got older / more successful, his GF’s got younger.”

As Johnny Depp’s fame (and age) increased, the relative age of his lovers decreased. An exponential relationship! (The minor trend-outlier, Paradis, must have had a paradise pussy. i will dine on pubic dew, and lap the lube of pussy pried…)

This isn’t a one way sexual market phenomenon. As intensely as men are attracted to young, beautiful women, women are intensely attracted to rich, famous (and often older) men. Depp doesn’t have to chain these barely legal minxes to the radiator; they come to him willingly and eagerly.

As did many of those post-Wall PoundMeToo women now claiming in the dimming of their sexual allure to have been victims of the very men they trampled the competition to be near when those women were in their primes. See through this sexual panic, the Chateau does.

Read Full Post »

NewYorkerParody stumbles on a good reason to judge a woman by the job she keeps: it could be a warning of future infidelity:

I think the best possible wife material is a preschool teacher: Cute, employed (but inevitably makes less than you), in a motherly/nurturing career, not surrounded by alpha males, has to get up early, has summers off so she can watch the kids (I.e. no expensive summer camps; you can take family vacations). Contrast this w/ a wife who travels/works in sales.

If this sounds familiar to old-time Chateau readers, it should. From a 2007 CH post “What a girl’s job tells you“:

Elementary School Teacher

Pure gold.  Put this girl on your short list for long term commitment.  What’s not to love about the elementary school teacher?  Cute, thin (it’s a workout chasing kids all day), ultra feminine, nurturing, selfless, caring, and most importantly blessedly low maintenance due to the nature of her workplace environment sequestering her from the attentions of men.  The best ones teach 1st through 5th grades.  Women who supervise daycare are too toddler-focused and will love the kids more than you.  You will soon tire of her coo-ing at every baby you both pass by.  High school teachers are too stressed out from their job to properly service your manly needs at home.  Don’t bother with college professors unless you think foreplay is listening to an earful of pomo feminist shrillness.
Bonus:  teachers don’t make much money so your financial status will always be higher, guaranteeing a long and healthy relationship.
Sexual Satisfaction Rating:  3/4th erection
Long Term Potential Rating:  hope diamond (she’s not gonna have much opportunity to cheat at work)

The world is converging on a conventional wisdom that is indistinguishable from Chateau teachings. In a few years, anchors on the locals at 8 will be saying diversity + proximity = war and citing the relevant studies linked at this blog.

It wasn’t mentioned in the original CH post on this topic, but a yuge cuckoldry risk red flag is a woman with any kind of job that requires extensive business travel. Any men looking to wife up a faithful companion should steer clear of women with enough frequent flyer miles to EatPraySlut the four corners of the world with swarthers from afar.

You may as well call it United Cucklines.

***

What about men who travel a lot for their jobs? Aren’t they risking a cuckolding when they leave their lovers behind to keep home an hearth in wait for their return?

Yes and no. The risk of cuckoldry is higher with traveling women, because they interact with more alpha males on the road than the homebound woman does in her time alone while her man is away on business. Naturally, women can get lonely, and a man who’s traveling all the time opens himself to getting cucked by a sneaky fucker loitering back home and whispering emotional lube juice in the romantically starved hausfrau’s ear. But in general women’s hearts grow fonder for ambitious men who must be on the road a lot….to a point, beyond which the local butcher’s eyeplay starts to catch her attention.

Another thing to keep in mind: women in jobs that require a lot of travel are typically low E, high T manjaws gunning for the brass ring. That is, the type of woman who might not think twice about fucking a co-worker in a flyover Marriott to scratch an itch (or jingle a tingle).

Read Full Post »

Mate guarding tactics, in descending order of alphaness:

  • She mate guards you
  • You flash a frown and she promptly self-corrects
  • You mindfuck her (see: Dread Game)
  • You let most insults slide, but explode once in a while to keep her on edge and in line
  • You kick the other guy’s ass
  • You lavish excessive PDA on her whenever another man is talking to her (or just in the general vicinity of her)
  • You buy her stuff
  • You beg her to love you
  • You marry her*
  • You accept her terms of polyamory
  • You mate guard yourself (the undescended testicles soyboy option)

*”Marriage is beta?”, sneers the tradcon. No. Marriage is beta when it’s relied on by a man as a solution to prevent a woman from straying (it never works). If you think the legalistic imprimatur of marriage will finally convince that thot to take her mind off other men and love you unto the end of time, you’ll be disappointed. You’re an even bigger tool if you believe a huge rock and expensive wedding guarantees a woman’s fidelity. (Just the opposite — if you have to spend a lot to convince a woman to accept your monogamous submission, she’s more likely to divorce you.)

As I’ve argued in these pages, and as ¡SCIENCE! has confirmed, frequent mate guarding, as it is typically practiced by Western men, is beta.

Established alpha males don’t typically mate guard — at least not obviously — because they don’t fear their women cheating on them or falling under the spell of other men, and, less benignly, they redirect some of their relationship energy that would normally be spent on mate guarding toward hooking up with side lovers.

Beta males, whether consciously or not, sense more keenly the sexual interloper threat posed by other men and the wandering eyes of their own women. This heightened threat detection system is likely an evolved instinct that serves the useful purpose of keeping the lover of a beta male faithful, (or constrained in her ability to cheat).

Here’s where it gets interesting for philosophers and warriors of Game alike: While mate guarding may offer some temporary or discrete relationship security, multiple acts of mate guarding will paradoxically increase longer term relationship fragility. The mechanism by which this LTR instability is generated is a status feedback loop; if a man mate guards, his woman will subconsciously evaluate his romantic worth downward because (her sensitive idware will reason) only a beta male would feel the need to mate guard. An alpha male would not; his aloofness would be perceived as proof of his impenetrable high status.

Research has even found a positive association between a man’s jizz quality and his indifference to mate guarding.

In another blow against mate guarding as a viable minx management tool, research has shown that “aloof and indifferent” men who create feelings of uncertainty in women are more attractive than clingy men:

When women think of assholes they don’t want to date, they’re thinking of caring assholes. The kind of men who are clingy, mate guarding buffoons. The assholes who are loved by women are the men whose jerkitude is implied through emotional distance, cocksureness, outcome independence, and inscrutability.

The Alpha Apex for a man is reached when a woman is so smitten with him that the thought of cheating never even crosses her mind and in fact she spends most of her idle cognition devising ploys to keep other women away from him (and his attention focused solely on her *daily bjs wink wink*).

The Nancyboy Nadir for a male-thing is hit when his woman is given free rein to indulge her slutty cheating heart while he puts limits on his own behavior, fearful of her wrath and rejection should he hold her to the same faithfulness standards he holds himself.

Mate guarding is a behavior associated with men who fall in-between those two extreme states of manhood. It isn’t always self-defeating, but it quickly can be if it becomes the primary means to manage a wanton woman. As a general rule:

Alpha men never or rarely mate guard (they don’t have to because their women love them too much to risk losing them, but when they do mate guard, obedience is immediate and unquestioned).

Beta males sometimes or frequently mate guard (and when they do, their women are often driven further away by the weak display of desperate possessiveness, but can sometimes be convinced to stay in the relationship with promises of trinkets and marriage).

Omega dregs never or rarely mate guard (it’s futile for them as they are in no position to make demands, and the rare times they do mate guard it usually emerges in a clumsy spectacle of inchoate rage that further lowers their already low SMV).

Soyboys (psychologically lower than omegas) actually reverse mate guard — they mate liberate, preferring to avoid any conflict that might threaten their relationships (or beta orbiter status) via the warped solution of permitting total sexual freedom for their women while restraining their own sexuality.

Mate guarding is largely the province of sub-alpha men, because men lower on the sexual market hierarchy have to deal with 1. more threats from male competitors and 2. an urge to unfaithfulness from their women. As a preventative against gf or wife cheating or abandonment, these men show signs of loyalty (generously defined) or possessiveness (more realistically defined) as enticement to their women to stick with them. Since women love dem beta bux, these displays of commitment can be persuasive on those women peering at the Wall cresting over the horizon and eager to settle down in post-cock carousel expedience.

Mate guarding can take numerous forms, one of which is the elaborate proposal. If you notice an increase in certain mate guarding behaviors, you are seeing an increase in beta males (as perceived by women) who feel the need to hammer home the message that they’ll give everything plus their dignity to assure a woman’s fidelity.

The corollary to the mate guarding = alpha LARPing observation is that men can raise their perceived SMV by avoiding conspicuous displays of mate guarding when a woman is likely to expect them. Undermining her expectation of a jealous reaction will create cogdis that encourages subtle but powerful micro-reassessments of her beta boyfriend/hubby, that over the long run raise his value relative to her value.

***

This topic re-arrested me because a study just released seems, at least on the surface, to contradict CH teachings and previous studies examining the relation between mate guarding and men’s attractiveness to women.

Men with higher testosterone levels report being more protective of their romantic relationships

Whoa, hold the phone. Alpha males tend to be higher T, and higher T is associated with more mate guarding. What gives? Delving into the study’s details reveals that there is no contradiction.

“…very little research has examined whether testosterone relates to other forms of mating-relevant competition, such as effort aimed at retaining a mating partner. This includes benefit provisioning (e.g., doing nice things for your partner to highlight your commitment to her such as buying gifts, proposing marriage) and cost inflicting (e.g., threatening other men to stay away) acts meant to hold on to exclusive access to one’s mate.” […]

The researchers collected saliva samples from 108 male undergraduates to measure their testosterone levels and had them complete surveys on mate retention and intrasexual competition. They found there was an indirect relationship between testosterone and mate retention behaviors.

“Our results suggested that there is a modest relationship between testosterone and mate-retention, but that this relationship is not direct in nature. Rather, testosterone predicts holding a more competitive attitude toward members of the same sex (intrasexual competition), and it is this characteristic of intrasexual competitiveness that in turn predicts mate retention,” Arnocky told PsyPost.

“Moreover, this relationship seems to be strongest for cost inflicting, rather than benefit provisioning, acts of mate retention.”

Examples of cost-inflicting mate retention behavior include things such as limiting a partner’s social life by monopolizing her time and insulting her to make her feel undeserving of the current relationship.

Teasing and negs are a valuable component of a healthy, committed, and uncucked relationship!

I was right in my suspicions about what this study was really saying. Higher testosterone was associated with “cost-inflicting” mate retention behaviors, i.e., threats against interloper men or psy ops against girlfriends. Psy ops on girls and maneuvering for dominance over other men are alpha male pastimes. Showering women with reassuring PDA, being a shoulder to cry on, expressing devotion, and “benefit provisioning” as mate retention strategies are the lower T beta male options, and in the Darwinian calculus these beta strategies aren’t nearly as effective as the “cost-inflicting” alpha strategies for keeping women in love and reproductively loyal.

“Our study was correlational in its design, and so one cannot make any causal assumptions about whether testosterone influences levels of intrasexual competitiveness or mate retention,” Arnocky noted.

Correlation does not equal penetration.

Ted Colt adds,

if you want to prevent a woman from straying, impregnate her, limit her employment prospects, & surround her with family

it worked for thousands of years

Realtalk. But suffrage happened, and now we live in Vagina World. For modren times (ie the age of careerist shrikes and mass contraception), the best prophylactic against a woman cheating on you is

  1. choose wisely and
  2. have her fall in love with you

A love of sufficient infatuation is indistinguishable from worship. And no woman will cheat on her god.

***

Women mate guard too. They use sex as their preferred means of mate control.

Chapter 5, “Green-Eyed Desire: From Guarding a Mate to Trading Up,” deals with other economic constraints relating to the human mating market. Women appear to use sex to help guard male mates by keeping them satisfied, reminding men what they stand to lose should they defect—or as many women in the study put it, “keep[ing] his mind off other women.”

More sex from women? Sounds great! To gain access to that parallel pooniverse, you have to keep women in a steady state of uncertainty and anxiety.

Read Full Post »

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).

***

Update

I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: