Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Rules of Manhood’ Category

Lichtof, on attending a mimosa brunch in a major shitlibopolis:

One of my many red pill moments was living in a DC suburb and having to go to a mimosa brunch thing that bitches love.
My girl wanted to show me off.
6 other couples at the table all engaged or married and every one of the ‘men’ could have passed as gay. They even dressed gay..pink clothing…shorts..and all with high voices.
Me being hungover I thought I’d stumbled on a joke or something.
I acted a jerk and had two of the bitches eating out of my hand and none of the other ‘men’ knew what was going on.

Aside…I turned down a fuck from a white Colombian last year. A farmer’s daughter ..attractive, fit and I’d say loved a good fuck but she had big shoulders and just a little too much ‘t’.

Ladies, we men of impeccable taste and evolved slaydar can spot the slightest deviation from normal T levels in women…the shoulders that are a 1/4 inch too wide in relation to hip width, the gorilla feet, the man hands, the dusky tufts of lip hair, the pubic thatch that migrates across the pelvis-thigh crease (the nappy valley), the narrow hips, the wider waist (even if toned and taut), the flattened swayback, and of course the mark of the Lawyercunt Beast, the manjaw.

To the larger point, cities and in particular shitlibopolis strongholds that have a new pet grooming store open every week, become beacons for effete males where they resettle in large numbers and their scent of overactive aromatase suffuses the air. This scent is a turn-off to women, including the effete male’s polar opposite the high T careerist shrike. But libchicks love these harmless puffboys as asexual company whose only purpose appears to be inflating the egos of crass unfeminine bitterbitch pussyhatters.

Oh sure, occasionally a puffboy will pair off with a pussyhatter (usually after the pussyhatter has run a marathon through MAGA cad cock and needs the shitlib social acceptability imprimatur of a compliant beta borefriend), but you can tell neither of their hearts are into it; they’re hooking up for appearances rather than passion.

Worse, the coastal cities produce endemic toxins via food and culture channels that saps its male inhabitants of their T. So a double T whammy sets up….nancyboys gravitate to the cities, and their nancy-ness is amplified to an acute degree by the urban lifestyle. Only the strongest and most willful of MAGAmen can resist urban gayification. You have to be extremely confident in your masculinity to spend a lot of time in the cities plundering the sexually unfulfilled shitlib chicks downing mimosas by the vat to help them forget they’re on the slow track to a loveless marriage with uptalking vegetable lasagnas without worrying that you’ll become one of them.

The good news for men who don’t measure up to a Paul Bunyon standard is that it doesn’t take much inborn masculinity to shine like a diamond dick in a shitlibopolis. A recognizable bicep, a neck thicker than a pencil, a voice that doesn’t mimic little girls at play, and a cheeky ZFG attitude that isn’t concerned with constantly assuaging girls’ egos and reaffirming their insipid politics is enough to storm a pink-hued brunch like a Viking Berserker and insinuate yourself into the sexual fantasies of an entire HR department’s worth of alpha-starved feminist Trump haters.

Read Full Post »

A very powerful feeling for a man is walking out on a date because the girl dissatisfied him with her opinions or behavior.
Very few men do this.
More men should.
It’s exhilarating and builds masculine character, which has positive knock on effects for other girls he dates.

Male choosiness — and the associated behavior that naturally emerges from it — is a male SMV amplifier. Men who express a refined, discriminating taste in women, and an exquisite discernment of which women qualify for the pleasure of his company, are adored by women because choosy men have an aura of preselection. The choosy man becomes the chased, rather than the chaser.

It’s a lot easier to call the shots and direct the tempo when you’re the one being chased.

Adhering to exacting standards in women is a strong signal of attractiveness to women, given that women will assume, usually rightly, that a man willing to cavalierly reject potential mates is a man who has many other women in his queue. He is therefore “that guy* aka the alpha male of women’s dreams.

Then there is the rarity and unpredictability of male choosiness. When the average woman can go years, or even a lifetime, without suffering the indignity of a man walking out on her during a date for failing to meet his expectations in feminine demeanor, the rare man who pulls off the feat will seem a Golden God to her. She will invest so much dreamscape energy into wondering why he rejected her and what he has going on for himself that she’ll gasp with sudden and self-conscious arousal if she sees him crossing the street months later.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the choosy man enriches an inner reservoir of self-entitlement and self-confidence that is absolutely thrilling to women. Try it sometime. If you date enough women, you will inevitably come across an ur-cunt. You know the type; she stares at her phone during the date, hassles the wait staff, and talks about her exes, all the while demanding to know in so many words what you have to offer to her.

The mediocre masses of beta males would just grin and bear it, hoping their awful date has a last minute change of heart when her nasty woman turns into a sex goddess and ends the beta’s night on a thigh note. That never happens for the beta, but still…beta persisted.

The triumph of hope over experience is the beta male’s epitaph.

Instead of slip-streaming into the void of faceless nutless beta males that women treat with the same consideration they do houseplants, be one of those exciting jerkboys who prematurely deep sixes a date when the girl is cunting out. I promise, she’ll never forget you after that. I also promise that you’ll feel an incomparable rush of power. This is your mind-body axis telling you that what you did will ricochet to your reproductive fitness benefit in the future with other girls.

That glow of power is unmistakable to you, and it’s acutely perceptible to women, who have evolved a sensitive limbic radar for picking up cues of dominance and power and mastery in men.

PS Here’s Ryan Reynolds’ with the solid photoneg.

Read Full Post »

It’s reasonable to assume porn slakes beta male thirst. The more betas get their rocks off online, the less motivated they’ll be to effortcourt live girls. A spent and sated man should, given this simple formula, behave less needfully in the company of women. His ZFG heartlight will shine, and he’ll never thirst for female attention.

Generally, this is true, but on the condition that the satiety comes in the form of real sex. Porn, as a simulacrum of real sex, may paradoxically have the opposite effect on a man’s thirstiness. Richard James explains,

Video games and porn are part of the problem. Character comes from working or waiting for whatever it is you want and I would say the broadest weakest of western man is a lack of patience. Being instantly gratified causes people to behave more desperately I’ve seen a man lose his rag at a microwaveable meal taking a whole 6 minutes. First world problems.

In addition to that the old workhorse can’t have a decent house, a job for life and a loyal wife with only one string to his bow. The one-dimensional, the aspie and the bland all lose to the multi-faceted modern man with his many irons in the fire.

RJ gets at something profound here. The instant gratification that porn provides is definitely part of the beta thirst equation, but it goes deeper and broader than that. I’d say the relevant variables are:

instant gratification
+
uninspiring real life options (compared to porn stars who can’t say no to betas)
+
diminished admiration for women (the red pill is a bitter swallow)
+
atrophied seduction skills
+
reinforced feelings of sexual worthlessness

Those last two imo are the biggest contributors to beta male thirst. Unzipping, gripping, and jizzing, all in a three minute window, destroys a man’s motivation to learn and practice the art of seduction (a much slower process than porn-facilitated release, even under the exceptionally favorable circumstances of perfectly run Mystery-style Game that takes a girl from meet to meat in seven hours). Over time, the porn-addled beta male’s seduction skills will atrophy, to the point where he’ll blurt out thirsty solicitations such as “god yr so hot, I would treat u like a queen”. Men who have dropped vats of seed to porn will inevitably get sloppy in their real life pick up attempts, because they will have been drained of the vital masculine elixir that drives them to excel at the pursuit of women and to sharpen their bantz to be more alluring to women. (Think of Idiocracy, except as a warning on sexual dysgenics rather than intellectual dysgenics. Porn decreases the average seduction IQ of its male users. Call it Creepocracy.)

The last one — feelings of sexual worthlessness — is the rocket fuel of thirst. Porn tricks the brain into thinking the body has scored a hot willing chick up for anything in the bedroom, and dopamine hits follow in staccato bursts. But the brain is not so thoroughly fooled for long. The Darwinian imperative has inserted mal-aware into the limbic code that activates when the reproductive fitness algorithm senses the reward circuitry is connected to a chafed hand rather than a moist vagina. A subconscious ping of despair accompanies the fap act, and the beta can’t help but over time feel sexually worthless, knowing as he must that his recourse to porn strongly suggests he has failed at acquiring the real deal.

To answer the title of this post, porn exacerbates beta male thirst. Porn whittles a man’s courtship skill, and porn reduces a man’s feeling of sexual worth. The two factors combine with an unregulated sexual market teeming with delusional, entitled fat girls and unfeminine careerist shrikes to create a beta and omega male Thirst Monster that has neither the inclination nor the emotional continence to avoid thirsty displays of low sexual market value.

Read Full Post »

Going Commando

Won’t you graze thigh free ball yeah

How have I been so remiss to have never discussed this topic before? Free-balling — going commando — is an effective means of fortifying your Inner Game and of projecting that ZFG Martin Shkrelli-esque jerkboy entitlement that beguiles goils.

When you’re strutting through public throngs and antifa freak shows with only a character-building starchy denim preventing your cock from raping the world, you can’t help but feel like a pussy slayer and renegade from the stifling soul prison of our globohomo corporatocracy.

It’s even better to let your boys breathe easy at night, in steamy ova-scented bars and clubs. There’s nothing quite like the exhilaration of approaching and chatting up a hot chick while unbeknownst to her your half-chubbed meat sniffs around her twat trench through one precarious layer of fabric stretched to its absolute restraining limit.

HODOR! HODOR! HOLD THE HAMMER OF THOR!

Bonus exhilaration if you’re wearing loose-fitting shorts in a Miami den of iniquity, and an insolent spheroid squeezes past a sentinel seam.

Going commando means taking command of your environment. When you free-ball, girls won’t miss that mischievous smirk that tells them you are hiding secret knowledge, something delicious and naughty that would scandalize wilting flowers. Plus, free-balling is a bedroom accelerant. Take her home, strip off clothes, she gasps as your falling jeans reveal fruit minus the loom, and wonders if you were expecting her surrender all along, an expectation which she will happily oblige.

Read Full Post »

The subject of this post isn’t new to returning visitors to the Chateau. The archives include a deep cut about “Sick Game“. Over the years, I’ve continued noticing that my seductive prowess and pickup success, for reasons that had eluded me until I dedicated an orphan neuron to solving the riddle, were inexplicably better during times I was tired, buzzed, stoned, sick, hungover, or any combination thereof.

After many autistic flowchart sessions and powerslut presentations, I finally have the common thread uniting these conditions and their association with my improved courtship quality.

It boils down to two characteristics of the male sexual persona that are subtly altered when in a cognitively and physically impaired state:

  1. Body language and vocal tone
  2. Attitude

When TBSS or H, a man’s body movements slow down. He becomes less skittish, and his body opens up, often just from sheer exhaustion and debilitation. He slumps in his chair with crotch area insouciantly displayed, stands aloofly, and has a hard time focusing on things (or a girl standing before him). Crucially, his speech slows down, and though he may slur some words this negative affect is ameliorated by the gravelly sound his voice assumes and by the lower pitch that often accompanies an exhausted mind-vocal cord axis.

What happens to his attitude is even more relevant to girls’ receptiveness: a flowering of ZFG. A tired, drunk, sick, or hungover man hasn’t the emotional nor mental resources to spare to indulge self-doubt, concern for the impression he’s leaving, or worry over the outcome of any social interaction. In a sense, physical and mental exhaustion is a short-cut to imbuing oneself with that devil-may-care recklessness that women adore in men.

So that’s it. Slow and low vocalization, relaxed body, and a “holy fuck I could not care less what this one girl thinks of me at this moment when I’m overtired from a week straight working the night shift”. Accidental Male Attractiveness, you could call it. Now the trick is to reconstitute the sexy traits that come naturally during these lower biofunctioning phase shifts at those times when you are sober and prone to anti-seductive and pussy-desiccating reflection and second-guessing.

Read Full Post »

Current Year ¡SCIENCE! is continually affirming CH maxims about the sexes, but even old timey trustworthy science, from before the SJW and femcunt infestation warped the scientific method, clairvoyantly strokes the Heartiste ego.

From a 1987 research paper, a finding that should crush the spirits of sex equalists and Game denialists (h/t Mr. Roboto):

Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general Usability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were ballsy and fearless exposers of ugly truths. These mid-20th Century studies are a gold mine for realtalk unpolluted by political cowardice and libshit sophistry. 1987 was probably near the last year these brutally shivtastic studies made it past the Narrative enforcers.

Descriptions of traditional female role expectations either omit dominance as a relevant dimension or suggest that low dominance is an aspect of the feminine role. For instance, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) found that clinical professionals viewed the healthy woman as submissive and not competitive. The empirical literature on normative behavior for males and females thus suggests that striving for dominance and success (ascending a social hierarchy) is typically demanded of males and is frequently proscribed for females.

Submissive wife, happy life.

Although females do compete for positions in status hierarchies, there is no available evidence to suggest that their achieved dominance or rank is positively related to their attractiveness to males.

This is borne out by personal observation. Mean Girls is orthogonal to female attractiveness to men. Women compete intrasexually primarily as a means of securing social favors from other women when they need them (for example, after childbirth). This is in stark contrast to men, who compete in dominance hierarchies to unlock a higher PUSSY POUNDER achievement level.

I read through the study to see if the authors properly defined what they meant by “dominance”. Luckily, they have: the term as they use it means PSYCHOSOCIAL DOMINANCE, aka GAME, and all that entails, including alpha and beta male body language and conversational nuances. Quote:

Dominance gestures in the performance were derived from criteria published by Mehrabian (1969). In the low-dominance condition, a constant male (CM) is shown seated at a desk in an office. An actor enters the room and chooses a chair near the door approximately 6 ft (2 m) from the desk of the CM. The actor, clutching a sheath of papers, aits in symmetrical posture, leans slightly forward with head partially bowed, and alternately looks down at the floor and up at the CM, During an ensuing discussion, the actor engages in repetitive head nodding and lets the CM engage in longer communications.

In the high-dominance condition, the actor enters, chooses a chair closer to the CM and sits in a relaxed, asymetrical posture. The actor’s hands and legs are relaxed and his body is leaning slightly backward in the chair. During the discussion, the actor produced higher rates of gesturing and lower rates of head nodding than in the low-dominance condition. Identical films were made with actresses playing all roles. Within each sex, the same actor or actress played both dominant and nondominant roles.

Does psychosocial dominance REDUCE female attractiveness to men? It would appear it does, a little at least (and it certainly doesn’t help women with men):

Female target persons in both Experiments 1 and 2 were in a context where dominance was displayed only toward other females. Perhaps a somewhat different picture might have emerged had subjects rated females who were dominant over males, indicating that it is in competition with males where females violate the normative expectations that they be submissive and noncompetitive (Broverman et al., 1970; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972), and it is only in this case that their attractiveness suffers. A third experiment was conducted to examine this possibility. […]

If the dominance manipulation had a differential effect on the female target’s attractiveness when she was in competition with men (as opposed to women), this would have shown up as a Sex of Target Person x Dominance x Sex of Opponent interaction. This interaction yielded F values of less than 1 for both variables. The higher order interaction, sex of target person by dominance by sex of opponent by sex of subject, likewise yielded an F of less than 1 for the sexual-attractiveness item and an f[l, 199)= 1.33 for the dating-desirability rating. [ed: see Table 3 at the link]

The fourth experiment in the research paper is the most interesting. It found that psychosocial dominance, but NOT aggressiveness or a domineering attitude (aka try-hard douchebaggery), was the key to increased male sexual attractiveness to women:

Manipulation of the level within the aggressive and domineering cells produced no differential effects on sexual attraction. These factors also did not differentially affect the sexual attractiveness of male and female targets (all F values for Sex x Aggression and Sex x Domineering simple interactions were less than 1).

A different pattern emerged for manipulations of dominance. The main effect of dominance on sexual attractiveness was significant, f{ 1,66) = 8.12, p< .01. This main effect was produced by differences in rated attractiveness of men in high- as opposed to low-dominance conditions. Consistent with the results of Experiments 1 through 3, there was a significant Sex x Dominance interaction, F(l, 66) = 9.79, p < .01, with men rated as more attractive in the high-dominance condition.

Ignoramuses and cunts arguing in bad faith love to assert that Game is about being a try-hard douchebag, but it’s nothing of the sort. Game is about amused mastery, subcommunicated through dominant body language and verbal confidence. Domineering men aren’t master seducers; they’re usually romantically insecure and their self-doubt impels them to try to ham-fistedly control women’s fluid flirtations and feral sexuality, instead of smoothly guide women to a heightened state of arousal.

This next finding should piss off another subset of Game denialists:

Results for the dimension of physical attractiveness were similar to the results for sexual attraction. Neither the aggression nor the domineering factor produced an effect on physical attraction. Level of dominance did, however, influence attributions of physical attraction, F( 1, 69) = 6.62, p< .01, and this main effect was again moderated by an interaction of sex and dominance level, F( 1,69) = 4.42, p< .01. Once again, a test of the simple main effects indicated an effect only for men, who were rated as more physically attractive in the high-dominance condition only, ^1,37)= 12.71,p<.01.

Resident Looks Piller wolfie wept.

So why aren’t all men dominant? Well, for one, status hierarchies only have so much room at the top. Two, there are trade-offs in the race for maximal reproductive fitness:

Manipulation of the level of dominance produced a constellation of personality attributions. In addition to its impact on variables related to sexual attraction, the level of dominance significantly influenced attributions concerning the target’s likability, stability, promiscuity, competence, and social class.

High dominance was found to lower the general likability of the target person, F(l, 64) = 38.7, p < .001. There was neither an effect of sex nor any interaction between dominance and sex on this variable. This result indicates that for men there is a potential trade-off between sexual attractiveness and likability, with high dominance increasing the former but reducing the latter. […]

High dominance led to perceptions of greater promiscuity in the target, /(I, 66) – 10.86, p < .002, with high dominance associated with increased promiscuity. A significant Sex X Level of Magnitude interaction, F{1,66) = 5,36,p < .02, indicated that men were perceived as more promiscuous in the high-dominance condition than were women. […]

To summarize, the following influence of dominance level was observed. High dominance increased the rated sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness of male targets but had no discernable influence on the sexual or physical attractiveness of female targets. High dominance substantially decreased the likability of both sexes and was associated with increases in the rated stability, competence, promiscuity, and social class of both sexes.

Women are sexually attracted to psychosocially dominant men, even as these men are perceived to be less likable and more promiscuous. So no, femcunts and manginas, promiscuous men do not suffer a sexual market penalty. In fact, the perception of promiscuousness and unlikability may help them score additional notches.

It all goes to the old CH saying, “Don’t listen to what a woman says, watch what she does.” Which includes whom she fucks. Women will tell you they want a likable, chaste man, but their pussies are aching for a dominant, unlikable, promiscuous man.

Wynne-Edwards (1962) and Pfeiffer (1969) have suggested that among humans the ability to impress and win deference from others depends on the sum of many qualities, including strength, skill, determination to achieve superiority, and intelligence.

This sentence is a wet kiss planted right on the Heartiste lips, evoking as it does the seminal CH pinned posts “Dating Market Value Test for men and women” and “The 16 Commandments of Poon”.

The results of our fourth experiment suggest that some of the behaviors that may lead to a high rank do not themselves promote an individual’s attractiveness. Aggressive and domineering tendencies did not increase the sexual attractiveness of either males or females. The covariance analysis suggests that the highest levels of sexual attractiveness should occur when males express dominance without the use of such behaviors.

This research is a veritable PSA for the efficacy of Game (learned charisma).

Furthermore, dominance increases the sexual attractiveness of males but does not produce a general halo effect. Individuals simply described as dominant were assumed to be also aggressive and domineering; they were regarded as less likable and were not desired as spouses.

The first unearthing of the famed “alpha fux, beta bux” principle?

Executive Summary: If you want to bed more women, stop trying to make them like you. Instead, make them desire you.

Denying and obfuscating and suppressing these truths about the nature of the sexes inevitably leads to tragic cases like the women on the following magazine cover. Maybe someone should inform these aging beauties that men aren’t attracted to “sassy, sophisticated, solvent” women.

Where have all the good men gone? Back in their nubile 20s, where these sour grapes spinster cows left them. 54 and “looking for love”. jfc the delusion is unreal.

Psychological projection seems to be a feature of the female brain gone insane. What women desire — male dominance — is mistaken by women for what men desire in them. But men don’t love dominance, or sass, or careerism, or ambition in women. What men love is younger, hotter, tighter. Something which these has-beens lost as a bargaining chip a long time ago. And now they claim the chaps they can get just don’t measure up, which translated from the female hamsterese means the only men willing to fuck them are naggers and LSMV dregs with no standards and no other choice but internet porn. In fact, many dregs would choose the Fap Life before laying with one of these sassy harridans.

Sass is tolerable on a 21 year old vixen. It’s boner death on a 54 year old matron.

Likewise, chasteness and likability are tolerable on a dominant man. But they’re tingle killers on a submissive man.

Dominance is Game and Game is pussy.

And pussy is life everlasting. Amen.

Read Full Post »

It’s ¡SCIENCE! day at the Chateau, and that means another 100% LOVEFACT to trigger a cascade of yeasty femlib tears.

If you want a slender wife, and hence a happy life, it helps to be adored by her.

The attractiveness of one’s partner may play a role in their decision to improve their body image, particularly when it comes to women, a new study finds.

With previous studies having shown that a marriage is more likely to be successful when the wife is more attractive than her husband, the phenomenon of a more-attractive husband particularly piqued the researchers’ interest. […]

Based on their findings, their hypothesis — that less-attractive wives felt compelled to appease more-attractive husbands — seemed to have merit.

Women, for example, were found to be more likely to diet and seek a slim figure when they had attractive husbands.

The God of Biomechanics works in not-so-mysterious ways if you aren’t brainwashed by feminist poopytalk and PC platitudes.

Men, on the other hand, did not diet based on their partner’s attractiveness — or lack thereof.

Haha this is really the killer finding in the research. Men don’t diet to appease their wives, however attractive the wives may be, because men subconsciously, and rightly, know that their physiques aren’t the primary reason their wives are attracted to them. The strongest marriages are a physically attractive wife paired with a psychologically attractive husband. The sexual polarity is required.

Naturally, the study authors are aghast, rubbing their chafed id-ass, as they scurry to appease nasty women who might tumblr along to be offended by this latest iteration of science reconfirming the existence of reality.

“The results reveal that having a physically attractive husband may have negative consequences for wives, especially if those wives are not particularly attractive,” says researcher Tania Reynolds in a university news release.

Why is it assumed that wives who feel a pressing urge to lose weight to appease their HSMV husbands are experiencing negative consequences? Do women secretly desire to be fat and unloved by their men? Because that’s the presumption behind this stupidly femcunt value judgment. The truth is that women love being thin and sexy and especially love being desired by the men they love. So HSMV husbands are VERY GOOD for women. Nothing but positive consequences all the way up.

These findings are critical in that they offer insight into the causes of more grave conditions caused by a desire to become or stay svelte, such as eating disorders.

My theory is that anorexia is an acute metastasizing form of a normal female desire, honed by millennia of evolved male mate choice preference, to be slender and able to entice alpha men to love them. The way to defeat anorexia is not to convince sufferers that being thin is wrong and being fat is OK, but to sympathize with their natural desire to be thin and then help them moderate their self-destructive behaviors rather than eliminate them.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: