Be A “No, Dear” Man

The results from an interesting scientific study which could be fairly interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of the neg shows that men and women cooperate with each other differently, and that this cooperation disparity is based in differing expectations between the sexes. {Greek chorus: *FEMINISTS WEEEEEEEEEPT*}

In summary, women don’t trust beta males well-meaning men who appease them.

While men tend to match their partners’ emotions during mutual cooperation, women may have the opposite response, according to new research.

Cooperation is essential in any successful romantic relationship, but how men and women experience cooperation emotionally may be quite different, according to new research conducted at the University of Arizona.

Feminists are getting ready to weep.

Randall wondered how the act of cooperating, a beneficial relationship process, might impact emotional coordination between partners.

“Cooperation – having the ability to work things out with your partner, while achieving mutually beneficial outcomes – is so important in relationships, and I wondered what kind of emotional connectivity comes from cooperating with your partner?” she said.

What she found in her recent study – published in SAGE’s Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and featured in the journal’s podcast series, Relationship Matters – were surprising gender differences.

She and her colleagues found that during high mutual levels of cooperation with a romantic partner, men typically experience an “inphase” response to their significant other’s emotions. That is, if the woman in the relationship is feeling more positive, the man will feel more positive. If she feels less positive, he will feel less positive.

On the contrary, it seems women experience more of an “antiphase” pattern during high mutual cooperation. If her partner is feeling more positive, she will tend to feel less positive, and vice versa.

Aaaand… torrent of termagant tears!

Take, for example, the following familiar scenario: A woman emerges from a department store fitting room and asks her husband what he thinks of a potential new shirt. He likes it, he says, hoping his time at the mall is nearing an end. So does the woman head straight to the cash register and make the purchase? Probably not. Chances are, her husband’s enthusiasm won’t be enough; she’ll want to try on a few more shirts first.

Social psychology literature on cooperation tells us that women generally tend to cooperate more, while men often try to avoid conflict. Thus, men might be subconsciously syncing their emotions with their partners’ during cooperation in an effort to avoid conflict or reach a speedy resolution, Randall says.

If that’s the case, it’s possible, although Randall’s study didn’t test for it, that women may pick up on the fact that their partner’s agreeability is not entirely authentic. If she suspects he’s not really as positive as he seems, or that he has an ulterior motive, she may become less positive herself in an attempt to get at his real feelings and reach a more mutually satisfying resolution, Randall suggests.

Read the bolded part again. Here are the grounds for interpreting this study as providing evidence for the effectiveness of the game concept known as the neg. If you agree too readily with a woman — if you appease her and supplicate to her and seek her approval — she’ll feel less happy, even less aroused, in your company. She’ll instead attempt to “dramatize” your mutual interaction by becoming a sourpuss and challenging your agreeableness, which in certain contexts (such as bar pick-ups) materializes as the shit test.

Now we have the insight to know why, perhaps, the neg works on women: Because by deliberately adopting a pose of contrariness, of resistance to accommodation, a man can inspire feelings of connection, curiosity and craving in women. Be the jerk, and you’ll be beloved. Be the placater, and you’ll be perpetually pestered for proof of sincerity.

If you’ve ever had to endure a grilling from your girlfriend or wife for your opinion on something she’s wearing, you’ll know the pain of being a “yes, dear” man. The harder you try to smooth the waters, the more tirelessly she churns open sea turbulence. And so, having been in this exasperating situation a few too many times for my taste and sanity, I had discovered a better way, a way now bolstered by ♥SCIENCE♥:

Be a “no, dear” man.

Tell the light of your life, “No, dear, that dress looks bad on you.” “No, dear, those shows don’t make you look good.” No, dear, this look isn’t working for you.”

[GBFM version: “No, dearlzzlol, that thongzz covers the butthosllezx. Don’t make me do all da work when all da men before me got your butholeszzs for free lzlolzzzlolz”]

Betaboys shriek, “But she’ll hate me for saying that!” FEEBS! Have you not learned a single thing reading this blog? Lemme tell you what really happens. She makes an indignant face, looks shell-shocked for a half second, retreats to the dressing room or closet, and returns with a new item to buy or wear, no further questions asked, yerhonner. The “yes, dear” demon infant has been killed in the crib.

Seduction is the art of flirting, and flirting is an artful term for pushing away and pulling toward. All betas know how to do is pull toward, aka “Please like me! You’re the best! Here’s proof of my love!” game. But this is boring to women, and actively repulses them during their one week ovulatory period. Taking the opposite tack is the blinkered douche, who only knows how to push away. This is exciting for women at first, but the novelty wears off quickly.

The right balance is struck between alternately pulling toward and pushing away. As all great seducers know, and as science is now coming around to confirming, the ideal male lover is the man who understands the value of emotionally desyncing with women. He doesn’t distance himself from a woman; rather, he cleverly directs her arousal by undermining feelings of closeness just at the moment she starts to relax and senses that she can predict his desire and behavior, and then drawing her back in when she fears his loss of interest. By alternately undermining and reengaging like this, he subverts the Male Chaser-Female Chasee expectation, and thus flips the normal sex status differential that is the standard operating procedure of an unobstructed and undirected mating market so that, by his manipulations, he is perceived as the more valuable commodity.

From there, female hypergamy finds root and the labia flower like spring lilies in the noon sun.

Prompt punishment for bad behavior, intermittent reward for good behavior, emotional desyncing and resyncing for creating deep feelings of arousal and connection: These are the tools of the modern Casanova in a global mating village where the old rules to curb the primal chaos of female sexuality have long been discarded and forgotten.

PS Here’s Psychology Today‘s analysis of the same study.

Read Full Post »

Aloofness Will Make Women Want Sex More

Readers have been writing to express their gratitude ever since the CH “Dread” post was published, which advised men in loveless relationships to become more aloof and unavailable as a means of reigniting their women’s desire for them.

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you.

The bitterboy haters really swooned with indignation after reading that post, feeling deep in their bones that anything less than flowers and constant supplication was the only way a man should act if he wanted to revive a flagging relationship. Hundreds of testimonials to the contrary would not convince them. Theirs is a Hallmark world, and goddamnit it’s going to stay a Hallmark world.

By why heed your real world experiences and the wisdom of CH when you can wait for CREDENTIALED EXPERTS to give you the go-ahead to try something new and daring with your life?

But the [female] rationale [for wanting sex] I’d like to focus on here is one that’s rarely alluded to in the literature: namely, a woman’s wanting sex–and at times desperately so–out of fear that her partner may be on the verge of leaving her. That is, she may actively pursue her spouse sexually to help deal with powerful feelings of anxiety, stemming from her intuition or knowledge that her relationship is in jeopardy–fragile, teetering, or on the brink of collapse.

The woman’s apprehension about a possible break-up may derive from her partner’s broadly hinting that he wants out of the relationship or, in fact, from his directly informing her of his intentions to move out and file for divorce. Or it’s possible she might suspect that he’s having an affair; or (because of the vast emotional distance separating them) that he’s actually fallen in love with someone else and, on that account, secretly planning to desert her. In a panic about it all–especially if she still feels devoted to him, or there are children involved and she’s frantic to keep the family together at all costs–she may be desperate to initiate sex to feel less helpless, as well as to exert some control over (and hopefully alter) her husband’s errant, non-loving behavior toward her. […]

As a consequence of her distress, or anguish, she’s strongly impelled to prompt a heated sexual encounter whereas previously she may have shown ambivalence, apathy, or even a marked antipathy toward making love with her partner. Withdrawn and quite possibly sexually shut down, in the bedroom she may take on the role of “aggressor”–or, probably a better term, “seductress.” […]

Ironically, the sex that can emerge from the considerable trepidation and anxiety I’ve been describing can be unusually passionate. Though I’ve already characterized such sex as “fear-inspired,” the very intensity of this fear can transform itself into substantially heightened sexual arousal — such that the end result of lovemaking can be electrically charged (what noted sex therapist, David Schnarch, actually refers to as “wall socket sex”!). It’s as though, ironically, the woman’s pronounced fear of abandonment renders her capable of having more abandoned sex than she may have been capable of before.

As we say in the business —  Game. Set. Snatch.

Le Chateau ahead of the curve, again. A little bit of fear and dread will motivate a sexually retreating woman to joyfully spread for the sake of committed love. To put it in even more concise terms: Do the opposite of a beta male.

Dread is essentially a form of the scarcity principle, producing effects in the sexual market similar to the effects seen in the economic market when an in-demand good is in short supply. Not only will calculated doses of dread revitalize relationships, but it will also allow average men to date much hotter women than they would be expected to date by the dunderhead masses.

Maxim #55: A man can shoot way out of his league if he acts as if he is the one occupying the higher league.

Dread, or fear-inspired romance, is not a relationship cure-all. An average man can keep a level-headed hottie on a string for about six months using nothing but anxiety-inducing seduction techniques, but beyond the six month mark fissures will begin to erupt. Women’s hindbrains can fry from too much sustained anxiety, and past that point relationship management with a beautiful woman becomes more difficult, requiring more emotional investment from the man. Accepting this reality, the man will usually opt for gaudy beta displays of commitment, and as if on cue this will cause the hottie to reevaluate her relationship options.

Given the long-term risks of overuse, dread is still the winning move for the average man. Just as five minutes of alpha > five years of beta for women, six months of sex with a hot babe > ten years of sex with a plain jane for men.

The best news is that dread is exceptionally effective as a tool to coax hot sex from a woman if you are within an already established relationship, such as marriage. The trick to keeping the bedsheets stained with poos joos is the subtle application of intermittent dread, which releases your woman’s anxiety just long enough that she swings wildly between cuddly comfort and ravenous restlessness. Sustained dread is better when you’ve started dating a girl, and particularly the types of eye-catching girls who get propositioned on the daily.

Read Full Post »

The Leakiest Links: Science ♥ CH Edition

1. Chateau Heartiste is fond of metaphorically describing the biologically innate and intractable sexual urge as originating from the “hindbrain”, and that the compulsions of the ancient hindbrain motivate nearly all human behavior, and in fact are so fundamental to human nature that the forebrain evolved mostly to rationalize the desires of the hindbrain. From this premise springs another CH concept: the sexual market. The sexual market is the foundational market which anchors the functioning of all other markets. It’s as real and as relevant to your day to day life as is the practical application of the economic supply and demand curve. More real, in fact, because it’s operational even when you’re not engaged in any productive activity. Now SCIENCE has come along to vindicate (this is getting to be a habit) the boorishly reductionist CH worldview, albeit through the medium of rats. A study found that female rats who had their forebrains — the neocortex — removed continued to function sexually.

Humans, like all animals, have no control over their sexual attraction, though they may exert control over the expression of that attraction. The forebrain exists to give the moral stamp of approval to the desires of the hindbrain, and what this study implies more than anything else is that no amount of social or cultural conditioning — the favored explanation of feminist termagants and equalist twats the world over — can alter the id-shaped sexual urges of the hindbrain; not even complete removal of large parts of the higher order brain can alter these primal urges. We are automatons underneath our advanced cortical embroidery.

2. But, wait! The SCIENCE VINDICATES CH stroke-a-thon doesn’t stop there. We have a long record advising men to either refrain from Facebook and other social media-type pick-ups, or to actively work to lower the self-esteems of girls on social media, because there is an exaggerated self-esteem boost that women experience on these websites thanks to the constant fawning of millions of ass-lapping betaboys with no game. Now a recent study has come out which shows that Facebook profiles raise users’ self-esteem and affect behavior. Additionally, self-esteem-boosted Facebook users feel less motivated to perform follow-up tasks. This is perfectly in line with CH game teachings that high self-esteem women (and alpha males) will comport themselves with an attitude of aloofness and entitlement that translates into behavior indicative of “being the chasee” in any heated sociosexual interaction.

3. Deep in the archives rests the seminal post “Defining the Alpha Female“.

Besides hotness, there is one other factor that influences female SMV (Sexual Market Value) rank — the maximum level of commitment she can extract from her best option.  Her personality, charm, sexiness, character, and nurturing ability will make the difference here.  The best option rule is essential – men who are below her first choice offer unwanted commitment while men who are too far above her are guaranteed to put less effort into the relationship.

All women want it all, but only hot babes can turn that desire into reality, and therefore only hot babes regularly behave in ways that suggest they have realistic expectations of getting it all. And what is “all” for women?: The most alpha man they can coax into a long-term monogamous commitment. Now science (there it is again!) comes along to provide ample evidence for the above CH observation (via reader chris):

[T]he findings provide partial support for the main hypotheses that low mate value women would have more pronounced changes in preferences across the menstrual cycle. When the implicit measure was examined, women low in mate value had weaker positive implicit associations with characteristics associated with high quality genetic material when they were in the less fertile part of their cycle and, alternatively, with women higher in mate value this reduction in positive associations during the less fertile part of their cycle did not occur. These results are congruent with the proposition that a mixed mating strategy (pursuing short-term relationships with high genetic quality males while maintaining long-term relationships with a lower genetic quality male) would be most adaptive for low mate value women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources.

Hot (high SMV) women don’t go in for the cuckolding stuff because they are more able than uglier women to get everything they want in a man in one package. Less attractive women can’t, so they must resort to downlow tactics for a deliriously brief shot at non-omega male seed.

4. Study shows that women are attracted to men with “appetitive-aggression”, i.e., a lust for violence. Chicks dig jerks. Did you hear that? Neither did I. The feminists and nancyboys must be tongue-tied.

5. Why do women fall for serial killers? Blame their native wiring.

Consciously, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But there’s something in their native wiring that makes a great many of them susceptible to “bad boys.” Possibly because, as the authors quote Angela Knight as reflecting (in a sentiment that echoes the conclusions of most evolutionary psychologists): “[Their] inner cavewoman knows Doormat Man would become Sabertooth Tiger Lunch in short order” (p .97).

Moreover, in responding to the question as to whether some men, such as “serial killers, violent offenders, and rapists,” might be too dominant for women to accept, Ogas and Gaddam note: “It turns out that killing people is an effective way to elicit the attention of many women: virtually every serial killer, including Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and David Berkowitz, have received love letters from large numbers of female fans” (p. 98). […]

It’s no coincidence that the whole genre of fictional romance is so hypnotically enticing to so many women that—surprise, surprise!—it actually outsells the pornography everywhere out there that’s expressly designed to appeal to the male brain (which, alas, focuses far more on female body parts than anything pertaining to “romance”). Women regularly purchase an astronomical amount of romance fiction (and, more and more, anonymously through the Web). And what this suggests is that while those who fall for serial killers may represent a pathological exaggeration of a female’s erotic mind, many women (at least secretly, or subliminally) can’t help but be drawn toward cold-blooded, controlling, “bad boys” whose dominance symbolizes quite the opposite of what in relationships they’re consciously seeking.

Sounds almost word-for-word what CH has been saying about female sexual nature. The whole article is great, and pretty much takes a steaming dump on the usual female rationalizations for the allure of the killer badboy.

6. Are the lovers of violent men really taken by surprise when they discover the demonic pasttimes of their alpha paramours? Feminists insist they are (what else are they gonna say?), but the facts show otherwise: What predators’ wives really know.

For too long many spouses of child molesters have hidden behind the pretense that they were unaware of the crimes going on in their homes. The myth that these women didn’t know of the depravity which played out under their roofs is just that: a myth. Reality tells a different story. The truth is sickening and may be shocking to some readers whereas other readers may have known this all along.

In my years of profiling violent crimes, I have found that in the majority of cases that I studied, the spouses knew about the child molestation which was carried out by their spouses. They knew because either the offenders told them or they witnessed the abuse! Of course the wives never admitted this once an investigation was opened; however, victims have often stated that the wives of their abusers were present when the attacks took place. As the victims called out for help, it was common for the wives to walk away and shut the door behind them. In other cases, the wives would see their spouses bringing children into their bedrooms but said nothing. Many victims tell their mothers that their fathers are molesting them, and they are not believed.

And how ’bout them female rationalization hamsters? First up, the Pleading Ignorance Hamster:

But never fear. These women are phenomenal at explaining themselves. First and foremost, they are adamant that they didn’t know what was going on. Amazingly, these women who were teachers, physician assistants, and charity fundraisers became stunningly stupid when it came to the sex abuse. Though considered intelligent, these women claim that they couldn’t put two and two together that their husbands were doing something wrong when there was an endless parade of young boys or girls going into the marital bedroom with their spouses.

When that hamster tires, the Poor Me Hamster relieves it:

If for some reason, the wives’ pathetic excuse of ignorance doesn’t fly, the women immediately run for the sympathy card. They can’t be held accountable for the actions of their sick spouses. After all, they have children to raise. What would their children do if they were put into prison? Many are church goers who vehemently apologize that they didn’t do more for the children (translation: I am sorry I got caught).

Some wives will fill their eyes with crocodile tears and cry of their own abuse in childhood. They will claim that they were too mixed up emotionally to step in and help the victims. How could anyone cast a nasty eye at them? They were victims as children, so how could anyone expect them to do anything to help anyone? “Poor me,” they whine.” I was hurt; feel sorry for me! Yes, I knew about the abuse and did nothing, but don’t you dare point a finger at me.” These are their words, and they will even go so far as to say that they were good parents, even if the victim was their own child.

After the Poor Me Hamster exits the stage, the Badboy Forgiveness Hamster swaggers in for the final aria:

For other women, there is a deviant bond which makes them feel close to their spouses. If a molester confesses his secrets to the wife, then she and he share a unique experience. To trust her enough to tell her means that he must love her. And if she loves him how could she turn him in? A type of magical thinking emerges where the females believe that they are in a very special relationship that will all turn out just fine.

There are many other identifiable hamsters, including the Gravy Train Hamster, the Social Stigma Hamster, the Excited Fearfulness Hamster, and the most twisted of them all, the Sexual Deviant Hamster:

Then there are the most sick of these women. These are the ones who not only know about the abuse but get sexual excitement from it. They enjoy it and use it in their sexual fantasies. I know of such cases where the wives had their husbands tell them every raw detail of the abuse as the couple was having sex.

The author (a woman) has a PSA for feminists who are working hard to create a femtopia where female accountability is reduced to zero:

This idea that spousal participation is not important has to change. When there is no price to be paid for their part in the abuse (keeping silent), the behavior will not ever change. Thus this perpetuates the cycle. More scrutiny needs to be placed on spouses of molesters if there is suspicion that they knew. If it can be proven that they knew of the abuse, they should be held accountable.

I have talked to women who knew of their husbands’ actions but did not come forward. It is absolutely sickening to listen to these women. They were some of the most self centered and self serving people I ever met, and they were not sorry. The only sorrow they felt was for themselves. […]

Children deserve better protection, and one can only wonder how many could be spared being raped if only one of these spouses would simply open their mouths and tell the truth.

The problem is that a lot of these women love their psychopathic spouses. Love is the fuel that feeds their rationalizations and excuse-mongering. This sort of thing won’t change unless you could reconstruct the female brain to feel no love for malevolent men.

In related news, women have no trouble at all accusing beta nerds of quasi-rape for telling goofy dongle jokes.

7. “[I]ndividualism is not a consequence of modernization, but rather modernization is a consequence of individualism.” My question: Are highly individualistic peoples more prone to pathological altruism? Or is it just a white thang?

8. It’s their world now. And that means you must take measures to protect yourself. You can start by hiding your online activity from the Hivemind behemoth. It appears that the Firefox browser gets the best reviews from privacy advocates. None of these anonymizing services guarantees your privacy, but they do make it orders of magnitude more difficult for government snoops to identify you. And that can mean the difference between expressing yourself unmolested and a knock on the door at 2AM. Think it ridiculous? That’s what everyone says right before the gun barrel is trained on their heads.

Read Full Post »

Have Guitar, Will Tingle

Once again, science has come around to ♥♥♥♥vindicating♥♥♥♥ folk wisdom and Chateau teachings. This installment of SCIENCE ♥s GAME explores the subtle tricks of perception that mimicking a high social status man can play on women. A recent study found that the mere act of lugging around a guitar case will significantly improve a man’s odds of getting a number close from a woman.

This experiment tested the assumption that music plays a role in sexual selection. Three hundred young women were solicited in the street for their phone number by a young male confederate who held either a guitar case or a sports bag in his hands or had no bag at all. Results showed that holding a guitar case was associated with greater compliance to the request, thus suggesting that musical practice is associated with sexual selection. […]

What happened was that when he wasn’t holding anything he got a number 14% of the time. The sports bag, though, put women off and dropped his average to just 9%.

It was the guitar case that did the trick, bumping up his chances to 31%. Not bad at all considering he was approaching random strangers in the street.

So no matter what you look like, what job you have, how much money you make, or how stylishly you’re dressed, you can arouse more women by demonstrating higher value with an empty guitar case and signaling (falsely, if necessary) that you are a shredder of six strings and snatch.

Female hypergamy don’t give a shit for acceptable signals of male mate value. Female hypergamy don’t give a shit about societally approved male accomplishment. All female hypergamy cares about is that a man *IS* higher status — and thus more socially and psychologically dominant — than herself, regardless of the measurably objective or amorphously subjective nature of that status.

The game lesson here, beside the obvious one — carry a guitar case — should be easily comprehended: adopt the trappings and the behavior of the high status, socially and sexually preselected, dominant male and you, too, will see your romance life improve by 100%. Or better.

Read Full Post »

Science Vindicates Game… Again

A big part of game is the comfort stage, when the man “builds a connection” with the woman. He does this by understanding that the deft use of language — tailoring words for maximum impact on a woman’s psyche and thereby hitting her attraction buttons — is the charisma lube which helps create that magical feeling of “clicking” or “connection” that women so desperately crave in any potential mate.

A man’s looks may be helpful, but a man’s words… now that’s where the real action happens.

And, as if telepathically “connected” to Chateau Heartiste, SCIENCE once again ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ all over GAME. Speed dating couples “click” when men use the right words.

Can you “click” with someone after only four minutes? That’s the question at the heart of new research by Stanford scholars Dan McFarland and Dan Jurafsky that looks at how meaningful bonds are formed. […]

“One of the key features of a community, social network or relationship is the sense that it’s meaningful, that there is some kind of force behind the relationship,” McFarland said. “We wanted to get at what the essence of the connection is, what makes people feel like they bonded.”

McFarland said much of the literature on social bonding points to characteristics – traits, status, attributes, motivation, experiences – as reasons why people connect. But, he said, those explanations ignore or downplay the role of communication. […]

Their analysis of nearly 1,000 dates found that words, indeed, do matter. How the words are delivered, when and for how long make a difference to how people feel toward each other, and in this case, whether the men and women sensed that they “clicked” during their encounter.

The four-minute date, the study found, was enough time to forge a meaningful relationship – something that seemed to go beyond looks and motivation. But female participants reported lower rates of “clicking” than men, suggesting the women are more selective and, in this particular setting, more powerful.

Women are hypergamous and thus more selective. No surprises. Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Men are expendable, women perishable.

What’s interesting about this study, from a game perspective, is that it shows men are considered more attractive by women if they…

– strategically gratify women’s solipsistic nature
– interrupt women, but only to “mirror” them and elicit their values
– refrain from asking a lot of questions (statement-statement-question is the relevant game concept)
– share stories from their lives (embedded DHV spikes)
– and project an alternately engaged and seductive alpha male voice tone quality

The researchers said the longer it took for the individuals to decide on a date, the more they reported having a bonding experience, suggesting communication can change someone’s feelings about another person and break the association with traits.

“Give me five minutes to talk away my ugly face, and I can bed the Queen of France.”
– Voltaire

Reading this study, you may be inclined to conclude that women just like to talk about themselves a lot, and love it when men leverage that female vanity to progress the courtship toward sex. Yes! A lot of romantic “connection” that women feel is so magical and fateful is just the man coolly sitting back and letting the woman yap a little, while he nods occasionally or touches her forearm for synchronicity.

Man: *silent*

Woman: “He understood me so well!”

By the way, if you want to maximize your chances at any speed dating event, be sure to attend one where the women rotate.

Read Full Post »

Scientific Evidence That Men Dig Barely Legal Chicks

We had to search high and low, but we finally found it: good news for feminists and growly cougars!

Via valued commenter Chris (who adds his commentary), scientists have found that men DO NOT prefer maximally fertile women.

Useful facts: Residual Value=0=hitting the wall. [ed: RV means “an individual’s future reproductive potential or total expected reproductive success from the present time forward”.]

Men evolved to find max RV attractive=late adolescents most attractive, not most fertile i.e. not women in early-mid twenties.

New word learned=nulliparous. [ed: it means “never having borne a child”]

On page 116:

“For any given woman, RV is age-dependent. It increases throughout childhood as she successfully passes through a period during which death but not reproduction is possible, reaches a maximum at the beginning of the reproductive period [typically the late teens], and steadily declines thereafter, reaching zero at the onset of menopause. […]

A number of authors have argued that men are attracted to features associated with RV…. In particular, some authors have argued that men are attracted to features associated with women’s age of maximum RV, late adolescence… And indeed, many studies show that sexually attracted features are maximally developed in women at these ages. Women’s breasts, for instance, develop at puberty, reaching adult size by late adolescence. Men are particularly attracted to breasts that are firm, upright, and characterized by relatively reduced nipple pigmentation. These features peak during adolescence and in young, nulliparous women… Women’s waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic indicator of the ratio of gynoid fat distributed throughout the hips and buttocks to android fat around the abdomen. In many modern and traditional populations, men find women’s bodies with relatively low WHRs (around .7)… particularly attractive. WHRs reach minimum values during adolescence and, on average, rise as a function of women’s age and parity…”

Feminists rejoice! The “prime fertile age” trope has been debunked!

Oh, wait.

Hold on a sec. Still reading…

What’s this? Men actually prefer women YOUNGER THAN MAXIMALLY FERTILE?

Men are most attracted to late adolescent girls?

Oh, fuckity fuck douchecanoe douchenozzle. {fistpump retracted} I am a sad feminist hanging onto sanity by a snarky ASCII thread. I shall now retreat to my Jezebel hovel and make up a few more empty-headed neologisms using the words “douche” and “fuckity” to gently escort my battered ego back to the confines of a safe, protective femcunt circle diddle.

What was on first glance thought to be good news is now bad news for feminists and growly cougars:

Men sport the hardest, longest, evolutionarily evidentiary boners for girls in the 15-19 year old range, arbitrary legal demarcations be damned.

Barely legal babes. Sweet sixteens. Captivating coeds. Gloriously gynoid girly girls.

It’s enough to make an aging beauty on the accelerating morph from gynoid to android turn to cats and cookie dough straight from the tube.

To sum up the latest science behind the male lust for sexxxy sirens:

As CH has asserted in the past, and as science has now proven, men are most attracted to women aged 15-25, and the raw physical attraction is strongest for girls between 15 and 20. Men are not most attracted to maximally fertile women (which would correspond to the mid to late 20s for most women); rather, men are most attracted to women with the GREATEST POTENTIAL for reproductive success over a lifetime, aka RV (residual value).

The evolved preference of men is for women at the beginnings of their reproductive lives, so that men may subconsciously exploit for their own genetic gain the full health and reproductive potential of those luminescent late adolescent lasses. A man who impregnates a 19 year old woman glowing gynoidally with untapped tapping promise and has five kids with her over a twenty year reproductive career evolutionarily beats out the man who impregnates a maximally fertile 28 year old woman and has three kids with her over her remaining ten year reproductive career.

Ah, I do love the scorching fires of a powerfully ugly, yet beautiful, truth in the morning.

Read Full Post »

Scientific Evidence That Chicks Dig Aloof Assholes

The tsunami of scientific evidence vindicating core premises of game and the teachings found in Chateau Heartiste archival documents keeps on rolling. The latest study adds to the accumulating weight of evidence that game works, and that women prefer men who are less emotionally available, i.e., insensitive jerks.

[W]omen are less attracted to men who seem too caring on a first date, according to research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

In the study, women were less likely to want to sleep with male acquaintances who expressed concern when they opened up than with men who were less emotionally responsive.

It’s another case of nice guys finishing last. “The ‘too-nice stranger’ may come across as desperate,” says lead study author Gurit Birnbaum, Ph.D., a lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel.

Rather than trying to empathize with a new interest, “just really listen, without interrupting,” says Birnbaum.

Male desperation kills tingles dead.

(Female desperation is largely irrelevant in the context of female attractiveness. Men will want to fuck a hot woman no matter how desperate she seems, and in fact any attractive woman signaling desperation for sex will only stoke the male desire to achieve immediate sexual gratification with her. Ugly desperate women can improve their chances for sex by roping in a man who’s in the middle of a dry spell with the promise of effortless, if unsatisfying, access.)

This study’s results are so self-explanatory that not much more needs to be said. It is total confirmation of one of the most powerful precepts of game: That women love mysterious men who play hard to get, who present themselves as challenges, who don’t give away the store, who don’t “woo”, “chase” or appease, and who don’t assume the role of the emotional tampon.

In other words, be a bit of a jerk. Or a lot of a jerk, as the situation or the type of girl may call for.

Male overconfidence is the heart of game, but plausible deniability is the hot red blood pumped through the veins of a pick-up. Girls like their male sexual intention on a need-to-know basis: Expertly concealed and fully revealed only when the tip has breached and all hope of maintaining an illusion of coyness is lost.

The art of flirting is the progression of an intensifying series of sweet little lies intended to provide plausible deniability cover for a woman as she steers her burning libido through labyrinthine and often misdirecting pathways put into service to maximize her hypergamous rewards and minimize the threat to her reputation and the risk of post-coital abandonment or unworthy insemination. Women love the evasive parries of flirting because flirting is the limbic fuel that feeds their hungry hungry hamsters, and a man who is skilled in the manipulation of women’s desires — a man who keeps it close to the vest and who knows better than to bare his soul like an emoting whore manboob and thus rob women of the joy of slow, anticipatory discovery — is the aloof and charming asshole that women find irresistible.

In related science/game news, a study finds that students think they learn more from an overconfident instructor than from an awkward instructor, even though there is no real difference in amount learned.

The present study explored the effects of lecture fluency on students’ metacognitive awareness and regulation. Participants watched one of two short videos of an instructor explaining a scientific concept. In the fluent video, the instructor stood upright, maintained eye contact, and spoke fluidly without notes. In the disfluent video, the instructor slumped, looked away, and spoke haltingly with notes. After watching the video, participants in Experiment 1 were asked to predict how much of the content they would later be able to recall, and participants in Experiment 2 were given a text-based script of the video to study. Perceived learning was significantly higher for the fluent instructor than for the disfluent instructor (Experiment 1), although study time was not significantly affected by lecture fluency (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the fluent instructor was rated significantly higher than the disfluent instructor on traditional instructor evaluation questions, such as preparedness and effectiveness. However, in both experiments, lecture fluency did not significantly affect the amount of information learned. Thus, students’ perceptions of their own learning and an instructor’s effectiveness appear to be based on lecture fluency and not on actual learning.

Manipulated perceptions FTW. Overconfidence FTW. Gaming your mark FTW. How to win pussy and influence people FTW.

Appearance of competence or seductive prowess matters, and it matters in the biggest way: it increases reproductive fitness.

PS For the haters:

SCIENCE ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ GAME!

aww, does the hater hurt? where’s the boo boo? here? let me fix that… twiiiiiiiiiiiiist

Read Full Post »