Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Self-aggrandizement’ Category

Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)

Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.

I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.

The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.

Recall the infamous CH maxim:

Options = Instability.

A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.

Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.

Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.

Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.

Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).

So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.

In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.

The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.

Vox adds to the debate an idea with which I have a rare disagreement,

It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.

Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.

Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.

*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.

If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.

Read Full Post »

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

  1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
  2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
  3. Sluts are ascendant.
  4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
  5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.

Read Full Post »

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read Full Post »

Cirque du Solei is the most recent entertainment act to boycott North Carolina over a law passed in the state barring mentally ill men in dresses from peeing in front of your daughter in women’s restrooms.

CdS morally preens ans status whores about opposing “discrimination in any form”, (really? discrimination against necrophiliacs too?), but as Breitbart points out, Cirque du Sogay has no plans to cancel its shows in the United Arab Emirates where open homosexuals are put to death.

Cirque du Sashay is one of many examples of shitlib virtue signaling, in which the conspicuous assertion and indulgence of virtuous feeling is more important than virtuous deed. Boycotting a state for an eminently reasonable law to prohibit cross-dressing men from women’s restrooms while continuing to do business in a country that would throw cross-dressing men off buildings to cheering crowds below is as little virtuous as it is greatly hypocritical. Donning a mantle of virtue to impress friends and win plaudits from similarly signaling virtuomos is not the same thing as actual virtue.

There are three psychological motivations compelling shitlib virtue signaling about tranny “””rights””” (this bullet list can be applied to nearly every shitlib cause du jour).

1. Shitlibs don ‘t really believe Arabs (or blacks/mestizos/gypsies/etc) are as evolved, culturally or genetically, as Western Whites, and therefore can’t be expected to adhere to Western morals. Shitlibs are in truth extremely racist and expect more from Whites and less from nonWhites, which is why they punish (as they see it) minor transgressions by BadWhites more severely than major transgressions by NuminousNonwhites.

2. Shitlibs don’t really give a shit about tranny rights, they just want to act self-righteous and gain social status points with their amygdala-stunted SWPL peers. Their virtue, such as it is, is wholly self-aggrandizing in the pursuit of social benefits that will redound to their (awkwardly androgynous) reproductive fitness.

3. Shitlibs are one group of Whites that hate another group of Whites, and their moral causes are merely weaponized rhetoric to lower the social standing of the enemy Whites best situated to be the group that ousts shitlibs from power. Virtue signaling thus accomplishes two fitness-maximizing tasks for the shitlib: raising their own social status and lowering the social status of their most immediate and capable competitors: nonshitlib Whites and shitlib Whites who may grow a pair and stray off the reservation (taking many others with them to foment revolution against the reigning shitlib order). In this motivation, virtue signaling can as reasonably be called ‘virtue warning’.

As the scope of the battles in which shitlibs can morally posture shrinks, the ridiculousness of their causes approaches lunacy. We are reaching the logical end-game of shitlibbery, and it’s nothing less than wholesale normalization of mental illness. One can only guess what’s next on the shitlib plate, but advocacy for “benign” forms of pedophilia and bestiality are certainly a possibility.

Read Full Post »

The Iron Grail – losing fat, gaining muscle, doing it quickly – is here. It’s not a gimmick, it’s not easy, but it will work for everyone. (Via)

The program:

Cut calories by 40%.

Eat more protein.

Lift weights and do High Intensity Training like wind sprints.

There ya go. At the end of four weeks, subjects following this protocol gained an average two pounds of muscle and lost an average ten pounds of fat.

The hardest part for most people will be the drastic cut in total calories (most of which will come from carbs and a little less so from fat). Calorie restriction is notoriously hard to adhere to over the long term. But fortunately there’s a way to achieve the benefits of calorie restriction without cutting calories. Intermittent fasting – eating the same amount of daily calories during a shorter window of time – can readily substitute for the 40% calorie reduction in the study program above. Mangan explains it well.

You want to look like an Iron Pill-chugging Shredded Shitlord, esq., whose strength of body advertises his strength of mind? Now you know what to do. No more excuses.

Read Full Post »

Charles Darwin – yes, that guy – once drew up a pro and con list for getting married. His list is reprinted here, in readable format.

darwinmarrynot

The standard Chateau view of marriage is that it is a raw deal for individual American men, as currently constituted, (it wasn’t always thus). However, there are good reasons for monogamous, heterosexual marriage to continue as a cultural norm and societal buttress. Ol’ Charlie hit on a number of the pros. It’s really not a good idea to have children outside of marriage, particularly over the long term (single mommyhood erodes civilizational capital). Over the short term, it’s still a bad idea unless you belong to one of the few human races in the world (think: Swedes) who can handle having children within an unmarried, cohabitational context. (The verdict is out on how sustainable the Swedish method is, considering how quickly their evolved suite of mental characteristics compels them to hand their country over to the kebab crush.)

fr tho, Darwin’s other marriage pros could nearly as easily be gotten with a live-in long-term girlfriend, but to give him credit that was most certainly not the case back in his day. Also, 😆 at “Better than a dog, anyhow”.

A lot of Darwin’s marriage cons are inarguable; men must betray their masculine urge to wander and explore once they are hitched to home and wife. Most men aren’t keen about keeping themselves in good graces with relatives; women have much more affinity for nurturing family ties. It is absolutely true that wives, and to a lesser extent husbands, get fat and lazy after marriage. A wife and family are a responsibility that will cut into a man’s free time, (many men are ok with trading in their free time for the comforts of domestication). Less money? Sure. (Don’t be fooled by the lure of a double income. Wives – and long-time cohabitating girlfriends – will just spend twice as fast and twice as much what they spent when they were single.)

Darwin was very concerned about an increase in his “anxiety” from marriage, as he wrote it twice. Potential marital money problems vexed him, too. The provider beta was a real catch in Darwin’s day that isn’t as true today. Women didn’t HATE HATE HATE betas back then with the same bubbling spite. But the ability of a provider beta in the Darwin era to leverage his provisioning skill for prime poon meant that he couldn’t slack off and give his date a bag of Skittles for her birthday, and recline smugly knowing a blowjob was coming his way regardless. Jerkboy Game in Darwin’s time probably had more limited appeal to women than it does today.

Read Full Post »

FB (Former Beta) has a nice personal story about his journey to Game (Learned Charisma),

Having started from an Omega level to now being a former Beta (I won’t call myself Alpha yet, but getting there), I completely agree with this Heartiste post.

(This blog is a great blessing to a lot of us. I started reading in 2008 or so…I posted for the first time this year, after having lost 100 lbs and an ugly wife since 2008).

Alpha: awareness with self forgetfulness. Lack of guilt, ease in all situations, fundamentally: lack of fear.

Both women and men respond positively to the Alpha.

The positive male response yields career success for the Alpha.

The positive female response to the Alpha yields romantic/sexual success with the ladies.

Realistically: you can control your approach to life, one moment at a time, one interaction at a time.

At 48: I am living exceedingly well. A lot of gratitude to Heartiste for opening my eyes to female nature and female needs.

Big props to CH!

Props received and converted into bitcoin.

The take-home point is this:

***

Both women and men respond positively to the Alpha.

The positive male response yields career success for the Alpha.

The positive female response to the Alpha yields romantic/sexual success with the ladies.

***

Tradcon ignoramuses who nurse a prude’s kneejerk resentment of Game and Chateau principles of seduction have never bothered to consider their wider applications. (A few are considering them now, thanks to The Trumpening’s YUGE demolition of cuckservatism, inc. Trump is a walking advertisement for the power of Game over foes and friends alike.)

The fundamental concepts of Game…

  • outcome independence
  • ZFG
  • state control
  • amused mastery
  • qualification/disqualification
  • compliance hoops
  • assuming the sale
  • reframing
  • bustamove
  • and more utilitarian tactics like time constraints, negs, kino escalation, and agree&amplify

…are as useful to climbing the career ladder as they are to cavorting in the dating market.

EVERYTHING TIES TOGETHER. Just as lies travel with ugliness, and truth with beauty, so too is Game a companion to masculinity, providing endless lifelong benefits to men in all avenues of pursuit.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: