Revisiting The 3 Second Rule

Mystery’s 3 Second Rule is a standard Game tactic, and I don’t intend to overturn it with this post. Mystery had a good reason to advise men to follow the 3 Second Rule in the field: it helps a man overcome his fear of approaching women. Its singular benefit is its physicality: adhering to the rule forces a man to move toward the girl he wants to talk to, and to actually speak to her, which when executed in a short time frame has the knock-on effect of jolting a man “out of his head”. It’s that interstitial head space — that ego pacifying sanitarium of doubt and rationalization — where many a beta male are tripped up while taking their first steps on the path to romance.

So keep following the 3 second rule even as I go on to tell you it’s not necessary; if your choice is between the 3 second rule and doing nothing as the girl of your creams slips out of your life, then the choice is obvious.

In practice, I’ve found that a man really has up to a couple of minutes between eyeing a cute girl (or a cute girl eyeing him) and approaching her, without loss of face or ding of his SMV. In fact, it can improve a man’s pickup success rate to wait a little before approaching, as long as there was mutual eye contact. (There’s no point to waiting to approach a girl if she hasn’t even noticed you in the room. You’ll have to make yourself noticeable.)

The exception to the 3 second rule works within this context: You and the girl have a brief introductory volley of eyeplay from across the vast expanse of the NPI meeting room you both have crashed. Instead of immediately chomping on her eye-bait and approaching before the gleam has left either of your eyes, you wait a beat. During this interregnum to love, look at your phone or talk to someone else. Look distracted. This has the effect of raising your SMV (sexual market value — the all-important coin of the mate choice realm) relative to her SMV, and therefore rubbing her hypergamy hamster along the fur grain.

She’ll wonder, very subconsciously within the margins of her inner monologue, why you aren’t coming up to her after she tossed you her splooge of eye love, and if she hasn’t the power to tear your attention away from some other object or person of interest. She won’t have to wonder long, because you’ll make your move shortly after she’s moved to self-doubt, but you’ll have permitted just enough of a pregnant pause to linger in the space between you two for a crucial pang of morose self-assessment to squall through her ginebrain.

This girlpang is the stuff of flowering muff. A girl experiencing a hot flash of self-doubt, quick and searing and instantly relieved with your approach, will be MUCH more inviting of your charms.

This is the way seduction works; not with a bang but a simmer. If a girl is a violin, and your SMV is the bow, you aren’t hitting all her strings at once unless you’re famous and/or famously preselected by other hot women. To properly play her, you tap her strings, lightly and individually at first, each note ringing a declaration of your mate value, the occasional minor key note radiating a shivering undercurrent of her inadequacy in your presence, until all the notes converge on a covfefe crescendo.

Male SMV is like that….tiny plucked musical notes that take a woman’s emotions on a ride of pleasure, through grandiose highs and anxious lows, until vertigo has stripped her of her defenses and she wobbles into your steadying arms.

Read Full Post »

The Difference Between Fat Men And Fat Chicks

A commenter over at the Goodbye, America blog, Theodora, has a great insight about the major difference between fat men and fat chicks.

I think that one big difference between female obesity and male obesity is this: while the health and aesthetics problems are common to both sexes, female obesity is totalitarian. Fat men don’t demand to be called Big Beautiful Boys. They don’t lie themselves that they are voluptuous, gorgeous and curvy. They don’t want to change the standards of beauty existing since the beginning of humanity. They don’t shame and bully thin people (“eat a sandwich!:), they don’t ask to vanity change the sizes of clothes, they don’t ask to erase the word “fat” from public conversations. Fat men usually deal with their problems individually and in silence, while fat women want to change society, dictionaries, standards, reality and human nature to ease the burden of their fatness, acting as true Stalinists in the process.

That’s why the female obesity epidemic is more dangerous than a matter of health and aesthetics, and an affront not only to Beauty, but also to Truth, and well-deserving of the Shiv.

Theodora nailed it, and it’s something I’ve been saying here for a while: the real danger of fat acceptance — a malignant movement largely (heh) spearheaded by women — is the dishonest advocacy against all that is True and Beautiful and Sexy. The fat chick who knows she’s gross looking, and who wants to be thin to be attractive to men once again, is never a target of my shiv. I save my necessary sadism for those fat chicks who lie through their food-laced teeth trying to convince the world to believe 1. they have tons (heh) of men banging down their doors 2. that they don’t suffer any sexual market penalties for being land whales 3. that there’s nothing unhealthy or unappealing about fatness 4. that men prefer fatsos anyhow 5. that indeed fatness is objectively attractive 6. that not only that but fatness is MORE attractive than those stick figure thin girls men are tricked into desiring 7. that society told men to be disgusted by fat chicks and 7. that’s just, like, your opinion you awful no good body-shaming misogynist.

Fat men? They rarely, if ever, lie like fat chicks do about their condition. The shit stream of fat acceptance sophistry — eerily similar to the #SelfLoveWins degenerate freak parade sophistry that characterizes the equalist left — is mostly a female thing, and its effluvium  seems endless….until someone with balls finally calls them out on it and drops a steaming deus vult in their social media ego gratification circle diddle of miserable lying fatties pretending their custom-made reacharound wiping implements aren’t a testament to their great shame and self-abasing dehumanization.

There’s one other notable difference between fat men and fat chicks that helps explain why fat women feel compelled to engage in a quixotic quest to change the world so that their fatness is desirable to quality men:

Fat men really don’t suffer as large a penalty to their romantic fortunes. Male desire is predominately visual-oriented, which means fat chicks whose female forms are buried under layers of disfiguring blubber simply can’t arouse the same ardor in men that thin shapely women who can never be misidentified as a block of cheese can arouse.

Female desire is holistic, meaning that women subconsciously weigh (heh) more factors when judging men for romantic promise. Fatness doesn’t kill a man’s chances for love and romance with nearly the same brutally quick efficiency that  fatness kills a women’s chances for love. I’m not saying fatness is irrelevant to men’s SMV; I’m saying a fat man with compensating attractiveness traits can overcome the SMV handicap of his fatness, which is something that no funny, charming, wealthy, creative, or socially dominant fat woman can ever hope to do for herself.

I think fat women, deep down, know this about themselves. They know their fatness kills romance dead for them. This engenders a lot of resentment and spite in them, which they take out on thin women and men in general, for the equalist sin of having standards and discriminating taste. Because no sin in the Leftoid Equalism Fatty Gooniverse is worse than the sin of revealed judgmentalism. The post-West coddled fat chick would rather go to her early grave railing futilely against the God of Biomechanics than to lose weight and therefore admit to herself that her ugly life and uglier beliefs were a pack of lies all along….and those very bad fat-shaming men like yours truly were right.

Read Full Post »

Defining Zero Fucks Given

manwhosithursday has taken a stab at psychologically defining that ineffable alpha male attitude — Zero Fucks Given — that is so incredibly alluring to women. Note: B5 is shorthand for the Big Five Personality Factors, which includes the primary traits Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

FYI, there’s a more recent personality inventory called HEXACO that incorporates an “Honesty-Humility” factor as well as the Dark Triad. Proponents claim HEXACO is a more thorough personality assessment that accommodates the discovery by researchers of the Dark Triad in 2002. The Dark Triad has a long and illustrious history here at the Chateau as handmaiden to Game-savvy womanizers.

The personality factor most associated with male attractiveness is B5 Extraversion. This is the optimism/confidence factor.

Overconfidence is the heart of Game.
Boldness is the muscle of Game.

Zero Fucks Given, analyzed in terms of personality, is composed of the following:

Low B5 Conscientiousness – you don’t care about consequences
Low B5 Agreeableness – you don’t care about people
Low B5 Neuroticism – you don’t care about pain

Add it all up and you get the charming jerkboy (channeled through his avatar, Birthday Cat).

Extraversion and Conscientiousness do not have significant sex differences, though there are some differences on subfactors.

Men are significantly lower in Agreeableness and slightly lower in Neuroticism.

Psychopathy/the Dark Triad are really just low Agreeableness/low Conscientiousness. This can mimic Extraversion, because you literally don’t give a fuck.

These ZFG traits aren’t exactly conducive to maintaining civilized society (though they may be essential to building a civilized society from the dirt up). So why are women drawn to ZFG men? It’s that ape part of their brains, the part that has a direct pipeline to their vaginas….ZFG men trip all sorts of hunter-gatherer proto-human wires that once ago, and still do, assure a woman that her chance of survival is increased and the fitness of her potential offspring maximized if she jackhammers up with the kind of man who can handle pain, can amass beau coup resources, and can take high-flying risks for great rewards. Whether this is good for civilization is beside the point from a Darwinian calculus.

ZFG also boosts a man’s mating success because it gives him a boldness, nearing recklessness, that enables him to slash and burn his way through female shit tests, AMOGing betabitches, and (sorry tradcons) disapproving parents. This can backfire, of course, which may be why the trait is so attractive to women…what worth a man who hasn’t proven he can stare at his own expendability and laugh in its face?

ZFG men go by other terms which will be familiar to CH guests: the outcome independent man, the challenging man, the asshole, the jerk, the natural, the “he just has a way with women” man. Women have been molded by their ancestresses’ experiences to evolve into the sort of women who love, TRULY DEEPLY MADLY, a certain kind of man. That irresistible man is the one who is, or seems, loved by many women. And ZFG is the male attitude that radiates the inner peace and smug self-satisfaction — two emotional characteristics in men women rarely miss joyously recognizing — which comes from knowing one has limitless sexual market options in female company.

If your B5 profile is more Beta Five than Big Swinging Dick Five, I suggest you get to work on a deliberate self-improvement program to become less conscientious, less agreeable, and less neurotic. Take baby psychopath steps (stop short of torturing cats). You won’t make wholesale changes to your personality (fighting your genes is like swimming upstream; you can get a ways very slowly but it’ll tire you out and as soon as you stop thrashing you’ll float downstream), but you CAN make alterations at the margins of your personality, and in the zero-sum, scarce-hummer sexual market a small boost in your masculine charisma can mean the difference between fapping to Kurt Eichenwald’s anime porn collection and fucking a real life woman unrendered into 2D nerdspace.

Read Full Post »

The Curse Of Male SMV Longevity

Regularly dating young women in their nubile prime and having long-term relationships with some of them can provide unexpected jolts of depressing reality delivered through ordinary objects that provoke intense bouts of rumination.

Most modern couples have photos of themselves from the time they first met, usually of them hanging out, all smiles, with a group of friends. The pre-relationship photo montage is a peculiarity of the digital photography age; photos of couples spontaneously enjoying each other’s company in the dawning of their love would have been much rarer before the camera phone became ubiquitous. This is why you hardly have any photos of your young parents or grandparents drinking in a bar with their friends celebrating some urban slut’s birthday. It used to be that couples’ photos pretty much began and ended with their marital careers.

I’m thinking of this seemingly trivial sexual market phenomenon as I write this post. More than once when I’ve been balls deep in a relationship I’ve been stopped in my tracks by a passing glance at an early photograph of the both of us that my lover had framed and prominently displayed on a dresser or somesuch. I’d look at this photo and even if it was taken only a year earlier I could discern the greater glow of youth in her appearance to what she exuded in the present. For most women, three years difference is enough to notice the quick fade of their late teens-to-mid 20s youthful allure, and the noticing becomes worse the further past prime nubility she has time traveled.

The photo juxtaposes tragically with a man’s greater SMV longevity compared to women’s SMV lifespan. This is the curse that shadows any man who has skin flute in the game; if you are still capturing and amplifying flirty vibes from fresh cleft, then that haunting “pre-relationship photo” with your steady will have you questioning whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the schwing-less sorrows of restricted options, or to take arms against diverging values, and by leaving reset them.

This was an ugly post, but it needed saying, because the world has become a playground for platitude pushers, and more than ever the services of borderline sadists are required to fight back against the plying of the lies. The feminized West needs this Chateau reminder of the tremendous unheralded sacrifice that men make when they commit to one woman…a sacrifice that isn’t measurable by econometric formulae or social science r-squareds, but that is just as significant as the sacrifice women make for motherhood or soldiers make for their country.

Read Full Post »

Childless Married Men Are Automatically Beta

Commenter HEM writes that men who get married but then don’t justify the marriage with kids are beta.

1) alphas don’t have big weddings. Every extravagant, expensive wedding (and cake with figurines) is a chick’s doing with her beta’s compliance.

An alpha might go along with a big wedding if it’s no skin off his nose, but HEM’s general sentiment is correct: big weddings are usually the domain of domineering self-absorbed brides and their lickspittle plan B betaprops.

