Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).



I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Read Full Post »

Owing to its theme, I feel duty-bound to alert the CH readership to this very good post examining the interaction between technology and female hypergamy, over at a blog named Selonomics.

“Why does it appear that the vast majority of women prefer the same small group of men?”


In my model, I decided to test how simple mate selection strategies resulted in wildly different statistical distributions in each of the final selection pools.

In the simulation, men make their mate selection decisions by minimizing over the age of their prospective partners, whereas women maximize over the status of the men in their accessible vicinity.


Although the simulation results above show only the most extreme scenarios, one biased in the direction of the median man (Regulated Monogamy, or Patriarchy) and the other in the direction of the median female (Open Hypergamy), it is interesting to note that contemporary real world data looks a lot more like the extreme scenario on the female side of spectrum.

The author’s conclusions won’t surprise regular guests of the Chateau, but he spells them out lucidly and adds some insight into how social media and the technology which supports it have magnified female hypergamy and made it nearly virulent.

In summation, I found the following:

  • There is a strong outcome asymmetry in preferences between men and women when it comes to selecting a mate.
  • We don’t have to assume very much to see this play out in the real world, only that men prefer young women and women prefer high status men.
  • The positional trait (social status in this case), when amplified by both technology and the freedom to use those technologies, i.e. social norms favoring the Feminine Imperative (in Saudi Barbaria, women wear burkas and can’t use Tinder) the selection pool of prospective mates increases far faster for the median woman than it does for median man.
  • Given that women are primarily interested in status, which is a positional good, then any technology that amplifies your ability to be noticed by high status men, will also increase mating inequality. Consider, for example, how men do not benefit nearly as much from the scale offered by Tinder as do women. In the graphs shown below, Hypergamy is calculated as the difference in median in-degree (number of incoming links) between the two distributions.

In layman’s terms, this is the MOST IMPORTANT GRAPH IN THE WORLD. It shows the stark sex difference in how mate quality of the opposite sex is perceived. Start at the extremes: the top 1% of men and women will receive “likes” from nearly all members of the opposite sex. The bottom 1% of either sex will get almost no likelove. In between is where it gets interesting.

At a female attractiveness level of 80% (corresponding to an HB8 on the 1-to-10 hotness scale), only men in, roughly, the 97th percentile of male attractiveness will get “likes”. HB6s will give “likes” to men in the top 5% of male attractiveness. HB4s will “like” the top 10% of men.  HB2s (ffs) will “like” the top 25% of men. Men at the 20% attractiveness level will only get “likes” from the BOTTOM 2% OF WOMEN.

You see where this is heading. As far as female DESIROUS INTENT is concerned, the bottom 80% of men may as well be distracting nuisances at best and utterly invisible #MeToo potential violators at worst to the top 80% of women. That’s what unrestrained female hypergamy looks like. A few alphas bathing in a lube-slicked ocean of vagina juice, while the mediocre beta male masses languish in their masturbatoriums.

Of course, real life pairings don’t arrange themselves according to online “likes” (yet). One look around, and you can easily see that far more than 20% of men have some success with women. What accounts for the difference between online intent and offline action are a number of factors, the most relevant of which are:

  1. female resignation to the inevitable and frighteningly quick loss of their beauty and the romantic settling that most women who aren’t batshit crazy eventually accept as a part of living in the real world where men have standards
  2. holistic female attraction criteria that result in more complex mate quality evaluations of men in real life, face to face interactions, which contrast sharply with the artificially myopic female attraction criteria that inordinately emphasize a man’s dating app profile and best-angle photo (this is why Game shines IRL)
  3. porn and other sex substitutes that dampen the realization of female hypergamy by robbing middle of the pack women of valuable feedback on their allure

Social media amplifies female hypergamy by introducing more high status men to more women, and vice versa more hot women to high status men. Localism moderately contains female hypergamy simply by limiting the number of HSMV men in any given woman’s immediate environment, (which many women get around by moving to the big coastal cities). So Burnham’s critique of SCALE is apropos here, as a major factor in the development of runaway female hypergamy.

The THREE CULTURAL CHANGES that have had the biggest negative impact on beta male romantic fortunes have been:

  1. Urbanization
  2. Social media and online dating
  3. Female obesity

#1 and #2 increase beta male competition with alpha males (by proxy) which relationally lowers beta SMV, while #3 reduces beta male dating market leverage by shrinking their pool of acceptable prospects.

If we are to solve the crisis of incel soyboys, we have to de-urbanize the shitlibopolises, log off our gadgets while mocking the women and thirsty betas who remain addicted to them, and Make American Women Waifs Again.

  • Age in men tends to be a proxy of social status, where as age in women tends to determine genetic quality. Genetic quality is normally distributed, on a Bell Curve, whereas social status (and the wealth and income that results) is either log-normally or Pareto distributed in a population (What if Bill Gates Were as Tall as His Money?), following the truism that “20% of the men get 80% of the women.” While close to true, what my simulations actually show is that what is really happening is something closer to “20% of the men receive 80% of all female intent.”

He’s made an important distinction here. Intent isn’t fulfillment, but it certainly smooths the path. Formal social regulations and informal cultural regulations have historically been used to stymie the full and free expression of female hypergamy, at least in Eurasian peoples, because there was a gut instinct understanding that it was a bad arrangement to alienate 80% of men in an asexual purgatory and break the bonds of nuclear family formation by permitting women to waste years chasing the 20% of men they desire most. These traditional barricades against free-wheeling hypergamy loosened the link between raw female desire and domesticated female behavior. Women may not have liked it (though there is evidence in happiness surveys over time suggesting otherwise — aka the “tyranny of choice” paradox), but tamping down on their unfiltered and unobstructed hypergamous drive certainly was good for society as a whole.

Over time, the cultural and geographic constraints against hypergamy imprint via sexual and natural selection onto the racial genetic code, so that today Eurasians are more constitutionally comfortable with monogamy than are, say, Africans. But some universal traits still linger, and female hypergamy is one of them, shared by women across the world. This is because the force of sexual selection provided by the evolved hypergamous urge is such a powerful Darwinian mechanism to ensure survival that selection pressures against hypergamy were only able to slightly alter primal Eurasian female sexual proclivities in the direction of monogamy and intersex SMV complementarity.

  • Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.

It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.

In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.

As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.

A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.


Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.

I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:

In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.

In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.

Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.

One obvious outcome of reckless hypergamy in a sexually atomized mate market is delayed marriage and childbearing, and too many years spent in endless dating cycles hopping from cock to cock and job to job, only to surrender at the last with a few remaining years on the ol’ biological clock as a consolation prize for the unlucky also-ran herbling who has to eat the pain of wifing up a woman who historically would qualify as a road-worn spinster whore, a pain amelioration which he typically accomplishes by posturing as a white knight male feminist pretending it was his choice to leap at the flappy labia scraps thrown his way.

The good news, especially for readers of this blog, is that there are many Game techniques devised specifically to leverage female hypergamy to the benefit of men….push-pull, DHV, disqualification, outcome independent mentality, assuming the sale, etc. This is a benefit to the few individual men dedicated to learn Game, and more so to those committed to put it to practice. But runaway female hypergamy is a disaster for the West as a whole, after accounting for the few Machiavellians who can extract pleasures from its dwindling resource of feminine women. Female preference cascades in openly hypergamous societies are accelerating the lockout of beta males from the primest cuts of poon, while also locking out women from motherhood and happiness.

My next few posts will cover this explicitly. The Mating Economy is likely best understood as a series of feedback loops, in which a balance between Regulated Monogamy and Open Hypergamy maximizes the “socioeconomic growth rate” of a Civilization.

I’m looking forward to those posts. (To the author: If they’ve already been published, please link to them in the comments, and I’ll add the links to the post.)

Read Full Post »

Recall the CH maxim “the God of Biomechanics will not be disavowed” while reading this 2017 study which found that men have choosy sperm, subconsciously and autonomically saving their best loads for the hottest babes. From the study:

Although men are (relative to women) indiscriminate in which women they’ll bang, their sperm pick up the discriminating slack, releasing tepid disfigured dribbles for plain janes and explosive jizz missiles for HB10s. The Virgin Cum Bubble vs the Chad Jizz Rip.

Most interestingly, HSMV men produce higher quality sperm loads for attractive women, suggesting that the limbic system somehow knows on a primal level beneath conscious awareness that hotter women deserve better sperm to increase the likelihood of conception, and the id-testes axis of love is able to call up these elite soldier sperms for duty as needed.

Truly remarkable stuff, when you think on it, and one can just imagine the cognitive shutdown that is induced in feministards by lovefacts like this one.

Also noteworthy:

  • women fake orgasms and moan during sex to make their betaboys feel like they are loved (and their alpha toys to feel like they should stick around)
  • fresh pussy is intoxicating to men, from their forebrains all the way to their testicles
  • “men who engage in fewer mate guarding behaviors produce higher quality ejaculates”: betas mate guard, alphas assume the sale. If you catch yourself mate guarding too much, you are probably driving your woman away from you.

If this research reminds you of an older CH post, well, your memory is reliable:

Hotter Women, Better Sex

How your body responds to a woman during sex tells the tale.  The hotter I find the girl, the better the sex is, all else being equal.  Since men remember sex acts with crystal clear clarity, it’s easy for me to recall the exact specifications of my sexual encounters with each woman in my life.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but my jizzbombs were heavier and the distance ejected farther with the prettier girls.  Since this is something I cannot consciously control, it is proof of the innate characteristics of the male sex drive.

SCIENCE has sucked my dong so much I need a lengthy refractory period to give it the quality sperm it begs me for.

“CH, give me your thotkiller sperms!”

“Baby, only the best for you.”

Read Full Post »

¡SCIENCE! says….

sexual polarity for the win!

Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when [the men’s] testosterone levels are high

Many studies have shown that women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness are affected by changes in levels of sex hormones.

Alpha fux, beta bux.

However, no studies have tested for associations between changes in levels of sex hormones and men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness. To investigate this issue, we compared men’s attractiveness judgments of feminized and masculinized women’s and men’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high and test sessions where salivary testosterone was relatively low. Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias.

Soyboys are despised even by other soyboys.

Collectively, these findings suggest that changes in testosterone levels contribute to the strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in women’s faces and complement previous findings showing that testosterone modulates men’s interest in sexual stimuli.

The more masculine the man, the greater his desire for feminine women. The less masculine the man, the greater his tolerance (if not desire) for masculine women.

Note that high T and masculinity are the primary drivers of male libido, so the preferences or tolerations of effeminate men don’t matter all that much to the Darwinian prerogative if low T males can’t get sexually aroused for the manjaws in their midst. The boner doesn’t lie.

Executive Summary: The God of Biomechanics will not be disavowed.

A reader writes,

this [study] helps us understand why more masculine female faces have become the norm in media.

Heh. The Gaystream Media is filled to brimming tears with low T limp-wrists who aren’t bothered by the lack of feminine female colleagues. You couple that with the natural selection effect of obnoxious status striving fields like media whoredom drawing in manjawed careerist shrikes and you get what we have today: Snarky, virtue signaling Fake News brought to you by the sexually amorphic androgynes who have swarmed like insects into media brothels, and who have corrupted the integrity of their occupation with the presence of their own corrupted minds and bodies.

This is why sexually chadmorphic masculine men like Trump trigger them so badly; the fear and loathing of the fancy male feminist and fierce female ballcutter for Trump is reflective of much deeper emotions than those provoked by political disagreement; this bitchback goes to the id and its force multiplier is raw envy and suppressed desire.

Read Full Post »

An eccentric psychosocial study reveals an abiding truth about women and indirectly validates a core Game concept.

Emotional arousal when watching drama increases pain threshold and social bonding

Fiction, whether in the form of storytelling or plays, has a particular attraction for us: we repeatedly return to it and are willing to invest money and time in doing so. Why this is so is an evolutionary enigma that has been surprisingly underexplored. We hypothesize that emotionally arousing drama, in particular, triggers the same neurobiological mechanism (the endorphin system, reflected in increased pain thresholds) that underpins anthropoid primate and human social bonding. We show that, compared to subjects who watch an emotionally neutral film, subjects who watch an emotionally arousing film have increased pain thresholds and an increased sense of group bonding.

Wew cads. Let’s lick our way to the sploogy goodness at the center of this study.

The shared experience of drama increases pain tolerance and bonding among (active or passive) participants.


Drama queens.


Shit tests.

Connecting the dots?

We used an emotionally intense made-for-TV film (Stuart: A Life Backwards; 90 min), based on a real-life personal story [38]. The film portrays the life story of Stuart, a disabled and homeless child abuse survivor, often in harrowing detail, and provides a disturbing insight into how a disabled child could end up being driven to prison, drugs, hopelessness, a life on the streets and eventual suicide. In all, 169 participants (101 females; mean age = 24.8 ± 10.2 years, range 18–72) watched the film in a small theatre environment in groups of varying size (mean 11.3, range 2–49). As a control condition, 68 participants (42 females; mean age = 29.7 ± 12.3 years) watched two documentaries (The Museum of Life, Episode One (BBC, 2010; 60 min) and Landscape Mysteries: In Search of Irish Gold (BBC, 2008; 30 min))

CH and other PUAs have long contended that the female shit test is a form of flirtation that women use to filter out weak defensive men and select for self-confident jerkboys, and as such should be viewed as an opportunity for, rather than an obstacle to, romance.

What this research highlights is the essential need of humans, and particularly of women, for drama as social glue and pain reduction. Women shit test male suitors to CREATE THE DRAMA THEY NEED TO SOCIALLY AND LATER SEXUALLY BOND WITH A MAN, and to reduce the pain of hastily acquiescing their vaginas to a passionate impulse.

The shit test is a dramatic fiction novel written by a woman on-the-fly, to bond her more strongly to you as the mutual seduction plays out to its welcome end. Men who take shit tests personally have a complete misunderstanding of it, thinking it’s a personal attack. When they act butthurt or spiteful in reaction, the bonding spell is broken; the woman has lost her partner in drama. But the man who knows that shit tests are a woman’s invitation to keep telling your story and ramping up her buying temperature with dramatic plot lines, twists, and temporary impasses, is the man who will laugh off her shit tests and amplify them to absurdity. Drama.

Seduction is manipulation, and manipulation is goal-oriented communication. To be complicit in one’s seduction is to know the destination but demand the scenic route. A woman wants the scenic route because that’s where the best stories are made and told.

Read Full Post »

Seduction is the art of persuading women to relinquish their pussies. The better you are at pussy persuasion, the more you’ll get laid and the greater choice you’ll have in quality filly. One important facet of seduction is the ability to tell captivating stories. The skill is so crucial to winning hearts and gines that CH has featured numerous blog posts covering the topic of storytelling.

In news that is sure to inflate my preening beyond my ego’s carrying capacity, a big data research project discovered that storytelling significantly boosts a speaker’s persuasiveness.

From a random sample of 700 audio and video recordings, Quantified researchers reached the following conclusion: Messages that included well-crafted stories were 35 percent more persuasive than the average communication in the QC database. Story-based messages were also 21 percent more memorable.

According to the research, presentations that scored high for storytelling were more likely to drive an audience to change its beliefs or actions. “Storytelling language gives a speech the qualitative elements that help audiences engage with the speaker and recall the key points,” says Sarah Weber, marketing manager for Quantified Communications.

The research finds that the best stories follow a classic narrative arc: Establish a setting, introduce tension through conflict, and then establish a new normal for the characters via the resolution.

You want to be memorable to girls. If you aren’t leaving an impression, you aren’t getting an inquisitive text from her the next day. You also want to drive your audience of HBs to change their beliefs and actions from “coy female diligently assessing all her mate options” to “fuck machine ready to anoint you the Giver of Tingles”. Storytelling is more than an exhibition of your verbal fluidity; it’s a bridge that connects a girl’s holesoul to your polesoul.

Princeton University researcher Uri Hasson told me that our brains are wired for story–literally.

Hasson and his colleagues recorded the brain activity of speakers telling stories. They used fMRI machines to measure blood flow to regions of the brain. Next, they measured the brain activity of the people listening to the stories. The researchers found that the brains of a speaker and his or her listeners “exhibited joint, temporally coupled, response patterns.” Simply put, the listeners’ brains mirrored the speaker’s brain–only when the speaker was telling the listeners a story. The speaker and the listeners were in sync, and story was the glue that brought them together.

Coupling with a girl’s brain is prelude to coupling with her love drain.

The best pickup stories in my experience are the ones I tell to girls that involve exotic locales, ill-fated relationships, and lessons learned. I’m careful to couch the events and players in terms and a tone that plausibly reflects an unwillingness to reveal these deep dark secrets to someone I’m just getting to know. This has the predicted effect of drawing the girl into the conversation and electrifying our rapport. It’s not humblebragging, it’s rumblevajjing. No girl can resist the feeling that she’s extracting some personal anguish or shadowy regret from a reluctant man. Note: intensely engaging storytelling is best left for the Comfort Stage, after you have ZFG’ed and teased her into a hotter buying temperature.

Read Full Post »

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

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

Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction

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

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

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

Submissive wife, happy life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident Looks Piller wolfie wept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dominance is Game and Game is pussy.

And pussy is life everlasting. Amen.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: