The Voluntarily Sexless Marriage

After you read this incredibly Millennial news story, you’ll understand why I titled this post “The Voluntarily Sexless Marriage” instead of “The Voluntarily Celibate Marriage”. Our platonically married couple isn’t celibate at all; they’re just celibate for each other.

The sexless marriage is a timeless rue with an explainable kernel of pedestrian truth to it, but at least it can be said for men trapped in age-independent sexless marriages that their woeful predicament wasn’t contractually inked before the vows were exchanged. Not so for Tiffany Trump’s newlywed friends:

When New York socialites Quentin Esme Brown and Peter Cary Peterson got hitched in Las Vegas over the weekend in front of a small group of friends — including Tiffany Trump, who acted as the flower girl — they knew that people would make some assumptions. Either they were madly in love or drunk, right? In reality, the best friends said they were neither. They’re planning to make theirs a sexless, open marriage, they explained, and this actually sounds like a pretty wise idea to relationship experts.

100% of chaimstream media approved “relationship experts” are charlatans.

“Sexless marriage”. An irretrievably broken, anhedonic society at war with the reality of innate sex differences takes the one redeeming feature of marriage and tosses it away.

A sexless marriage is pointless, but a sexless, OPEN marriage is just plain malicious, because those super progressive, feminist friendly polyamorous arrangements never benefit both parties equally; it’s usually the slutty woman getting her rocks off down the hall as her moans of ecstasy drive her incel “partner” crazy with murder-suicide ideation.

“He has always been my soulmate in every sense of the word

Women and men have competing definitions of “soulmate”. Men tend to emphasize the “mate” part of the term.

and we felt mutually that Vegas was the place to finalize our commitment to partnership,” Brown explained on Instagram. “Peter and I are not romantically involved — in fact we are still dating others and will continue to seek love in all forms — we are just each other’s hearts and wish to begin our journey towards evolution, because the more we face reality, the more we can see that there is no right or wrong.”

Poopytalk. They’re doing the opposite of facing reality; they’re hiding from it under cover of Clown World’s Cloak of Inchoateness. If Tiffany Trump’s friends are indicative of Tiffany’s own views, it’s no wonder Papa Trump practically disowned her.

Susan Pease Gadoua, a licensed therapist

Licensed to bilk.

and co-author of The New “I Do,” has yet to meet anyone else with this kind of marriage, but she says it fits in with the way she sees many people deciding to change the rules to suit their relationship needs.

Dope. People aren’t changing the rules to suit their piques; they’re lowering their expectations and adapting to the encroaching jungle.

“We don’t need to get married for any of the reasons we used to,”

Including but not limited to reasons such as reproduction and generational continuity.

Gadoua tells Yahoo Lifestyle. “Once you’ve got everything else in place, it is like the cherry on top.”

But Brown and Peterson don’t seem to have married for children. So why get married at all?

The question with no answer that won’t sound like a try-hard rationalization.

“We did this because we wanted to finalize our commitment to each other as life partners and best friends,” Peterson wrote on Instagram.

What happened to mutually presumed and unspoken loyalty between friends? If you have to rely on the imprimatur of State authorization to declare your shared friendship, you don’t have anything remotely resembling a friendship. Instead, you have a pose. Two attention whores jockeying for social status within their group of unloveable weirdos.

Brown also put a statement on Instagram, saying, “I am confident my husband and I will break some walls down,” she wrote.

If your official terms of endearment preclude fucking, he’s not your husband.

Husband:

before 1000; Middle English husband(e), Old English hūsbonda master of the house

You haven’t consecrated a house for him to master. You’re two neutered farm animals who happen to be dozing in the same bed of hay and dried manure.

“A lot of these sorts of marriages are in response to society getting increasingly isolated, and people want to create a kinship model. You either have to be married or you have to be blood relatives; otherwise, you can walk away from each other.”

Like I wrote, adaptation to the r-selected jungle.

This kind of union may in fact last longer than a marriage based solely on intense romantic attraction, Gadoua surmises.

Well, sure. Because it isn’t a marriage. It’s a zero-investment masquerade. It’s easy to let a “sexless, open marriage” linger for eternity because the cost of upkeep and dissolution is negligible. No romantic reward, no romantic risk.

The other advantage is that the friends can seek out those romances outside of this relationship. In this way, their setup resembles the kind of polyamorous arrangement that some couples have found to be a better alternative to divorce.

“Some couples” = a few physically and psychologically repulsive losers who can’t hack it in the human sphere where standards still exist.

“Where the complications are going to come in is when people outside their relationship look at it like, ‘I don’t want to get involved in that,’” Gadoua says. “It’s going to make it a little bit more complicated for them to find partners who understand.”

GIRL: hey I’m free for that drink Thursday, but I should tell you I’m married to a great guy, but we never have sex. It’s in our vows.

THE DEVIL’S HARD BARGAIN: fantastic! you sound totally normal. I’m scratching you in now as my third stringer.

Rodman also cautions that this won’t work if one partner isn’t being entirely honest about what he or she wants in this relationship.

“If one person was secretly hoping that this would turn into something romantic or sexual, then that would be quite the disappointment,” she says.

The Voluntarily Sexless Marriage is the next evolution in beta male bait. Watch for hordes of thirsty betas to jump in with both feet hoping a piece of worthless paper has the power to unplug the tingle spigot.

But if we’re to take Brown and Peterson at their word, they’re pretty happy with their decision so far.

“We have one life,” Brown wrote. “Free yourself!”

Combined IQ: 1

Time for a Phys Quiz. The glowing, and strangely tense, lovebirds:

Hm mm mm. So progressive! Tiffany Trump’s friend married her gay bestie. Cameras and Yahoo blog typists are standing by….

PS I was planning to award Peter Peterson both the coveted Beta of the Month and White Male Pussy of the Month titles, but as you can see from the picture above, those titles aren’t applicable.

Read Full Post »

Is Male Hypergamy Real? (No)

Commenter days of game offered the “normie” objection to female hypergamy that I’ve come across from other readers in previous posts on the topic: specifically, both sexes want the best deal they can get in the mate market, so “hypergamy” isn’t limited to one sex.

I don’t understand the manosphere’s interest in “hypergamy.” It’s the most obvious thing… girls are looking for the best opportunity. That’s not girls… that’s everyone.

And then: Eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap. Got it.

So… girls have more bargaining power, and thus… a lot of guys lose (due to low SMV)… and girls hop around (because they can)… as that egg is in demand (until it isn’t).

Why does this need a billion hours of analysis?

This particular research continues the pattern of underwhelm:

A seller with a high-demand product (her pussy), that can find more and more markets (online)… can charge a higher price, and/or burn more potential buyers (for fun or profit).

Econ 101.

When I see guys that get frothy about MUUHHH HYPERGUUHHHMEH… I increasingly read all that as signals of beta reality/paranoia. And a waste of our time as men to go over this again and again.

The cool guy get the girl. Dur.

For a simple concept, a lot of men (and women) dismiss female hypergamy out of hand as having no basis in reality. And that reality is this: There is no equivalent male hypergamy to female hypergamy. “Everyone is looking for the best possible deal” is a trivially true statement which obfuscates the fact that men and women look for mate market deals with differing intensities of commitment and with differing emphases on what constitutes a good deal. These differences are so profound in both a quantitative and qualitative sense that they may as well be representing totally different mate selection strategies (which they are).

I’ll quote myself here on the subject of “male hypergamy”, before illustrating the Fake Comparison of male and female sexual market bargaining using a car dealership analogy,

Some readers would demur that hypergamy isn’t sex-specific, pointing out that men also strive to find the best possible lover they can get.

My rebuttal is two-part: One, men don’t date up based on social, economic, or occupational status. Men, if and when they are able to date up, do so based almost entirely on women’s looks. We’ve all seen or experienced how men trade up when they’ve come into a financial or social status windfall — younger, hotter, tighter women, as the GBFM would put it. So male hypergamy — what is more precisely termed “physiogamy” — is different in kind from female hypergamy.

Second, male physiogamy is also different in degree from female hypergamy. Women are biologically compelled to aim for a man higher in SMV from themselves, and this compulsion is strong enough that many women will accept long bouts of solitude before settling for a man at their own SMV level (usually at the moment when The Wall first looms on the horizon). When men aim higher, they a. don’t aim quite as high as women aim and b. won’t opt out of the sexual or marital market (like women will often do), if they don’t get everything they want in a lover.

Another point of difference between male and female “dating up” limbic algorithms which I alluded to in that quote but didn’t clarify is this: Male SMV is largely contextual and relational. Social, occupational, financial, and prestige status have to be measured against a backdrop of other men all competing along the same metrics that women use to assess male mate worth. Women only have to look young and pretty, which can be accomplished with or without other women to use for comparison purposes.

This has an impact on how each sex dates up. Men will upgrade to a hotter younger babe after they have spent considerable time improving their SMV, either through amassing resources or social/psychosexual capital (Game). Men’s ability to date up is thus limited by the time and energy commitments required to do so. Men respond to this sex-differentiated mate market reality by de-emphasizing dating “up” and settling for dating “as good as possible for right now”.

In contrast, women have to commit relatively little time and energy to improving their SMV, largely because their mate value is set at conception and there isn’t much they can do to improve upon what they were given by their parents. There’s no point working hard to improve that which has only a tiny margin for improvement (unless we’re talking about a fatty who could slim down and gain 5 SMV points). What this means in practice is that women can spend a lot more time and energy “dating up” while their looks are holding up. Their window for primo action is smaller than it is for men, but within that window they have a lot more leeway to entertain suitors and hold out for the best, even if the best is a cad illusion who offers empty promises of commitment (the age-old risk that women take when they hold out for mr right aka mr beta bux and mr alpha fux in one man). Dating up comes more naturally to women because it comes more easily; as long as they aren’t old fat or ugly, women can leverage their looks almost as an afterthought to attract attention from a lot of men, both low and high SMV.

The analogy of female hypergamy is this:

A man goes to a car dealership. He’s a sensible fellow, and just needs a commuter vehicle. He sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. He salivates. He walks over, runs his hand across the finish. Maybe he asks to sit in it and dream, gripping the leather steering wheel. But he knows he can’t afford it, so he quickly focuses his thoughts and leaves fantasyland behind, to browse the boring sedans. He consoles himself with the hope that maybe, someday, he’ll have made it and can return with enough to buy that Corvette. In the meantime, he haggles like a champ with the seller to drive down the price of his sedan and maximize the amenities at his budget. No undercarriage rust protection, thank you! Finally, he signs on the dotted line, and drives off content that he got the best deal he could, and as he’s heading home he thoughtfully itemizes all the good things about his new car. The smell! The climate control! The gas mileage! He’s happy for himself.

A woman goes to a car dealership. She’s a sensible lady (for a lady), and just needs a commuter vehicle. She sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. She salivates. She walks over, runs her hand across the finish, sits in the car, applies lipstick in the rearview mirror, lays across both front seats in a languid pose, asks to take it for a test drive, motors giddily around town for an hour until the seller has to gently chide her to call it a day, returns and labors some more over the Corvette, sighs heavily as a penny drops out of her purse, shuffles over to the boring sedan and gives it a perfunctory once-over, noting with depressing self-encouragement that it gets 35 mpg on the highway. She haggles with the seller for five grueling hours before announcing she needs more time to think on it. (meanwhile, the seller wonders why she’s shit testing him.) On her way out, she stops by the Corvette again, for one last flirtatious hand graze. Over the next six months, she stops by the dealership weekly to cavort with the Corvette, until her current rust bucket dies in an intersection to a thousand honking cars and sheer embarrassment drags her shamed butt back to the dealer to grudgingly trade in her dead clunker for the boring beta sedan. She resents her new car the second she rolls off the lot in it, and abuses it daily with cigarette butts, spilled coffee, and unchanged oil, until she has to repeat the process, except next time with even less money in her pocket, which forces her to browse the sub-compacts. Oh lord, what will her friends think?! They’ll know she settled because she waited too long. Maybe she can get a bike instead and rationalize it as environmental activism. One night, in a horny and desperate mood, she sneaks into the dealership and fucks the Corvette’s stick shift. She slumps spent, in the love puddle she left in the bucket seat, and whimpers softly for a romance that will never be.

***

I hope that clears things up.

Read Full Post »

The Schizophrenic Sh*tlib

Via. (direct link)

Shitlibs are children. Emotionally stunted, psychologically scarred, and physically androgynous, the schizoid shitlib deserves nothing more than dismissive contempt or sadistic trolling (Trump’s specialty). They are best treated the same way a parent would treat a misbehaving brat: with firm paternal discipline and withholding of their allowance.

Shitlibs aren’t really schizoid…not all of them, anyhow. I’m taking artistic license. They’d like to be called schizo, because it would excuse them of any personal responsibility for their elemental dishonesty. What they are is more sinister: unprincipled, disingenuous, double-talking sophists who will say anything, however self-contradictory or hypocritical, if it hurts their enemies.

Why bother reasoning with these emotionally incontinent headcases? They won’t argue in good faith, ever. The winning response to shitlibcanery is mockery and public shaming, until they crawl away to impotently fume with their fellow losers.

Read Full Post »

Niceguys Lose, Nicegirls Win

The topic of this post comes via a 2014 study, so it’s possible it may have been written about already here at the Chateau. Regardless, it’s good enough to write about again and educate the newbs who are always stumbling into this coven of lovin’ and wondering with wide open eyes and whiplashed brains just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Often it is claimed by catastrophically bitter feminist cunts that men love bitches such as themselves as much as women love jerkboys. This is a bluehaired lie. And now ¡SCIENCE! has arrived on the scene to ONCE AGAIN (i will never tire of this) gorge on the CH knob and validate my anti-feminist worldview: men don’t like crazy bitches unless those crazy bitches are sexy and willing to go all the way right away. What men like when they have their choice of vixens are nicegirls. Nice, feminine, natural hair-colored girls.

Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men.

[…]

The study examined burgeoning sexual interest and the participants’ feelings on the possibility of long-term dating with their new “partners,” and how those connected to their perceptions of a personality trait the study calls “responsiveness.”

In the study, responsiveness is defined as a characteristic “that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship.”

Responsiveness, AKA appeasement. To put it a nicer way: approval seeking. To put it a psychotherapeutic way: External validation. To put it a PUA way: outcome dependence.

But it’s not as important of a factor when you first meet someone, according to the study. “Our findings show that this does not necessarily hold true in an initial encounter, because a responsive potential partner may convey opposite meanings to different people,” stated Birnbaum.

Overly responsive suitors can be perceived as manipulative suitors. Have you ever been creeped out by someone trying too hard to please you? That’s your mind-body axis telling you to distrust that person. This is particularly true for women and responsive men, because women have to be more on guard for men who just want to get them in the sack fast, and will tell those women whatever they think they want to hear to win their affection. Men, in contrast, don’t have to guard against responsive women because fast sex is an equally, if not more valuably, prized achievement as a committed relationship.

The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

Nicegirls are more feminine than crazy bitches, and men prefer feminine women. Why would men perceive nicegirls as more feminine? Maybe because those girls aren’t busting their balls for propping up the patriarchy. Also, the default posture of women toward unfamiliar men is one of neutrality bordering on contempt. The responsive nicegirl therefore stands out as a real romantic prospect in a sea of resting bitch faces. And niceness is just more estrogen-y, which looks, sounds, and smells SO MUCH BETTER to men than does the caustic testosterone-y gogrrlism of your typical urban slore.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

You have to attract women before you can have a relationship with women. Jerkboy attitude is necessary if not sufficient to lock down a quality (read: hot) nicebabe. The opposite is true for women: a bitchgirl attitude will make it harder for them to find a quality man.

The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.

Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable.

And yet every couples therapist in the degenerated West advises the opposite: that men should be MORE responsive and attentive to women. How many relationships would be saved, and lonely men and women rescued from romantic failure, if the Chateau was the only couples therapist in the world? I give and give and give, like the humanitarian I am, and yet all I get is grief from the gatekeepers of socially approved discourse. It wounds me deeply!

The third and final study presented in the paper sought to test specifically whether the mechanism by which “responsiveness” motivated individuals to pursue relationships was, in fact, sexual arousal. To do so, they replicated the second study, but added a specific measure of sexual attraction. They then found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal among men. That, in turn led to greater desire for a relationship.

The petaling pussy is always more enticing than the dormant pussy, all else about the pussies equal. Male arousal is primed for action when the pussy is within jizzing distance. (Female arousal is primed for action when the pussy has to close the jizzing distance.)

While the studies shed some light on why men find responsive women more sexually desirable, Birnbaum explains that researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.

“Women may perceive a responsive stranger as less desirable for different reasons,” said Birnbaum in a press release. “Women may perceive this person as inappropriately nice and manipulative (i.e., trying to obtain sexual favors) or eager to please, perhaps even as desperate, and therefore less sexually appealing. Alternatively, women may perceive a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.”

All of the above, but mostly for the reason I’ve described at this blog: responsive niceguys betray a lack of romantic options, and since female desire is holistic rather than primarily visual as it is for men, a man without romantic options is very unsexy to women, who will assume his desperation is evidence of weakness and deficient character. Chicks dig non-responsive jerks because any man who can afford to be a jerk with women must have his pick of the clitter. And every woman wants to be the one who snags the man who can have any woman. Not to mention, a man successful with women will pass on his pussy-smashing genes to her sons (sexy sons hypothesis).

The hierarchy, from most romantically valuable to least romantically valuable:

• Jerkboys (desired by all women, for sex and love, rarely dumped)
• Nicegirls (desired by all men, for missionary sex and love, not as rare as jerkboys)
• Bitterbitches (desired by some men, for kinky sex, if she looks hot)
• Niceguys (desired by no women, except Wall victims, cougars, and fugs. as common as cat dander)

***

Anonymous objects to one implication of this study:

Kind of disingenuous. Nice girls win IF they are attractive. When feminists or women in general complain of men liking crazy women, it’s usually in comparison to average/ugly women. I used to complain of this in high school. I used to say all the guys like the crazy/mental girls. The real issue was they liked them because they were hot. The craziness was just extra.

No doubt the crazy bitches who get a lot of men have to be very hot to compensate for their shitty personalities. But nicegirls win against bitches when matched for looks. I would bet nicegirls even win when they are one SMV point lower in looks. Bitches only “win” when they are significantly hotter and sluttier than their nicegirl competition, but since there are at least as many hot nicegirls as their are hot bitches the point is moot, and we’re back to the original conclusion: nicegirls win, bitches lose.

The one countervailing factor that bitches use to their advantage is sluttiness. Nicegirls don’t do slutty, so they will lose the men just looking for an easy lay. Bitches can compete more effectively against nicegirls by advertising their willingness to fuck without strings attached. This is a potent defensive tactic, and one reason why women are the primary slut shamers in society.

Read Full Post »

Leftism: It’s A Woman Thing

Supporting Lott’s research that found female suffrage immediately shifted American politics to the Left and enlarged the State, a recent study likewise concluded that female enfranchisement accelerated the same Leftward lurch well into the late 20th-early 21st Century, and it continues moving the country to the Left today (tradcon white knights hit hardest). Furthermore, the female compulsion to vote into existence larger and more intrusive government crosses party identification lines.

Regardless of their party identification, women are more supportive of an activist government. https://t.co/57c3C09mPW pic.twitter.com/grGN2w0D8u

— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) December 12, 2017

If America collapses from debt overhang and mass nonWhite colonization, sad to say you can lay the blame primarily on women. The feminization of institutions and decision-making bodies in Western nations will be their undoing.

Thot Patrol isn’t just an edgy meme, it’s a survival tactic.

Read Full Post »

The Permanently Married Woman

The unmarried woman is a temporary and fleeting state of adult womanhood, as noted pithily by Gabber @brutuslaurentius:

There is no such thing as an unmarried woman. She marries a husband, her Johns, or the state. For the well being of civilization it is best she marry a husband.

The Fundamental Premise ensures that a woman will be cared for as long as she has a stash of viable eggs (or the youthful promise of eggs on the way), and the largesse she receives will be out of proportion to her non-reproductive contribution to society. This is because the sexual market is the one market to rule them all. Most societies throughout history have organized themselves around the pampering and coddling of their prime fertility womenfolk, and this natural impulse extends to providing lush safety nets even for old women who have no further reproductive use.

In short, men are expendable, women are perishable. On a societal scale, that means men must strike out on their own without much help from the State, women, or other men, and women must secure the blessings of maximal beta provisioning before they have hit the Wall.

Practically, no woman remains unmarried for long. She’ll get her resources from a husband or husband-substitute, i.e. the State, and this explains why women broadly (heh) vote for bigger government and more welfare…..they’re covering all their bases. But as it is the wont of the solipsistic sex to ignore feedback loops, what women fail to comprehend is that their continual striving to enlarge the scope of the State necessarily restricts the scope of individual beta provider men who must compete with government largesse and wage-gutting foreign colonizers for the hearts of women. As beta males lose their competitive edge, they drop out of the marriage market, forcing more women to hitch their fates to the State. A negative reinforcement cycle is established that ends with the Africanization of Euro-White nations.

Women, a word of advice: you can have Big Daddy State or you can have dependable, devoted provider husbands, but you can’t have both. In time, antagonistic provisioners of female safety and security will come to blows, given that they mutually undermine the ability of each to satisfy women. A big lavish government cheapens the contributions of beta males, lowering their SMV, while a society organized for the benefit of a large, high-earning, beta male middle class reduces the necessity of government intervention to protect women from lifelong penury.

Read Full Post »

The Pussyhat Party

Democrat Mayor of New Brighton, MN, the tubby post-menopausal schoolmarmish Val Johnson, is emblematic of the shitliberal establishment in predominantly White regions of the country. Here she is caught on video having an emotional breakdown ranting about the phantasm of “White privilege” (via):

Female brain gone insane.

This is your political party on estrogen, hot flashes, and dying ovaries. The feminization of the Democreeps means more crazy cat ladies virtue signaling like lunatics about all the browns and blacks they “look after” while haranguing White men about their privilege and misogyny. The mass influx of bitter hags and wrecked sluts into politics has been a disaster for the West, no doubt about it.

What’s more pathetic than this cunt’s psychotic break in the video, if that’s possible, is the collective reaction of the four UGH WHITE MALES sitting there taking hot splooges of this broad’s insanity to their faces. Not one of these “””men””” had the balls to tell this shrike to shut the hell up? You know they were all thinking it. At least, you hope they were thinking it; maybe shitlib White men are so utterly emasculated that this feels like normal to them. They would feel adrift without some rancid cunt shrieking like a banshee about how evil and stupid and entitled they are.

Anti-White feminism is a civilization-wide shit test, and men are failing it, badly. What the country needs more than ever is one man with brass ones to jab a chadfinger in one of these cunt’s porky mugs and tell her off. “There’s no such thing as White privilege you stupid old shrew, and if you keep it up I’m gonna throw you out of a helicopter!”

The Emascunations of the West are feeding the delusions of our worst people, and so naturally we are getting more shitty people behaving even shittier than ever running things into the ground. When the eunuchs guard the cunts, civ death is close at hand. Alexis de Tocqueville warned that America would turn into a country of masculine women and weak men, and that’s exactly what happened. The crazy cat ladies, homos, and ball-less wonders are at the helm, steering the ship of state straight into the litter box.

Read Full Post »