2) an alpha knows the only reason to marry is for the sake of his children. No big theatrics (small ceremony of close friends, trip to Vegas, courthouse wedding, etc). The wife is emotionally ecstatic just to take his name and the upgraded label of wife as opposed to “baby mamma.” Her biggest fear was she was going to have children out of wedlock because Mr Alpha wouldn’t settle down (quit partying and fucking other chicks). Any childless dude who gets married is definitively a beta.

3) alphas don’t do PDA. Another sure sign of a beta male is during the “you can now kiss the bride”.. If the dude is all liplocked in a pathetic movie scene inspired 5 seconds or greater kiss – guaranteed beta. He’ll spend the evening eating at the Y and not pounding the pie.

lol at that last line. PDA is a tricky topic, but yeah betas are wont to publicly slobber all over their women while alphas prefer the coolasfuck policy of holstering their PDA while their women get worked up having to restrain themselves until later.

HEM’s precision-guided shiv is the observation that childless husbands are beta. 4 out of 5 White irredentists agree: there’s no fucking point to marriage if you won’t meta-consummate it with kids. Why assume all that baggage — the enforced monogamy, the legal risks, the messy financial commingling — if your sacrifice isn’t rewarded with noble heirs?

I suppose there’s the filing jointly tax angle benefit, but is it worth the hassle and downsides of a non-trivial chance of divorce theft? If you just want a steady supply of sex and love, then the alpha male move is to grab yourself a long-term pussy, enrapture her to a blissfully transcendent plane of committed adoration, non-maritally cohabitate like people from the nation formerly known as Sweden, and wheeze dustily into that long twilight holding hands until the Final Snuff relieves your shared earthly burden.

PS Hi, Pman!

Read Full Post »

SCIENCE Not Silence: Physically Weak Men Are More Likely To Be Shitlibs

SCIENCE SAYS!: Noodle-armed bitch-tittied nü-males are more likely to be shitlibs.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology.

“This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” said Dr. Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

I know, try to contain your shock. But this is SCIENCE, the beloved snark totem of the shitlib self-holding company, speaking authoritatively on a topic that causes shitlibs to spontaneously menstruate and temporarily forget that ¡SCIENCE! can and often does radically undermine their globohomo worldview.

I’m surprised shitlibs have so desperately allied themselves with the SCIENCE abstraction, given how incredibly easy it is for subversives like yours unduly to rhetorically hang shitlibs with their own professed faith in SCIENCE. “You’re a fan of science, libmanlet? Good for you! So tell me, what are your thoughts on the science of physiognomy and innate race and sex differences?”

Predictably, the mass cucking of America over the past few generations has allowed shitlibs the luxury of wrapping themselves in the cloak of SCIENCE because there have been — UNTIL NOW — so few shitlords willing to id-slap the neotenous SCIENCE crowd with findings that cut against the equalism and magic dirt narratives.

PS “Science not Silence” is the latest mystery bleat canard shitlibs have adopted to virtue snivel to their fellow shitlibs in their all-White hipster doofus gentrified enclaves. Like I said, this is a shitlib own goal as long as the Maul-Right is around to remind everyone what SCIENCE has to say about subjects that science-hating shitlibs would rather ban from public discourse.

Read Full Post »

Creativity Is The Beta Male’s Mace In The Hole

The Chateau is long on record observing that a man’s force of personality — his charisma — is a powerful lure for women. As women are unlike men in some very fundamental aspects, it benefits men to understand which ways women differ from men and to tailor their seduction technique to press women’s particular arousal buttons.

One major difference between the sexes is the emphasis each places on desirable traits in the opposite sex. Shortly and sweetly, women are holistic mate evaluators, men are visual mate evaluators. Women want the whole package, but are especially aroused by men with intoxicatingly jerkboy-ish attitudes who stand apart from the masses of “So what do you do for a living?” beta males. Men want hot babes, end of story. More sweetly:

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.

Male power is projected through various social cues, including dominance (over men and women), humor, confidence, cockiness, entitlement, wit….and creativity. All these traits fall into the “male personality” category, which broadly speaking one can call “charisma”, which is why the CH “Dating Market Value Test for Men” includes questions such as:

13.  When was the last time you went to a house party?

Within the past month:  +1 point
Between one month and one year ago:  0 points
Over one year ago:  -1 point

14.  Have people besides your family called you funny?

None:  -1 point
A few have:  0 points
Nearly everyone who knows me:  +1 point

[…]

21.  You’ve just met a cute girl in a club and have been talking with her for five minutes when she abruptly changes the topic to a raunchy conversation about her multiorgasmic ability.  You respond with:

(A) a huge grin and an eager “Damn! That is HOT!”
(B) a look of mild disdain.
(C) a raised eyebrow while saying “Hey, thanks for the medical report.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

The background is to set up another *PREEN* HERE COMES ¡SCIENCE! ONCE AGAIN TO SLOBBER THE CH KNOBBER:

In the ruthless world of the mating game, plain-looking men instinctively know that being funny, smart or poetic helps to compensate for a less-than-stellar exterior.

That gut feeling has now gained scientific validation from an unusual study published Wednesday.

Average-looking men become more alluring when women sense the man has an imaginative spark, it found.

Charisma can vault an average beta schlub past hunky men and into the hearts of women. This is vindication of a core CH concept.

But for women, sadly, there may not be the same boost.

Indeed, one experiment suggests that less attractive women even worsen their mating chances if they show mental zing.

This too is vindication of a core CH concept: men don’t much care about women’s wit and wisdom as long as she lookgood. In fact, men are a little bit TURNED OFF by women who have interesting personalities that could make the men’s personalities seem lame in comparison. (The same happens with wealthy or over-educated women; men don’t like to be with women whom they perceive as competitors, or as possessing traits in sufficient quantity and quality that diminish the attractiveness value of those same traits in men. This is why it’s arousing to men when women seem vulnerable and admiring.)

The results showed that men with less attractive faces get a big boost in the popularity contest if they show a creative touch, Watkins found.

“Creative guys with less attractive faces were almost identical in attractiveness to really good looking guys who were not as creative,” he told AFP in a phone interview.

Male smarts are pointless for attracting women unless those smarts are put to use crafting an intriguing, creative personality. In other words, more storytelling, less logical explaining.

The top-ranked men were those considered to be both physically attractive and creative.

Also does not contradict CH teachings. Looks matter less for men’s romantic success than they do for women’s romantic success, but that doesn’t mean male looks don’t matter at all.

For women, though, the news is not so good. Looks remain paramount.

In one experiment, creativeness did nothing to boost the allure of attractive women — and it even reduced the appeal of less attractive women.

I enjoy being with witty funny women….who are super cute. But that’s because my wit and humor is at the infinity-eth percentile. The point being, the stablest, happiest relationships are those in which the man is superior to the woman in all ways except looks. Women want….NEED…to look up to a man to feel love for him. Men want….NEED….to know that a woman is looking up to him to feel loved by her.

Why would women rate creativity among men so highly?

Watkins pointed to evolutionary biology — the hidden criteria that drive us to seek the best mate for ensuring healthy offspring and their survival.

“Women on average are a more selective sex when it comes to choosing romantic partners,” he said.

Imagination and inspiration may be “a proxy for intelligence,” he suggested.

“Creativity is thought to be a signal that an individual can invest time and effort into a particular task or can see things in novel ways that may be useful for survival.”

Evolution works on the human hindbrain by hiding its intentions. Women aren’t thinking “Oh, I really want to sex with a high IQ man who will be better at providing for our future children”; what they’re thinking is “Wow, this man makes me feel great. He’s so funny! Wew is that a love puddle in my yoga pants?”

That means nerds and poets are at a big disadvantage in online dating, where decisions to swipe left or right — to shun or show interest — are often based on just a glance.

“Certain platforms that we have now for dating might not be favourable for assessing people on more complex attributes,” Watkins said.

This is another vindication of a CH tenet: online dating severely restricts the range in which men can display their mate value to women. Use online dating as an appetizer, never the main meal, especially if you aren’t a top 5% man in the looks department. If you’re an exclusive online dater, you are handicapping yourself if you’re a man with that ineffable jerkboy charm that women crave in doses of close physical proximity. It’ll be much easier for you to get across your charms face-to-face than through the Zuckerborg Dehumanization Autistoportal.

Read Full Post »