How To Coax The Inner Confidence That Ladies Crave

A few readers have asked, if male confidence is so crucial to sub-cortically triggering arousal in women, how does a habitually low-confidence man go about locating a hidden reservoir of confidence and ushering it to the surface for exhibition, where it may be appreciated by women?

This is a great question, and the answer is less automatically glib than you may think. Sure, getting good at some objective pursuit will boost your confidence major, and that will positively affect how women rank your capacity to deliver them id-shaped pleasure. But what do you do if you don’t get sufficiently good at your chosen pursuit to stand above other men doing the same? What if achievement in your pursuit isn’t particularly valued by women? What if circumstances conspire in the wrong way to diminish the impact of your achievements on distaff vajflap?

That’s where proactive self-confidence stimulation helps to improve your seek-to-meet and meet-to-meat ratio.

Feeling self-confident from nothing but an inner emanation of willed empowerment is accomplished via lots of mind-body feedback loops. Reader buildthewall16 visualizes one such positive feedback loop.

alpha body language and behavior summed up in one sentence:

act like you are the star of the #1 reality show of all time: cameras following you around and millions watching it because you are so damn interesting.

So many men stumble before they even give themselves a fighting chance because they flood their brains with negativity to the point where they’re more comfortable wallowing in self-pity than strutting in self-confidence. Mentally focusing to resist the comfort zone of inaction and instead lodging, piecemeal or wholesale, irrationally exuberant thoughts of prowess and domination WILL, over time, manifest in your demeanor around women. If you think highly of yourself, the women will come.

It’s a cognitive trick that pays dividends, and in the zero sum mating market even small dividends allocated on a temporary schedule can mean the difference between incel and in-belles.

This in mind (heh), here’s a brain hack I use to boost my self-perception into the strutosphere: I imagine I’ve committed horrible crimes. It’s not true (mostly) and the imagining could be used as evidence of a nascent psychopathy (mostly), but if I think it enough and think it during those times I’m out in public (as if hiding something from the world) it really does infuse me with a devilish invincibility and the sense that my temper could flare suddenly, and I often will discover well after the fact that a shit-eating grin had found its way across my thugmug.

Chicks somehow pick up on my glowing sinner state and react, as is the wont of the jerkboy-loving sex, agreeably to my sly guy eye jive. Try picturing yourself in the role of the (lady)killer on the run and see if it doesn’t work for you as well.

Read Full Post »

Three Rules To Navigate The Post-America Sexual Market

Scanman posits three rules of dating in post-America:

A few gems of sage advice that I will pass on to my sons —

1. If a woman has ever been photographed wearing a crown or tiara on her birthday, she is likely a shit human being.

2. Ditto for any woman who has referred to herself or her friends as a goddess.

3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.

I find nothing objectionable in this crib sheet. If you just want a simple guide to girls that requires the least bit of pattern recognizing effort, steering clear of tiara girls, “goddesses”, and avowedly altruistic women is as good as any dating guide you’ll find in laddies mags.

The beauty of Scanman’s rules for red pillers is that following them effectively screens out the worst of the post-America girls: the pathological narcissists and ¡lookatme! attention whores. It also screens out a lot of fatties, because I can’t help but notice a calorically-dense number of broads who wear tiaras and refer to themselves as goddesses are fat fucks.

The last rule might invite skepticism — after all, women as a sex are more empathetic than men and can thus be expected to have stronger urges to “help people” — but understand that there’s a crucial distinction between the typical sappy woman and the virtue signaling SJW urbanette who makes a big show of her altruism. Aggressively empathetic women can be as dangerous as aggressively cold-hearted men. More dangerous, actually, as ruthless men aren’t likely to flood their nations with millions of incompatible mud worlders just for the self-righteousness high.

***

Commenter chris adds labcoat context to the third rule.

“3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.”

There is a scientific explanation for this.

Basically, doing things that are regarded as ‘moral’ makes people feel like they have built up a ‘moral credit’ that they can draw on in the future to offset any immoral behaviour or ‘moral debits’ they engage in.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH_2015072217203971.pdf

Nazis by Kraut: A Playful Application of Moral Self-Licensing

Abstract:
Doing something moral gives one a license to do something immoral. This form of moral compensation is called “moral self-licensing”. Interestingly, the moral behavior can take place in another domain than the subsequent immoral behavior. For example, buying eco-friendly products gives one a license to steal. This article is based on the idea that a healthy diet has a moral dimension. As a consequence, consuming a healthy product should give one a license for immoral behavior. This research supports this hypothesis on a playful study. This study shows that drinking sauerkraut juice contributes to a stronger support of Nazi-esque right wing ideology than drinking either nothing or a less-healthy beverage (Nestea).

Avowedly, assertively altruistic women (or women who claim the altruism mantle) are probably sluts with a well-fed rationalization hamster ready to justify their future infidelities.

Read Full Post »

The Beach Body Metric Of Male Sexual Market Value

Within these hallowed stony Chateau halls, scribes once labored to define for a general audience the characteristics of the alpha male, the beta male, and the rest of the men who reside somewhere along the SMV (sexual market value) ball curve of male desirability.

Due to this enduring confusion about what makes an alpha, I submit the following system, in the form of a handy chart, to help clear the air.  It hits on the three major factors influencing male rank — how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.

Keep in mind that there is no line in the sand that separates betas from alphas — the distribution of men by their attractiveness to women follows an uneven continuum where at the extremes a small percentage of alphas monopolize an immense number of quality women and a much larger blob of omegas struggle to rut with warpigs.

It was an accurate definition that by dint of its perspicacity was also arid. Many house guests felt intellectually nourished but emotionally disconnected by an explanation of male attractiveness that lacked sensate grounding to earthy personal observation. With that shortcoming in mind, I present a more poetic definition of male sexual market value: The Beach Body Metric. The sorting remains the same, but the measurement has changed.

Omega male: Girlfriend is never beach body ready
Beta male: Girlfriend is beach body ready in the summer
Alpha male: Girlfriend is ready for the beach year round

For those of you (newbs) who thought “beach body metric” referred to men’s physiques….HAHA much to learn you have. In the realm of romantic desire, men are visual; women are holistic. This means a beach body ready woman is likely to be dating a HSMV man, but the inverse — a beach body ready man — is not necessarily as good a bet to be dating a HSMV woman.

More succinctly, female beach body beauty is a LEADING INDICATOR of female romantic success. A hot woman with a perfect 0.7 waste-hip ratio and a BMI in the 17-23 range is as good as a royal flush to win the love of winner men.

Male physique is more accurately a LAGGING INDICATOR of male romantic success. That is, men who have the full suite of attractiveness traits that women love are likely to be confident men who think too highly of themselves to let their body go to shit.

The Beach Body Metric reasoning is simple:

A low value man will be stuck dating no one, or dating only fat and ugly women who have no intention, nor motivation, to shape up and re-assume a natural hair color. A man on the beach in the company of a land whale is almost guaranteed to be a loser.

A middling value man will be with a girl who still feels enough self-esteem to at least try and look good when it matters (such as on the beach). The problem for the middling beta male is that the circumscribed and temporary allegiance of his girlfriend to shaping up is a telltale sign she’s more interested in looking good FOR OTHER MEN. The rest of the year she proves by her lack of interest in looking good that she doesn’t much value her beta boyfriend’s needs.

A high value man will be with a girl who looks beach body ready ALL THE TIME. She rarely has a downtime (maybe for a few days after popping out his alpha triplets). Her commitment to looking good year-round is a major cue that she’s primarily interested in looking good FOR HER MAN, fearing (rightfully) that if she lets herself go, he’ll let himself go away. She RESPECTS her man’s sexual desire, and strives to fulfill his desire’s preconditions. Anti-feminist? You bet! Pro-healthy relationship? You bet! No accident feminism and healthy loving relationships are diametrically opposed.

If you are a man with a GF who’s never beach body ready, kill yourself.

If you are a man with a GF who only frets about her figure when summer approaches, learn Game.

If you are a man with a GF who tries her darndest to look good all the time, pinch the iota of baby fat on her ass as a gentle jerkboy reminder to keep it up.

Read Full Post »

Compare And Contrast: Two Men And Their Wives

Here is a photo of a just-married man with his blushing bride. Did you cringe while looking at it? That’s understandable. Her body language drops at least three clues that this marriage is doomed to roll off the divorce disassembly line.

1. He’s leaning into her (and her head is arching away from his kiss).
2. She’s (fake) smiling for the camera, instead of for him.
3. She’s got the kung-fu take-down grip on his wrist, as if she’s ready to stop his hand from roaming toward her ass.

Those are bad omens for your marriage if your bride is like this woman. Recall an ancient CH maxim (paraphrasing): If a man has to chase a woman’s love, she’ll never relinquish it.

The romantically successful couple reverses the polarity balefully evidenced in the photo above. A marriage destined for many years of reciprocal loving love looks more like the couple in the photo below:

This pic is literally the mirror image of the first photo. The man — Trump — is the one looking at the camera smilingly, his hand smugly occupying the erogenous nook of Melania’s appealing lordosis, and tickling the top of her ass. His torso, like his megashit-eating grin, is swiveled forward-facing. Meanwhile, Melania gazes at him adoringly, pressed unquestioningly into his chest, seemingly oblivious to the photographer in the room. If there is an attention whore here, it’s Trump, not Melania, and that makes all the difference in the world.

To recap:

Chasing man + chased woman: splitsville
Chased man + chasing woman: healthy relationship
Chasing man + chasing woman: unmarried couple in throes of lust
Chased man + chased woman: theoretically possible if both partners are cheating

Read Full Post »

Pussy-vision

An early 30s woman I know through a lover likes to regale friends who will listen with tales of her sordid sex life. (If you want to know what happens to a woman’s vagina if she’s still single by her thirties, think of a flowering rose…mashed into a slab of ground beef.)

One of her adventures included a break-up with a caddish loafer, followed by a two month-long rebound “””boyfriend””” who was dumped one month after her ex-jerkboy sent her a two word text (accompanied by a thumbs up emoji) at 1am: “wut up”. Sometime during her fling with the rebound, she openly stated when he was out of earshot that he wasn’t a serious contender and that little did he know she was fucking her ex-jerkboy on the side (her ardor obviously reignited by his eloquent late-night text). Oh, and to add colorful detail to the story, since she “didn’t have those kinds of feelings” for the rebound boyfriend, she withheld her pussy from him and only permitted mouth and anal access.

To her ex-jerkboy’s credit, he wisely said no to getting back together in a relationship context.

Let me just preface here that the clearest view of women’s true sexual nature is from the vantage point of a man who has gotten “in”, in every sense of the preposition, with a crowd of attractive young women. You will hear, and sometimes see, and occasionally participate in, everything that the average bumbling beta male does not. If observed patterns at the individual level are indicative of general behavior at the societal level, then the view is a disillusioning one indeed for those who nurture a streak of quaint romanticism.

A thought intrudes: What would the sexual market look like if all men, appeasing betas included, had first-hand knowledge of women’s most intimate goings-on? Women have a vested interest in maintaining a quasi-lockdown on unsanitized information about their sexual behavior reaching the mass audience of potential male suitors. But if men had Pussy-vision — that is, if men could see women’s secret world through the cylindrical scope of their vaginas — how would the sexual market change?

Would, say, the rebound man in the story above, if Pussy-vision pinkly illuminated the world of women for him, have continued dating and investing his time and money and energy into this girl who refused him her vagina but gave it freely and furtively and concurrently to an ex who invested nothing in her that didn’t require more than a perfunctory text solicitation?

What about other female behaviors that most men, especially White men, consider distasteful or even depraved and evidence that the woman exhibiting them is unworthy of marriage, or a carton of Skittles on her birthday? How would the typical White man respond if he suddenly knew that the bubbly HR girl he has started dating once shacked up with a black guy who left her with a bruise and an abortion?I’ll cut to the lace.

These rhetorical questions answer themselves. If Pussy-vision were real, the sexual market would change radically, and not to the benefit of women or of society. You’d see a lot more pump and dumping, a lot fewer engagement rings and $40K wedding circuses, and increased market demand for sexbots, virtual reality porn, and libido-numbing interventions.

Alpha males would hesitate more to commit, greater beta males would kick out the last leg of their pussy pedestal and consequently score with more women, lesser beta males would shy from asking girls out even more than they already do, and omega males would, to women’s consternation, become bolder in asking for raunchy sex, not unjustifiably assuming that skanks who have taken it up the pooper on first dates might not have a properly functioning discretion filter.

These would be the immediate effects. Eventually, (if Pussy-vision were real), the wholesale abandonment of men from the LTR and marriage market would drive women’s behaviors in the direction of chasteness, modesty, low partner count, deference to male prerogative, and vulnerable femininity, (and away from mudsharking, you bet your ass). Hmm, not unlike how it used to be prior 1960 or thereabouts.

So, did pre-1960 American men have Pussy-vision? In a way, they did. No, they weren’t seeing the world close-up through women’s vaginas, but the culture was a healthy one that acted as a proxy Pussy-vision instrument, instructing men in the traits and behaviors of women who are worthy of long-term investment. Men didn’t need to spend years in the banging trenches to learn the true nature of women; they had fathers (and mothers!) and friends and institutions teaching them, forthrightly or round-aboutly, the shapely contours and tell-tale demeanor of the marriage-worthy woman.

What has happened since then is the warehousing of Pussy-vision out of sight of the everyday man. In a way, Pussy-vision is real, but now only for a select few alpha lords who have the key to the secret garden and a peen’s-eye-view of unkempt, chaotic, dizzyingly feral female sexuality. For the rest, the culture has not only jettisoned the concept of Pussy-vision, it actively works to promote the opposite of Pussy-vision:

Beaver-blindness.

Which would not be such a mentally handicapping thing if women were, in fact, worthy of investment. Beaver-blindness is the benefit of the doubt women receive when they are truly keeping up their end of the bargain: namely, don’t have an N-count that could rival a porn star’s and don’t delude yourself into thinking ass sex is an acceptable virginity-preserving substitute.

But Beaver-blindness is metadeath to the idealistic man living during an era of unrestricted female licentiousness, either as practiced or as imbibed by a go-girl propaganda machine that encourages and glorifies sexual amorphism and the taking on by women of the traditional roles and behaviors normally associated with male sexuality. Beaver-blindness is wilful castration when pussy is liberated from male expectation and discernment. It’s basically telling women, “Do what you will, I have neither the inclination nor the capacity to judge your worth as a lover and a partner in life.”

Naturally, women HATE HATE HATE nonjudgmental men who let them get away with the farm, (even as they tell social scientist surveyors and gullible male feminists the opposite). The only counter to liberated pussy is donning the Pussy-vision goggles and treating women exactly how they allow themselves to be treated. This will improve the enwhitened man’s love life and may, paradoxically, persuade women to reject the liberation of their sex.

Read Full Post »

The ‘Attracted Woman’ Myth

A fairly regular bleat from the woe-is-me contingent of hapless beta male romantic losers who’d rather wallow in self-pity than engage the frightening prospect that deliberate effort can improve one’s sex life, is the recurrent assertion that Game – or any of its organic derivatives – will only work on women who are “already attracted to the man”.

This claim is an indicator that the claimant has either

a. no experience seducing women (as opposed to listening to women talk about other men seducing them, or watching women be seduced by other men), or

b. has had the stroke of luck to land Miss Right early in life, settle down, and thereafter be cursed (or blessed, depending on your POV) to view womankind through snow white-tinted glasses, which act as convenient amplifiers that facilitate the projection of male desire onto female sexuality.

First, a tiny caveat. Yes, there will be a particular woman, and a particular time, when a surge of immediate attraction will be powerful enough to propel her post-haste into a man’s bedroomy embrace. These scenarios exist.

Most times, though, a woman’s journey from meeting to fellating is more labyrinthine, less viscerally certain to occur to one or both parties invested in the hoped-for denouement. As any man who’s shivved a day in his life knows, women aren’t wired in the same way as men. Female arousal oscillates on a spectrum from fleeting curiosity to uncontrollable splooging. Fun fact: In the typical relationship, the men that women are dating or have even married will have begun their courtships, unknowingly for the most part, as nothing more than mildly interesting prospects making no more impression than that of a dim speck on the woman’s heart horizon.

The upshot is that in the sexual market, it’s men who have to work harder, and longer, and smarter, to win the love of a woman. Male desire is a rather simpler proposition; it’s on or off, and the switch is pulled within a second of visual inspection of the woman’s face and body.

The lesson here for the average man is that very few women you meet will be “already attracted” to you, and likewise very few women you meet will be instantly and irretrievably unattracted to you. A woman’s attraction is not a switch; it’s a burner that can burn hotter or colder depending on the skill of the man turning the knob.

The majority of women you will date will have felt a little something from the very beginning, but only a few of those women will reach your bed, if any. Dating is not fucking. Pleasantries are not fucking. Kissing is not fucking. Fucking is fucking, and to get there you have to make a woman MORE ATTRACTED to you, which is where the power of Game aka learned charisma, shines brightest, taking you from a dim speck on her heart horizon to a flaming sunRISE announcing a new lay.

Read Full Post »

Swagger Or Brood, But Don’t Look Happy

Men love women who look happy. Women love men who look…. take a guess.

Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of “bad boys” and other iconic gender types.

Of course, if you were to ASK the typical woman in a public setting surrounded by her family and peers which kind of man she would rather date, she’ll say the smiling happy man. Women are loath to publicly admit romantic preferences that would expose the disturbing nature of their sexuality. But any man who’s lived a day in his life knows the special appeal that swaggering douchebags or mysterious brooding artists have to women.

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult

Nice N.

participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

Careerist, manjawed feminists extolling the lean-in philosophy wept. Men prefer deferential, submissive, vulnerable women. I.e., feminine women.

“It is important to remember that this study explored first-impressions of sexual attraction to images of the opposite sex,” says Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author. “We were not asking participants if they thought these targets would make a good boyfriend or wife — we wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction.”

The sexual market is the prime market because (among other reasons) it operates on the level of the human subconscious, where instinct and “gut” forge behavior before the frontal lobe pitches in to rationalize that based behavior as freely chosen and socially appropriate.

Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men.

Fashy coda! Affirms the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” maxim. For those cucklets who insist that women only value men’s looks, remember that women are predisposed to valuing VERY LITTLE of men, even decent-looking men, BEFORE those men have approached and displayed their masculine boldness.

It’s been covered here at the Chateau many times…women are the more discriminating sex, and that extends to women’s perceptions of men’s looks. Which is implicitly good news for less Hollywoodian men, because if women only consciously value the top 5% in male looks then the reality that far more than 5% of men are dating cute girls proves that women must subconsciously value other traits in men. This study indirectly highlights a selection of those other attractive male traits: confidence, cockiness, inscrutability, danger, and dominance.

***

Nikolai adds an insightful comment about women’s seemingly weird attraction to shame-faced men.

This is the second study I’ve seen where ‘ashamed’ or ‘guilty’ was the second most popular look for men. I think I know why this is.
When I first started seeing multiple women, dates would ask me about it and I would look shamefaced. This would prove what I was up to and I was surprised to find that they reacted positively, like those female teachers who can’t help adoring the naughty boy.
Of course, haughty and nonchalant would have been even better. That’s why ashamed only comes in second.

Anything that communicates “I’ve been a bad bad boy” will fire up a woman’s libido.

Read Full Post »