How To Take A Mug Shot Like An Alpha Male

That’s how it’s done. Suit up. Chin up. Eyes straight. Smirk like you own the joint. Or you’re about to get one over on someone you hate.

As a commenter noted, Perry’s mug shot reminded him of someone else.

It’s almost as if there are universal, cosmic rules governing (heh) what facial expressions humans perceive to be recognizably alpha, (or beta. cf: john scalzi).

When you’re an alpha male, all the world’s a studio shot.

Since we’re on the subject of alpha male mug shots:

I detect a nascent smirk and arched eyebrow. But what really ties the alpha together is the T-shirt. Yes, that’s a graphic of his own previous mug shot on his shirt. Recursive jerkboy game.

CH discussion of politicians’ body language does not necessarily imply partisan support or disapproval. So don’t litter the comments section with political yammering.

Read Full Post »

Signs That A Woman Is Cheating In Her Heart

A reflexive male impulse to white knight for women may have evolved because, one, enough women in the past sexually rewarded men who went out of their way to protect female virtue and, two, the precoital penumbras of female sexual vice are fainter than the leery male sexual vice, and therefore more easily missed or misinterpreted by constitutional white knights.

White Knights and Pussy Polishers provide a useful context for the topic to be discussed in this post. Many men, especially pedestal-primping provider-primary beta males, are utterly oblivious to any signs that their girlfriends or wives may be growing romantically removed from them. Worse, when a man does feel that sinking feeling that his woman’s nethers retract to his touch, he reacts with self-abasing misunderstanding of the nature of her sexual withdrawal, often wrongly supposing his own fault and figuring that more of what she claims she wants from him is exactly what she needs.

More cynically, there’s an ego protective mechanism in men, evident in its advanced stages in married men, to elide the existence of, or the causes for, any romantic dissatisfaction percolating in their lovers.

Given the characteristic white knight urge of men to, basically, assume the best of women and the worst of themselves, it should come as no surprise that women often begin cheating in their hearts long before their boyfriends or husbands are aware of the limbic detour. The stereotype of the befuddled beta hubby oblivious to the real reasons for his wife’s foreclosed desire is a sitcom staple.

Luckily, you are honored to be on the elite Chateau Heartiste guestlist, (“I’m an H-lister!”) which means you have access to knowledge that the ancients pondered. Here you will learn what signs to watch for that betray congestive infidelity in your woman’s heart.

She has stopped spontaneously touching you.

White Knight/Pussy Polisher Imagined Cause: She’s reacting to your emotional distance.
Real Cause: You lost that alpha male mojo.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Tenderly express your feelings so she’s comfortable being intimate again.
CH Solution That Will Work: Slap her ass after flirting with a waitress in front of her. Ass-ownage is 9/10ths of the law.

She’s stopped acting jealous when other women talk to you.

White Knight Imagined Cause: She’s matured into a secure woman with a healthy self-esteem.
Real Cause: You no longer inspire her to mate guard.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Compliment her on her independence.
CH Solution That Will Work: Dread game.

She’s nagging all the time.

White Knight Imagined Cause: You aren’t doing your share of the household chores.
Real Cause: She’s becoming repulsed by your beta stink and lashing out by subconsciously emasculating you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Be a helpful househusband.
CH Solution That Will Work: Tell her to shut the fuck up. Leave for a few days. Don’t say where you’re going.

She’s stopped asking for your opinion about mutual concerns.

White Knight Imagined Cause: She’s a strong independent woman who has learned to think for herself.
Real Cause: She cares as little for your opinion as she cares for your dick in her pussy.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Leave all decision-making to her.
CH Solution That Will Work: Rudely inform her when you think she’s about to do something stupid. When she complains that she didn’t ask you, act nonchalant. “No shit. But I said it anyhow.”

She’s stopped dressing like a feminine woman in your company.

White Knight Imagined Cause: Love is unconditional and she doesn’t have to prove herself to you all the time.
Real Cause: Women don’t try to please men they don’t want to fuck. You’ve become weak.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Learn to appreciate her ratty sweatpants.
CH Solution That Will Work: Have another woman’s perfume on your shirt collar.

She’s staying longer hours at work.

White Knight Imagined Cause: She’s an ambitious woman.
Real Cause: She wants to fuck her boss.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Support her!
CH Solution That Will Work: Come home even later than her. Humming a happy tune.

She’s making impossible demands.

White Knight Imagined Cause: Her demands are reasonable. You’re letting her down.
Real Cause: She turning into a cruel bitch who hates having to live under the same roof as you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Supplicate harder!
CH Solution That Will Work: Agree and amplify. “Yeah, I’ll do that right after I bang your mom’s hole ten ways to Sunday.”

She shows no appreciation for what you do.

White Knight Imagined Cause: Whatever you’re doing for her is not nearly as much as she’s doing for you.
Real Cause: You turn her off and she’s lost any desire to please you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Drop passive-aggressive hints about feeling unloved.
CH Solution That Will Work: Stop doing things for her. When she notices, tell her, “You have two arms and hands? Use them.”

She’s never satisfied.

White Knight Imagined Cause: You aren’t treating her like the strong, independent woman she is.
Real Cause: She despises you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Compliment her. Cuddle her. Perform cunnilingus. Ask for nothing in return. Promise to do more.
CH Solution That Will Work: Flip the script. Get her Skittles for her birthday. Make her do favors for you.

The number one sign that your woman is thinking of cheating may be a monthly biological process, which moderately correlates with all of the above signs.

The male infidelity urge resolves itself quickly. When men start feeling that tug toward fulfilling their primal genetic compulsion for poosy varietals, they will, if unburdened by scruples, execute in fairly short order and without the psychological torture that emotionally distancing women will put their men through. But a woman’s winding road to infidelity is longer, twistier, and unmarked. She’ll take a while getting there, and she’ll drop moldy bread crumbs for you along the way, but once she’s there she’s never coming back, not in the same way you knew her, and you won’t be able to reach her when she’s that far out either.

A woman’s unfaithfulness is like Ebola; by the time you’re bleeding from the eyes, it’s too late. You have to catch her waywardness early and deliver the proper correctives — 90% of the time, this means stop being beta. At the first notice of any of these omens of unfaithfulness, you have a window of opportunity to switch her bitch off. Dial down the beta provider comfort giver, and dial up the alpha lover excitement giver. If you are already at the stage where she’s denying you sex on flimsy pretexts (“My cat needed his asshole Nair’ed”), it’s probably too late. Her heart has left your stable and is trotting away for alpha pastures.

Read Full Post »

The Married Man Thirstzone

One of the more amusing private pains-turned-public spectacle to leak out of an internet pustule recently graced the combox of Reddit (/r/relationship). A sexually deprived married man (but I repeat myself) crafted a meticulous spreadsheet documenting the number of times his wife denied him sex and the excuses she gave each time. He then emailed this “unspread”sheet to his wife while she was away on business (red flag right there). She went public with it, hoping to both shame her thirsty hubby and to trawl for advice from male feminists that would rub the fur of her hamster with the grain.

at least she didn’t use “i have a headache”

For those keeping score, that’s three marital congresses out of twenty-eight attempts, for an 11% successful lay ratio.

An 11% lay ratio is pretty good for the average single beta male picking up girls (1 out of 10 approaches yields sex), but horrible for a married man who pledged his freedom, natural polygynous urge, and HALF to a woman who presumably loves her husband unto death, and who tacitly agreed by signing the marriage contract to offer her body on a regular basis to him.

But as visitors to Chateau Heartiste know, marriage is no respite from the perpetually clanking meat machine of the sexual market. If you recline into complacently dull beta maleness, you will lose your wife’s desire to please you as readily as you would lose a girlfriend’s, or a fling’s, desire. Worse, if you make the mistake of thinking that marriage will energize your wife’s sexual cravings beyond the limp gestures she had exhibited toward you pre-marriage, you’ll learn soon enough that the line that is dotted is not the ‘gine that is prodded.

No marriage contract in the world is sufficiently coercive to wrest sexual desire from the limbic node of a woman’s arousal center. Sexual desire is an animal instinct that predates legal fictions or social expectation. If the animal slumbers, “talking it out” or making it promises won’t rouse it to rutting; the animal must be confronted on its own terms, with equally primal cues that waken its instinct to mate.

The trope of the married man reduced to begging for sex from his wife stricken with yet another “headache” is a stereotype for a reason. These things hardly ever materialize out of thin air. But exactly how many married men labor in the purgatory known as the thirstzone? Numbers are hard to come by, although General Social Survey wizards have played the contrarian and dug up data suggesting married men have slightly more sex on average than unmarried men.

The problem with that survey data, beyond the inherent flaws of self-reporting and social expectation bias (and burning shame), is that the huge swell of omega and lesser beta single men who suffer involuntary celibate lives greatly skews the stats to promote an illusion that married men enjoy a cornucopia of sex (with one woman, let it be reminded). This incel ballast must be jettisoned to get a truer picture of what kind of sex lives married men actually enjoy. If the typical married man gets laid once per month (as our pubic flogging victim above has documented), then a more accurate assessment of his bounty would come from comparison to unmarried men who aren’t hopeless sex market rejects.

Compared to an incel, once per month married sex sounds like a pretty good deal. Compared to single men with girlfriends, fuck buddies, and flings tossed in for flavor, once per month sex sounds like painful blue balls. Ask any single man what a year-long relationship with a hot girlfriend is like, and he’ll tell you it’s a copulation carnival. His married buddies will turn green with envy.

As often surfaces on megafeminist sites like Reddit, hackneyed hackers and bromide belchers rush to fill the void of useful advice with Hivemind-approved diagnoses that abjure the wife of even the tiniest bit of responsibility for her role in her husband’s desperate sexual deprivation. Two common refrains — the husband isn’t doing enough to “support” his wife, and the wife has “low libido” — receive rounds of applause from the benighted.

These are handy rationalizations without a scintilla of realistic relevancy. In the real world, husbands who support the shit out of their wives are often less sexually rewarded than husbands who follow a program of benevolent sexism. And no scientist has yet, to my satisfaction, proven that there is an epidemic of pathologically low libido among married women. What is much more likely is that married men are, or become, less sexually stimulating to their wives, and the infamous “low libidio” of their wives is nothing more than selective female libido. Divorcee tell-alls revel in confessions of rejuventated sex lives once the beta provider hubby package was sent adrift.

A married man stuck in the thirstzone is not without options. Mistresses have traditionally been outlets for such men, and the culture used to give a wink and a nod to such arrangements, because the culture used to have a healthy and normal appreciation and acceptance of innate sex differences, before everything turned to poopytalk and hamster fuel.

There, too, is the advice offered by this very outpost of recivilization: A dab of dread will make legs spread. The poor sexless husband who attempted to shame his wife into fulfilling his most basic need in a marriage has, by accounts, ended all contact with her. Radio silence, while not the ideal solution to such crises of the cunt, is better than abject mewling and prone apologia. It has, at the least, made his wife think so hard about her lack of desire for her husband that she has taken to an internet forum full of spergs to find serenity now.

Dread game works, but only if the timing and execution occur before betatization has metastasized. A husband who repulses his wife is in a sorry position from which no remedy will work within a time frame not measured in years. The unspreadsheet man had undoubtedly been suffering months, perhaps years, of sexual isolation from his wife before he became so desperate that he felt it necessary to painstakingly chronicle his pain and accost her with it while she was at a hotel bar thinking about unleashing her inner bed fiend with a business associate.

At that late stage, any active effort to reverse his misfortune would be perceived as spite by his carnally estranged wife, stemming from a place of hurt and neediness. Perception is king in the mating arena, and butthurtness is kryptonite to women’s horny levels. The proper dose of dread needed to be delivered earlier, under circumstances less likely to be confused for vengeance.

The most effective punishment for a sexually withdrawing wife is punishment that can be construed as inadvertent. A woman is validated equally by intentional punishment as by intentional reward; both tell her “I’m so desired I rouse my husband to flattery and to retribution.” And a validated woman is an unpliable woman.

But punishment that appears almost “off-hand”, or apathetic and callous, is gold. This is the kind of punishment of female misbehavior (and, yes, denial of historically regarded marital duties counts as misbehavior) that strikes wee hamster nerves. It’s the punishment of indifference that follows when a husband’s mind has started wandering to thoughts of other women. The classic “late night phone call to wife with girls laughing in the background” ploy is an example of indifference punishment.

Wives can handle being punished when it validates their higher status. Cause-and-effect kneejerk punishment won’t rattle their self-possession or shake them into suddenly renewed desire. But no woman, wifed up or not, can handle being an afterthought to her man without compensating for her perceived demotion with reinvigorated lust.

This type of “punishment by gradually escalated indifference” of wayward wives/girlfriends — what a reader suggested can be called the “De-escalation Ladder” — will feature in a future post.

***

PS: Here’s an example from real life of “accidental” dread game in action.

Read Full Post »

Why You Should Hit On Hot Girls Out Of Your League

A particular paradox of the sexual market is one that works in the favor of men. More precisely, men with balls. It’s what I call the “Prime Pussy Paradox”.

Reader Scott explains,

I’m 48 years old, overweight, and out of practice after being married for 20 years. But I’ve still never understood the fear of approaching women. In my younger days, I dated roommates at the same time, a Playboy model, and regularly bagged ladies in the 8-10 range.

Now I have a 24 year old son. I told him when he was a teenager, that the easiest way to get a hot chick to go out with you is to simply ask. Since most guys are too wimpy to approach a 9 or 10, it is actually the girls in the 6-8 range that get hit on the most. In reality, 10′s get hit on less, and are easier to pick up than the less attractive girls in the 6-8 range.

That is the honest truth – believe it or not.

I believe it, because I’ve experienced the same. As have many of my player buddies. That sexy 8 will give you a warmer smile and more feminine charm than that ego-inflated 6 with a chip on her shoulder who’s had to deflect the horny intrusions of a hundred middling beta males who thought that 6 would be easy pickings.

The Prime Pussy Paradox states that the very hottest girls – high 8s, 9s and 10s — get hit on less frequently and by fewer men than do women in the “pump&dumpable” or “cute” range from 4 to 7s, and that this male approach skew psychologically grooms the hotter girls to be more excited when a man does boldly hit on them. The essence of the PPP is that hot girls are often MORE APPROACHABLE than cute or, god forbid, plain girls.

Why is the PPP a valid concept? The intersection of a woman’s self-esteem (modulated by her intrinsic hotness and the male attention she expects to get based on her self-perceived hotness) and a man’s sexually entitled boldness is where love explodes. A handy graph visualizes the phenomenon.

The black line represents a hot woman with unmodified self-esteem; that is, self-esteem which exists in a sexual market with perfect mate information flow where she gets exactly the amount of attention that her looks should theoretically command.

Naturally, such a world doesn’t exist, because men don’t make a decision to approach based entirely on a woman’s looks. Men also internally calculate their risk of rejection and their own courtship savviness. Which is where the red and green lines fit in. A woman with immoderately high self-esteem (green line) — i.e., a woman who thinks more of her mate value than her looks inform — will be a tough rut to shellac. A man would need to be very bold (and skilled) to hurdle the huge cockblock that is her bloated self-esteem.

A woman with immoderately low self-esteem (red line) — i.e., a woman who thinks less of her mate value that her hotness would conceivably suggest — will be an easier target than presumed, and who won’t require preternatural reserves of boldness to seduce. These women are a dying breed in America, (bloated self-esteems, along with bloated bodies, are the growing female demographic), but they do exist, and happily enough, they exist in surprisingly disproportionate number among the very hottest women whom men imagine are the least likely to have lower-than-expected sexual-esteems.

Like an information bottleneck in the stock market, the PPP is a sexual market vulnerability which can be exploited by fearless men with insider connections. 9s and 10s (and most 8s) don’t get conspicuously hit on as much as 4s, 5s, 6s, and 7s. Consequently, hot girls tend to harbor stirrings of doubt about their SMV. Their egos (and love lives) hunger for proof of validation, and they gorge on the rare direct attentions of bold men who aren’t afraid of or humbled by their beauty.

There are limits to the PPP exploit. Very low SMV men won’t be able to capitalize on it with the same profitability as moderate SMV men. The sweet spot is a man one to three SMV points lower than the hot girl, and who acts with the prerogative of a man with equal (sex-adjusted) SMV to the hot girl. Male 6s and 7s (as ranked along male-specific measurements of attractiveness) who approach with the bold intention of a male 9 can “shock” a female 9 into aroused curiosity.

Now some of you are wondering, “Don’t hot girls get a lot of leers from admiring men?” Sure, but female self-esteem operates as a more complex feedback system than male self-esteem. A female 9 will receive ten times the number of head snaps from men than will a female 7 (it’s exponential), but she’ll also receive ten times FEWER the number of intentional approaches from men than will the female 7. Women register the glances from afar, but the bold approach is so unmistakable in intention that it counts for more as a self-esteem boosting factor.

Hot women, experiencing a relative paucity of men hitting on them compared to that experienced by mediocre-looking women, tend as a result to carry less ego-stroked baggage. They are more grateful, and more interested, when a man dares to pierce their bubble of hotness. To approach such a beauty as she, why this man must truly be worth her company!

Read Full Post »

Rationalizing Fearfulness

I’ve noticed a faddishness among so-called “red pill” men lately to assert with the cynical glee of a conspiracy theorist stumbling across doubleplussecret knowledge that only men with 8-10% body fat and Hollywood good looks are capable of pulling girls cold, and that any man who falls short of those physical dimensions ought to console himself with internet porn or drop out of the mating race to “go his own way”.

Men who think like this believe that the only achievable pickup is one that starts with the woman initiating an “approach invitation”, i.e., a flirty nonverbal signal that lets a man know she will accept his approach. They believe that it is exceedingly rare to find examples of men successfully approaching inattentive or indifferent girls and earning the notch.

Rubbish. Anyone who’s lived a day in his life has witnessed (or executed) a pickup attempt that began with the man making an unsolicited approach and progressed to the woman gradually warming up with romantic interest. Not only does it happen all the time in real life, but our literature is replete with caddish, not-particularly-handsome characters who not only cold approached and defiled initially indifferent women, but often took up the challenge of seducing actively hostile women.

The female “approach invitation” doubtless adds a layer of efficiency to the mating market, (a phenomenon that in theory would be more frequent in r-selection societies), but it by no means is a prerequisite for love, or lust, to bloom. If anything, women have traditionally sought to suppress their approach invitations so that only the boldest, and hence most desirable, men would solicit them. Chicks dig an entitled jerkboy who doesn’t need an air traffic controller to wave him onto a woman’s landing strip.

Two kinds of men are zealous followers of the “8-10% body fat seduction” religion: Very good-looking but socially shy and/or lazy men who have spent a lifetime relying on female approach invitations to get laid, and shut-ins with a persecution complex who have a strong psychological need to blame their romantic inertia on external forces beyond their ability to control or shape.

Blaming failure, or attributing success, with women on one’s looks is a classic case of psychological projection of innate male desire. Men desire a woman’s looks first and foremost, and so men get trapped into thinking women desire the same thing to the same degree of exclusion. Women certainly value male looks, but not nearly with the same intensity or single-mindedness that men value female looks. Evidence for this sex disparity abounds: The ugly man with a hot girlfriend is a far more common occurrence than the ugly woman with the dashing, successful man. Furthermore, we can find emanations and penumbras of the lower value women place on male looks in how women react to men who are excessively preoccupied with their superficial appearance: Simply, it repulses women.

(Excessively preening women can mildly annoy some men, but most men won’t complain because the payoff of female attention to beautification is too great.)

The strange male inverse bravado that accompanies proselytization of the “8-10% body fat seduction” religion is nothing more than rationalizing fearfulness. Men who, for whatever reasons, are fearful of boldly introducing themselves to women to start a conversation with the intent of sparking an eventual sexual flame will soothe their egos with a litany of palatable excuses for their failure to launch. And one such handy excuse that seems to work with urgent plausibility is the “I don’t look like Hugh Jackman on HGH and that’s why I can’t get a cute girlfriend.”

This particular male hamster is an endurance athlete. He spins in his wheel for a long time without needing rest because it’s easier to focus the rodent’s eye on the men with top 1% looks who get a lot of glances from women, rather than to turn the rodent’s eye inward to take painful account of one’s own timidity.

It may be a simpler task to visually isolate the good-looking men from the charmers who got their women with the nimbleness of their tongues or the social lords who got theirs with the rule of their fiefdoms, but it’s also dangerously misleading. FACT: What women consider good-looking in men is far less inclusive than what men consider good-looking in women. FACT: Women are far less likely to solicit or passively pursue men they find good-looking than are men to pursue women they find good-looking.

This means, in practice, that very few men can rely on their looks for “fool’s mate” lays. Now, obviously, there is a much larger population of men who aren’t in the top 1% of male looks who nevertheless manage to get laid and build relationships with cute girls. How do these homely fuckers do it? It’s not such a mystery if you understand and accept that men can leverage much more than their looks to attract and woo women. The mystery is further demystified when you accept that there are men bolder and more confident than you are who didn’t allow their fear to condemn them to masturbatory inaction.

In other words…

they

busted

a

move.

Male “8-10% body fat” rationalization of fearfulness to approach and risk female rejection is the mirror image of a woman rationalizing her failure to get a man to commit by blaming his “issues” instead of blaming his reticence on the more distinct probability that she wasn’t pretty or caring enough for him to lavish her with long-term love and provisioning.

Both rationalizations stem from a similar psychological dynamic to avoid self-assessment that is responsive to sex-specific corrective action.

Whenever you hear a “red pill” man drone about seduction being nothing more than waiting around for a girl who likes your particular look to bat her eyes at you, know that you are reading the whiny excuse-mongering of a man who is allergic to cold approaching. He is giving you an incomplete picture because he doesn’t want to admit to himself that he shits his pants at the thought of starting conversations with women who aren’t prescreened in advance for receptivity.

None of this post should be misconstrued as support for the opposite claim that a man’s looks don’t matter at all, or that female approach invitations won’t grease the skids to sex. Quite the contrary, all else equal, a good-looking man will have an easier go of it than an ugly man, and a man who was cued to approach will have better odds than a man who approached a woman who gave no flirty cues.

Think of this post instead as a corrective to falsely dichotomous thinking like that exhibited by adherents to the “8-10% body fat seduction” religion. A corrective that appears to be more necessary than ever, because the internet disease of ego preservation at all costs is a mind virus that infects even supposedly clear-thinking, self-anointed dissidents to the blue pill orthodoxy.

To demonstrate my good faith to my readers, here is a picture of a very ugly man who will not ever be banging hard 10s:

when fupas meet

Judgment rendered? Hold on. Imagine this man without the goony accoutrement and dressed in stylish clothes that at the least don’t blatantly advertise his obesity. Now imagine he has read this blog and learned some basic game concepts and has increased his charisma roll by +2. Let’s further stipulate that he has taken the big step of actually going up to girls to talk to them, refusing to surrender to his fear. Maybe he’s even lost twenty pounds, and looks a little less hideous at first sight.

No, he still won’t bang hard 10s, nor, for that matter, soft 6s and 7s. Probably not even lumpy 4s and 5s. But he will be able to realistically trade up from a monstrous pig-faced 0 to, say, a chubby and conspicuously female 2 or 3. And that improvement in his love prospects will feel to him, a man heretofore parched of attention from recognizably human females, like an embarrassment of harem riches.

So you can swallow the “red pill” of rationalized powerlessness, or you can slap away the hands holding these pills and confront the mating market’s challenges with your vision unblurred by drug-induced hallucination.

Read Full Post »

Approach Week: Pfft Game

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

There are many ways to agitate a hamster.

A reader explains,

Hey – Considering myself too old and respectable to use “gay”, I tried “pfft” as a text game variation and it seems to have worked. Like “gay” it’s dismissive but cryptic, and implies transgression on her part. You can bet she spent 10 minutes checking various online dictionaries trying to determine my exact meaning.

For the record: this woman is a real head turner, almost a ‘9’ with fantastic sexual charisma, and 19+ years younger than me. (A 30-something female friend who saw us out said to me later, “You like to shop in the juniors department, huh?”)

New models beat pre-owned models in everything but cost.

She’s very aware of her beauty and shit-tests relentlessly. Her response to my request for a second date was total rejection: she waited 6 days to turn me down with an obvious bullshit line, which I recognized as a test, otherwise why respond at all after so long? I responded “pfft” and then went dark. This morning, three weeks later, she re-initiated contact.

Because I recognized the test and responded to it correctly, I was confident that sooner or later she’d be back, which was a nice feeling.

A very hot, young woman knows she has high sexual market value. To get a crack at her crack, you have to carve out a piece of her ego with a lexical knife forged by the Cryptonomicon. “pfft” works because it’s the word equivalent of interpretive dance; what you see is what you feel. And women left to their own devices — that is, left unsure of the visceral impact they leave on a man’s arousal center and reeling with self-doubt that they may have been substituted with another woman — are apt to interpret mysterious utterances as sexual indifference. The challenge to their feminine power issued, they react as you would expect a child: Indignant, affronted, and all too ready to prove you wrong.

Speaking of children… the best rule I can give to men, one that has stood me well, is to treat all women like children. When a precocious wee child innocently sasses you, do you lash out in bitterness? Do you anger or recoil defensively?

Only if you’re mentally deranged. If you’re normal, you’ll laugh off the child’s insolence, and perhaps tousle its hair, charmed by the tyke’s unfiltered joie de vivre. You would react like this because you and the child know you are its superior.

Such it should be with women. If a girl commits the equivalent of backtalk, (e.g., she flakes a week later), you metaphorically tousle her hair and call her a brat. The man-woman dynamic mirrors the parent-child dynamic in any successful seduction, so much so that sexual tension is dissolved when the woman is denied the pleasure of being treated as the man’s adorable inferior. If you lash out defensively at a misbehaving woman, you will earn her contempt and emotional withdrawal, just as you would if you did the same to a darling child. You would not be worthy to be the woman’s man, as you would not be worthy to be the child’s protector.

Read Full Post »

Approach Week: Why Chivalry Is Dead

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

Patrick insightfully comments over at Liger of the Blogosphere, using the Elliot Rodger shooting spree as a backdrop to explain why chivalry no longer applies in the context of a modern, industrialized, female-empowered society where the state has a monopoly on punitive force.

Elliot [Rodger] feared, and eventually, hated women because he simply could not understand them. His ineptitude in this regard was almost cartoonish, e.g. sitting on a park bench waiting for a cute single girl to approach him.

“Nice guys finish last,” is a cliche because it’s a truism most people don’t want to believe.

Elliot, having never harmed anyone in his life, was a gallant gentleman in his own eyes. What he doesn’t understand is that the high-minded concept of chivalry originated in a time when the abject brutalization of women was commonplace and expected. It was a sort of counterculture set against the time-honored beat’em & rape’em de rigueur of the day. And it only mattered because those practicing it — knights — were those most capable of brutalizing women. An intimidating, armored and mounted professional killer acting in a genteel manner towards a maiden he could otherwise violently defile is the stuff of romantic legend, and it set them apart as a class above the brutish peasant infantrymen.

Because the context of constant fear of sexual subjugation no longer applies, “chivalry” is an anachronistic concept, and being a gentleman is in more looking the part and behaving otherwise, like the well-dressed and stately character of Christian Grey who enjoys whipping and inserting butt-plugs into women. [CH] would say this misdirection and unexpectedness is like crack to women. And it is.

None of this knowledge ever permeated Rodgers’ brain, because he refused to believe it.

As CH has said before, chivalry (or gentlemanliness) only works when it is accompanied by a cultural expectation of female deference to men. Since we are far FAR from the social conditions in the West where women are deferential to men (the opposite is more true), chivalry as a concept and a practice becomes a joke, akin to asking men to anoint the feet of haughty, entitled women in exchange for the masochistic delight of cultural contempt.

The point of mercy — which is what chivalry is, stripped to its core — is that it only means anything when there’s a credible threat serving as its justification. A mercy “granted” from a position of weakness is a fiction; an expedient that permits the continued operation of the fundamental premise without questioning. What the vast hordes of beta males fail to grasp is that their niceguy poses are only effective as a mate acquisition strategy when a jerk assumes them. Niceguys playing niceguys is a plushboy recursion matrix that repels tingles. If anything, niceguys should do the opposite and be *less* chivalrous, as a means of persuading women that they aren’t supplicating pushovers.

Men who think chivalry toward the modern woman will help their romantic prospects are worse than poetically deluded; they’re self-sabotaging.

Read Full Post »