Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

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 »

Via the Grauniad (so take with a flat of salt):

Scientists discover brain’s neural switch for becoming an alpha male

Timid mice turn bold after their ‘alpha’ circuit is stimulated as results show ‘winner effect’ lingers on and mechanism may be similar in humans

Brash, brawny and keen to impose their will on anyone who enters their sphere of existence: the alpha male in action is unmistakable.

Now scientists claim to have pinpointed the biological root of domineering behaviour. New research has located a brain circuit that, when activated in mice, transformed timid individuals into bold alpha mice that almost always prevailed in aggressive social encounters.

Determinism getting you down? AYO HOL UP FOR DAT SCIENCE SEQUEL

In some cases, the social ranking of the subordinate mice soared after the scientists’ intervention, hinting that it might be possible to acquire “alphaness” simply by adopting the appropriate mental attitude. Or as Donald Trump might put it: “My whole life is about winning. I almost never lose.”

#InnerGameIsReal

The brain region, called the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), was already known to light up during social interactions involving decisions about whether to be assertive or submissive with others. But brain imaging alone could not determine whether the circuit was ultimately controlling how people behave.

The latest findings answer the question, showing that when the circuit was artificially switched on, low-ranking mice were immediately emboldened. “It’s not aggressiveness per se,” Hu said. “It increases their perseverance, motivational drive, grit.”

This is a rebuke to all those dummies who falsely equate “alphaness” with aggression. Studiously refusing the temptation to be a wilting betaboy flower watching the world of women go by is not the same as unloading ten clips of aggro douchebaggery on unsuspecting innocents.

With brain stimulation, low ranking mice won 90% of the time against animals they would normally have lost to.

Lesson for beta males: YOU HAVE IT IN YOU. Romantic failure is not a fate you must quietly await.

“When we took mice that used to lose in the tube test they could win within just several seconds of stimulation,” said Hu.

Someone will invent an Insta-Alpha pill that will give betas a temporary boost of sufficient fortitude to ask women out, and it will radically change the sexual market like nothing else has, not even porn.

Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.

“We observed that not all the mice returned to their original rank,” said Hu. “Some mice [did], but some of them had this newly dominant position.”

The scientists described this as the “winner effect”, hinting that there may be a grain of truth in the self-help mantra “fake it ‘til you make it”.

Spare a moment for me preen? CH, 2008:

Fake it till you make it means faking that internal confidence as well as the external behavior. This is not as hard as it sounds. Every time you feel self-doubt and talk yourself into inaction, yell “Stop!” out loud, and your brain will reboot. You then consciously reframe your thought processes to put the burden of approval seeking on those around you. With good inner game you can say just about any ridiculous routine and the girl will be intrigued.

The most important change in thinking you can make:

You are not there to win over women, they are there to win over you.

Keep saying this over and over until you begin to believe it. You are re-wiring yourself. Don’t worry about the truth or falsity of it. That’s irrelevant.

Of mice and men.

Read Full Post »

Disgust is a wonderful emotion. It’s a spontaneous transmission from the ganglia that acts as a palimpsest revealing our truest thoughts in unguarded moments. Three cheers for those shitlords with low disgust thresholds, for they have brushed aside the clutter of media propaganda and social expectation and seen the face of God in the sanctums of their own minds.

What has the science of disgust illuminated in this Year of Our Lord Trump?

Straight men are as disgusted by gay men kissing as they are by squirming maggots.

But maybe that ugly truth wasn’t ugly enough for your burnt-out thrill-seeking receptors? Maybe you forwarded the above post to your Faceborg shitlib friends and all you got was blocked. You wanted more. Like mass suicides. OK, how about this latest science shiv:

Putatively liberal and open-minded (and mostly White) college students are disgusted by the sight of interracial couples. Quoting from a synopsis of the research at Phys Org:

[N]ew research from the University of Washington suggests that reported acceptance of interracial marriage masks deeper feelings of discomfort—even disgust—that some feel about mixed-race couples. Published online in July in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and co-authored by UW postdoctoral researcher Caitlin Hudac, the study found that bias against interracial couples is associated with disgust that in turn leads interracial couples to be dehumanized. […]

The research involved three experiments. In the first, 152 college students were asked a series of questions about relationships, including how disgusted they felt about various configurations of interracial relationships and about their own willingness to have an interracial romance. The participants overall showed high levels of acceptance and low levels of disgust about interracial relationships, and pointed to a strong negative correlation between the two.

In the second experiment, the researchers showed 19 undergraduate students wedding and engagement photos of 200 interracial and same-race couples while recording their neural activity. The researchers asked the students to quickly indicate whether each couple should be included in a future study on relationships, a task that was intended to ensure participants were socially evaluating the couples while their neural activity was recorded.

Participants responded faster to images of same-race couples and selected them more often for inclusion in the study. More significantly, Skinner said, participants showed higher levels of activation in the insula—an area of the brain routinely implicated in the perception and experience of disgust—while viewing images of interracial couples.

“That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.

It’s inborn and natural to be disgusted by interracial couples! Bill Nye should do a children’s special on this research and have a skype comedienne sing a song about it with her vagina. “NO BLACK STUFF FOR THIS SACRED MUFF ONLY KOSHER WHITE WILL DO ME RIGHT!” *picks up Emmy nom*

Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans.

That suggests that interracial couples are more likely to be dehumanized than same-race couples, the researchers write, and previous studies have shown that people tend to exhibit more antisocial behavior and are more likely to use aggression and even violence toward dehumanized targets.

Taken together, the experiments show that despite high levels of reported acceptance, bias against mixed-race couples persists in the United States, the researchers say.

That revealed versus disclosed preference is a bitch, ain’t it shitlibs?

Such sentiments, Skinner said, belie the notion that most Americans are ready to embrace mixed-race romance.

Le Chateau has been gleefully belying shitlibboleths since its inception.

“Some people are still not comfortable with interracial relationships, or at least they’re a lot less comfortable than they would appear to be,” she said. “Acknowledging these biases is the first step to figuring out why people feel that way and determining what can be done so they won’t.”

Ah the totalitarian impulse of your garden variety social scientist femme. You have BadThoughts, so it’s off to the Neural Reconfiguration Camp with you until you think like we do! Or rather, until you think like we like to think we think, but really don’t and have learned the good sense to keep those dirty thoughts deeply suppressed thanks in part to the yeomanlet efforts of our inherited snazzy verbal IQs.

Why do people have to be taught/whipped/lobotomized to stop feeling disgust for interracial couples? Why is that the immediate assumption, instead of the saner and more humane reaction that we shouldn’t force people to deny their true feelings which have been a part of the human emotional template since time immemorial?

Disgust obviously serves a useful purpose if evolution has seen fit to keep us equipped with its powerful instinctual leverage over our real world mating decisions. Just spitballing here, but maybe we feel disgust at the sight of interracial couples because we crave aesthetic continuity, cultural familiarity, and social connectedness, and all these things which bring us closer to the heart have as their provenance the pairing of similar genes, which we perceive through the proxy of race?

Maybe…..oh I know I’m going out on a limb here….but juuuuuust maybe…..all of us envision having children WHO LOOK LIKE US, and the sepia-hued sprog of interracial couples — produced by the weirdly discomfiting commingling of disparate lip and nose and eye and cheek flush and Weltanshauung — violate that intense yearning in us for a shimmeringly congruous lineage. A line of love extending back in time, through the present, and out into the future….a Beauty incomparable, surviving unimaginable odds. No wonder we are disgusted by the notion of rupturing that line in an instant for a FUCK YOU DAD momentary expulsion of spite.

Is that so bad? (Rhetorical, it’s not.)

Read Full Post »

Recently, researchers have discovered what yer ‘umble proprietor of this scandalous Chateau was telling you long long time: chicks dig violent, rape-y, dominating sex because it is in the nature of women to feel incredibly aroused submitting to a powerful, even sadistic, man, and this feeling is universal among women.

Credentialist (((cipher))), 2017:

The popular feminist narrative would have you believe that porn is largely consumed by men, and that depictions of violent — or at least rough — sex would be a primarily male-dominated interest.

This is untrue, states researcher Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who says that porn featuring violence against women is significantly more popular among women compared to men. […]

“The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated,” he stated.

Perspicacious Heartiste, 2010:

Romance novels, read almost entirely by women, are flush full of rape fantasies. If fantasy (or as I like to call it, “hyperreality”) didn’t reflect reality then we would hear and read of fantasies by women featuring beta males, short dweebs, nerdos, fatsos, and charmless stutterers in the role of desired man. But we don’t. Women’s fantasies, like men’s fantasies, provide a window into a wished-for reality where all options are available, all choice catered to, all desires quenched. Rape fantasy, despite the protestations to the contrary of the “fantasy is different than reality” crowd, is as much a reflection of real female desire as any other form of sexual fantasy.

Women fantasize about a lot of things that no one argues don’t reflect reality if that reality were an option. What fantasizing woman wouldn’t truly want to be a princess who gets swept off her feet by a prince living in a castle? What single woman who dreams it wouldn’t sleep with Johnny Depp in real life if he propositioned her? These are common fantasies of women which they never argue aren’t reflections of how they wish reality were. So why should we grant a plenary indulgence to rape fantasies? How is it that rape fantasy is the one glaring exception to the reality-reflection rule? Men also fantasize about stuff like threesomes with supermodels, but no one in their right mind would argue that men don’t actually want threesomes with supermodels in reality, if having them were possible. (Wives or girlfriends, don’t bother asking your partners. You won’t get an honest answer.) […]

Rape fantasy reflects a deep, inborn, uncompromising sexual desire by women to be rendered helpless, almost childlike, by a more powerful man. It is the submissive scrawling of their hindbrains, a message in a novel sailing forth from the female limbic labyrinth. And from submission to a dominant male force is born the strongest love.

I loved that he was so powerful I was nothing.
– O

Does this mean women would be sexually turned on by real life rape? It is a question not so easily dismissed when we begin to examine closely the sexual fantasies of women. Dismissed it is, though, because no one — man or woman — wants to creak open the vault door that houses such primeval female decadence. For if women do harbor secret desires for dark seductions, then what is left of the pretext to chivalry? Women benefit from some amount of cultural pedestalization. *Societies* benefit. There is no room in a healthy, functioning society for mischievous inquisitors to lay bare the true soul of woman.

If you want to read the raw uncut ugly truths about women before they’re regurgitated in opaque chunks by big data nerds and media whores years later, you read at Chateau Heartiste. Accept no substitute.

Read Full Post »

This study was published in 2014, so maybe it’s already been discussed at the Chateau, but if it hasn’t this post will rectify that oversight. (If it has, it’s worth revisiting.)

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data

Criminality is highly costly to victims and their relatives, but often also to offenders. From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense.

DANGER AHEAD

Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married,

Because of criminal jerkboy impulsiveness, or because criminal jerkboys have more women begging them for marriage?

and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

So criminal jerkboys have to prove themselves worthy of more women’s pussies than do law-abiding betaboys, and it appears the criminal jerkboys have won that pussy-approval contest.

We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

The killer line, right there. (heh)

Basically, what this research has rediscovered:

Hard men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create hard men.

Why does the industrialized modern gynarchy improve the reproductive fitness of criminal jerkboys? An old CH post based on nothing but a clear-eyed LAYman’s view from the dating trenches offered an explanation: compassion creates more cads.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

Sex skew plays a role as well. If the natural culling of expendable men — from fetal development onward — is thwarted by human intervention and technological hazard mitigation, then perishable women have more sexual market options, which can mean that criminal cads offering something different and exciting from among the masses of mediocre betas find their star rising with economically independent women. Men navigating an unfavorable mate market saturated with male competition that concomitantly devalues beta provider traits will be under immense pressure to emphasize a caddish attitude toward women and a charming, physical presence over a dependable, agreeable personality.

Of course, mass Dirt World open borders immigration of primarily reproductive-aged swarths will exacerbate an already stressed and fracturing sexual market in the West. Women will begin to appreciate the very special charms of the native criminal jerkboy when waves upon waves of foreign jerkboys are crashing her homeland’s shores and pissing in her brunchtime mimosa.

Not that me telling you this will change anything, but I at least get the pleasure of saying I told ya so when the fires lick the gates of our encircled ruling class.

Read Full Post »

A curious finding is buried in this tour de force article recapitulating the wealth of scientific evidence for the huge sex difference in willingness to have sex with a stranger.

Over the last few decades almost all research studies have found that men are much more eager for casual sex than women are (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to desires for short-term mating with many different sexual partners (Schmitt et al., 2003), and is even more true for wanting to have sex with complete and total strangers (Tappé et al., 2013).

In a classic social psychological experiment from the 1980s, Clark and Hatfield (1989) put the idea of there being sex differences in consenting to sex with strangers to a real life test. They had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask “I’ve been noticing you around campus, I find you to be very attractive, would you go to bed with me tonight?” Around 75 percent of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0 percent) agreed to sex with a complete stranger. In terms of effect size, this is one of the largest sex differences ever discovered in psychological science (Hyde, 2005).

Twenty years later, Hald and Høgh-Olesen (2010) largely replicated these findings in Denmark, with 59 percent of single men and 0 percent of single women agreeing to a stranger’s proposition, “Would you go to bed with me?” Interestingly, they also asked participants who were already in relationships, finding 18 percent of men and 4 percent of women currently in a relationship responded positively to the request.

Did you catch the glint of that sparkly truthgem? On the question of having sex with a stranger, the percentage of men willing to do so dropped from 75% if they were single to 18% if they were already in relationships…..while the percentage of women willing to fuck a stranger rose from o% if they were single to 4% if they were in relationships.

Welly well, isn’t that interesting. Alpha fux, beta bux in existential play?

Of course, 4% isn’t a big number. However, it is a big number when it leaps past 0%. It’s an even bigger number in a man’s calculations when her dirty deed, or thought thereof, is executed within the comfy cozy confines of a relationship under the presumption of her monogamous faithfulness. How strange that a woman would be slightly more open to stranger sex if she’s already in a relationship with a familiar betaboy than if she’s swingin’ single!

How strange….to anyone who hasn’t had a stay at the Chateau.

As we Illubricati know, the alpha sheen can and often does wear off a taken man. What was once a dominant and sexy new lover to a woman de-sexualizes into a submissive long-term beta bootlicker. Sad! And when that happens, his lady will start to entertain salacious notions of concupiscent cuckoldry. She’ll look at her primary investor, consciously thank him for his dependable omnipresence while subconsciously resenting his lost aura of mystery, and allow herself sensual dreamy drifts into fantasies of fucking the next stranger from afar who cock struts into her rearview, perhaps comforted in the knowledge that any illicit issuance of her tryst would remain undisclosed to her duped day lover.

So if you don’t want to be a victim of the 4%, learn Game. It’ll do your LTR or marriage good.

Maybe just as intriguingly, men become less — a lot less — promiscuous (i.e., willing to have sex with a stranger) when they are in relationships. The vast majority of single men would funbang an average-to-hot girl they had just met, but that percentage drops to a mere 18% of taken men.

So men become more moral once they commit to a woman, and women become less moral once they commit to a man.

Why? One reason: men in relationships fear losing their lovers. A complacency, anhedonic complementarity, and kneejerk gratitude settles in (aka betatization) and robs a man of feelings of masculine sexual worth, until he stops believing he can get a girl as good to him as his current girl is to him. So his big fear is a breakup followed by what he imagines will be years of incel. This fear instigates a cravenness in his behavior and attitude that only further dispirits his woman, who wonders where the heat went.

Another reason: Men in relationships are getting a steady supply of sex they never had when they were single, given that definitionally most men are betas whose single lives are dreary sexless landscapes punctuated by occasional flowerings of welcoming furrow, which are finally notarized into semi-regularity with the signing of the nuptial prison terms. So men in relationships are simply unwilling to risk losing access to that comparatively turgid sex stream, hence the drop from 75% to 18% in willingness to indulge their natural male desire.

A third possibility: Men really are more moral than are women, and this would explain why a huge number of them would deny their God-given male inclinations in order to fulfill the moral obligations tacitly understood to be essential to a monogamous relationship. Women otoh appear to lose whatever moral compass they brought with them to a relationship. Oopsie, sexy stranger’s fault!

Now, men are still men and not women, so the big sex differences in desire for casual NSA sex remain whether in or out of relationships. On the subject of openness to stranger sex, 18% of taken men is still far more than 4% of taken women, but the relevant variable is the intra-sex difference in willingness to eat, pray, stray. Men are horndogs, but women can rest a little knowing that once they’ve cornered a man and removed him from the market he’s basically a neutered pup compared to what he was before she snagged him. Men though have to worry a little bit more once they’ve locked a woman down, because…and this is a maxim somewhere in the CH archives I’m sure…the pussy lockdown is illusory. It doesn’t exist, except by the will of the woman and the Game of the man.

If women are slightly more willing to step out with a stranger when they are in a relationship, within which all the risk of discovery and moral approbation are arrayed against her, as opposed to sexing a stranger when they are single and morally unchained and free of the risk of blowing up an LTR or marriage…..then that should strike at least a shiver of fear in any man who thinks the dotted line secures his honor and his progeny.

Finally, a result that confirms a core CH tenet:

In a French replication attempt, Guéguen (2011) had experimental confederates of various levels of physical attractiveness actually approach real-life strangers and ask if they would have sex. He found 83 percent of men agreed to have sex with a highly attractive woman, whereas only 3 percent of women agreed to have sex with a highly attractive man. Among confederates of average attractiveness, 60 percent of men agreed to sex with a woman of average attractiveness, but no woman (0 percent) agreed to sex with a man of average attractiveness.

The takeaway here is that very good-looking men don’t have a huge sexual market advantage over average-looking men, but they do have some advantage, mostly in short term mating scenarios. No one of sane mind would argue otherwise, however it does prove (again) that male looks aren’t as crucial to men’s romantic success as female looks are to women’s romantic success. If you happen to be in the top 5% of male looks, congrats, you bumped your chance of casual sex with a random woman you just met from 0% to 3%. Unfortunately for the no-Game-having Drabios, women are holistic mate assessors and require a lot more convincing than that provided by a megawatt smile and biceps. The calculus is the same for men of average looks or good looks: to bed more women, and higher quality women, you’ll need a personality. A charismatic man of average looks will run labia rings around dull pretty boys.

Read Full Post »

Manjawed women are avoided by men because men don’t like women who look like men. CH has written about this topic a number of times, so the news won’t surprise regular readers.

Too much femme T
there goes my chubby

Evolution has seen fit to incorporate this distaste for masculinized women into the male limbic landscape as a hedge against female infidelity and getting cuckolded. It turns out the manjaw (and associated manchin) in women is linked with an increased “sexual unrestrictedness”, which in laybro’s language means manjawed chicks are more likely to step out on you.

It is therefore natural and normal and most importantly SELF-INTERESTED for men to prefer the romantic company of slender, young, attractive, feminine, womanjawed women.

***

In related SCIENCE, YO! news:

  • The more household chores a husband does, the more likely the marriage is to end in divorce. (Also an ugly truth CH has covered in the past.)
  • It helps (a lot) to be a female criminal defendant. “After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, “men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do,” and “[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.” This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.” Now some of this sex disparity (like the race disparity) is probably a result of female criminals exhibiting less depravity than male criminals in the commission of legally equivalent crimes. But a bigger reason for the disparity goes to something much deeper in the human psyche: the Fundamental Premise, which explains that female coddling is a natural psychological instinct among both men and women that exists because (most) women are more reproductively valuable than are (most) men.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: