Economic Wisdom Of The Day

Debt and changing demographics are intricately entwined.

Any economist who doesn’t include in his analysis of the causes of exhorbitant debt, stagnation, unemployment and declining happiness the unrelenting force of demographic change is doing his profession, and his readers, a disservice.

Judging by the vanishingly small number of economists who take an honest look at demographics, there appears to be a general tacit consensus among them that their field of discipline is not worth servicing well.

Here’s a related post to help clarify.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week: Fat Chicks And Their Ludicrous Standards

In yesterday’s post, Days of Broken Arrows made the following observation:

“Fatties also have a problem of unreasonable standards. I don’t think I’ve ever met a fat chick who was not convinced that she was still entitled to a 99-point checklist [Ed: 463 bullet point checklist is the term of art] and a man every bit as desirable as what her younger, thinner self would have bagged.”

I’ve been going through online dating Web site profiles and this statement is DEFINITELY true. It’s disturbing and doesn’t bode well for the country that seriously obese women will put out profiles demanding men be a certain height and weight. WTF?

I don’t spend much time at online dating sites, but I’ve seen the same attitude in real life. It’s preposterous, laughable. Fat chicks who pull the “I’m too good for any man” card are engaging in a very transparent example of sour grapes. It’s easy and emotionally cost-free for a fat chick/old chick/ugly chick/single mommy to have standards no man will meet when most men who aren’t losers couldn’t be bothered to meet her standards in the first place. It’s analogous to crowing about being virtuous when there is no temptation to vice.

Anyhow, in response to DoBA, I wrote:

My take on what’s going on: When you have such horribly low Sexual Market Value that most men find you repulsive, it makes a certain amount of self-gratifying sense to carelessly throw realistic expectations out the window and feed (heh) your ego as a dopamine substitute.

And that’s why you see the perverse phenomenon of so many loser chicks flaunting an unrealistic checklist in men when they themselves have little to offer. It’s not about the men; it’s about them. Their egos must be salvaged before their love lives can be rescued.

Remember, too, that once a girl passes a threshold of sexual inactivity (on average, three to six months), she slips more easily into quasi-involuntary celibacy (quasi, because there is always a loser who will dump a five second fuck in a low SMV girl if she’s willing to swallow (heh) her pride) than a man would. Women are built like worker bees in that respect; once acclimated to celibacy and the dull drone of useless paper-pushing office life, they forget the joys sexual abandon. Or, perhaps, rather than forget, they simply don’t experience the same vital urgency to renew sexual relief the way men do. Consequently, it’s easier for a woman in asexual frigidity mode to maintain a facade of high standards that she must know on a subconscious level will never get her sex and commitment, or even a second date, from the men she wants.

And this phenomenon is more acute amongst fat chicks who were once thin. They fondly recall what it was like to be pursued by men, to turn away those who didn’t meet their expectations, and to experience the thrill of men attempting to satisfy their demands, doing it all for the top-notch nookie. But now, as a fatty (or a cougar or a single mom or an acid burn victim), the men they find desirable shun them and, adding insult to injury, the beta males who once lacked the confidence to approach now hit on them with a grating expectation of success.

What’s a put-upon woman to do? Right. Lie to herself. Happy feelings on the cheap. Better yet, surround herself with yenta friends who will abet her self-delusions.

But neither of the quotes above are the comment of the week. That honor belongs to “uh”, who replied to both of us:

There’s not enough neurochemical payoff for a [fat] woman in admitting the truth to herself if the choice is between that and easy self-affirmation. Given that choice, which may be thought of as a false consciousness imposed/reinforced from above (media), and laterally (other women), the woman becomes alienated from true acceptance of herself as a relational being and enters the narrow straits of denial. Neurochemically this almost resembles the pathway of cigarette addiction: cheap self-affirmation gives quick temporary rewards necessitated only by the presence of the toxin — the subnarrative itself.

This is a concise and penetrating explanation of the common female frailty herein known as Absurd Standards Syndrome (ASS). Insulated by the PC media, glam mags, academia, beta suckups and female friends, women have lost touch with their rank relative to other women and are thus finding it easy to slip into a comfortable bubble of self-delusion. Similar to cigarette addiction, the quick dopamine fix — necessitated by the subnarrative, as uh puts it — trumps the harsher acceptance of personal flaws that must be remedied by willpower and self-control (or simply accommodated) to achieve longer term and more fulfilling rewards, or to come to terms in a dignified manner with one’s diminution of mate choice. This subnarrative toxin, an effluvium of pretty lies, perpetuated by feminists, groupthink apparatchiks and fat acceptors alike, is the wicked poison that courses through the sludgy veins of the Western woman, corroding her from the inside out until she is a mere husk of the feminine ideal that once held sway over the hearts of men. Well done, uh.

Men — particularly internet nerds without a hope of meeting a woman in real life — suffer from this syndrome as well, but not nearly to the same degree that it perplexes women. As has been explained before on this blog, the reason ASS afflicts women more than men is because men, as the chosen sex, have to be more in touch with reality to get what they want in the dating market. A deluded man is quickly a celibate man. A woman in her prime, on the other hand, can stand around looking good, ignorant of the rules of mate choice reality, and men will hit on her… until reality rudely turns against her.

Interestingly, uh’s comment has parallels with the denial inherent in economists’ inability to grasp that the drive for relative status is a bigger motivator of human behavior than the urge to maximize utility. (Want to watch a libertardian squirm? Bring up the subject of status jockeying.) Economists, stuck in the narrow straits of the rational actor (their toxic subnarrative), have become alienated from the commonsensical wisdom that humans are relational beings who sometimes do seemingly inexplicable things just to gain status points over a neighbor. Like fat chicks on an ego-assuaging bender, economists in thrall to their theories have forsaken the long hard look at human nature in favor of the quick pleasure fix of aggregate demand and open borders circle jerk pontificating.

The impetus for our economic decisions is not so far removed from the mechanism guiding our mating decisions. Quite the contrary; economics is servant to sexuality — the one market to rule them all.

Solution: people of good (and not so good) intent must strike at the heart of the toxic subnarratives, killing them and salting the neuronal fields in which they grow, unafraid of the certain immune response it will spastically trigger, before the human psyche (and body) can be healed. The way to kill the subnarratives is one this blog has stressed countless times, and which we here happily, some might say sadistically, pursue — The Three Rs of human psychological manipulation:

Reframe.
Reject.
Ridicule.

Progress will be slow at first, but momentum will inevitably build. It only takes 10% of a population holding an unshakable belief to cause that belief to be adopted by the majority of the society. Your goal of spreading better ideas is not as out of reach as you imagine. Alinsky leftists and ideological warriors have known this fact about group dynamics for generations. It’s time for you to know it too.

Read Full Post »

Another Game-Validating Scientific Study: Make Decisions, Get Laid

It’s been said before on this blog that women are turned off by men who don’t take charge, and are particularly contemptuous of men who relegate the decision-making process to them. Women, contrary the bleatings of the feminism lobby, are more sexually attracted to men who remove some of the need for female independence.

Well, chalk up another scientific validation of a CH game concept: Women who make more decisions have less sex.

A new study published in the Journal of Sex reports that the more decisions a woman makes on her own, the less likely she is to have sex.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University arrived at these results after they surveyed women from six African countries about how intimate they were with their partners. They focused specifically on the last time these women had sex “as well as who had the final say on decisions ranging from healthcare to household purchases.” For women who answered that they were in control of such decisions, researchers found they had less sex and more time had passed since their last encounter.

The usual caveats about racial population group differences apply, but the general finding is, in my observation, applicable to women from all racial backgrounds. As women take control of more of the major decisions in a relationship (or in their lives in general), their ardor for their male partners (or for men in general) decreases.

Here’s the money quote:

Not only were these women having less sex, but “the findings showed more dominant and assertive women had approximately 100 times less sex.”

To bring this closer to home, dominant and assertive Western white women probably have higher testosterone levels than normal women, so there is a good chance they are sluttier as well. It may therefore be the case that women who make a lot of decisions sleep around more. But does that necessarily translate into more sex for them than for women who are in more gender polarized, satisfying relationships with dominant men? No. Within relationships of a given matchup, it could very well be the case that less assertive (read: feminine) women have more sex with their dominant male lovers than more assertive women have with their indecisive beta male lovers. Assertive, dominant women — you know the type, lawyercunts to a T — when they aren’t lashing the whip upon the flayed backs of their beta provider suckups, are studiously avoiding having sex with them. These types of women get more emotional satisfaction out of nagging and berating and using their betaboys than they do out of fucking them.

(And what do the betaboys get out of these relationships? Well, they get a woman. Sort of.)

I think we’ve all scratched our heads and wondered why a particular domineering woman with a high-flying career had a schlubby, charmless milquetoast for a boyfriend or husband. You may rest easy as order is restored to the universe, because a lot of these odd pairings hide demented secrets of sexual aridity and pathological nagging. And now science has shed light on the phenomenon with evidence confirming conventional and PUA wisdom that dominating women really do have less sex than their sweetly submissive peers.

As the reader who emailed this study wrote:

“Has science EVER gone the other way on Game? [Ed: No.] Has msm EVER failed to spin even the most egregious bullshit about female psychology into a positive for women? [Ed: No.]

The advice for men: take decisions away from your woman, take the punch out of her dominant streaks, and you will be rewarded with 100 times more sex.”

You got it.

I’ll relate a pleasant little story from my own life. As my propensity in moments of self-amusement tends toward the satisfyingly manipulative, I have dabbled in the perverse arts of anti-game just to witness and enjoy the predictable reaction it induces from a girlfriend. So this one time, in band camp, my girl asked me what we should do for the evening, and instead of my usual tack of offering a couple suggestions (but not more!) and announcing with royal decree which one I would prefer and she should also prefer, (absent any severely allergic disagreement on her part), I hemmed and hawed and diplomatically dodged “I don’t know” and “What do *you* want to do?” and basically foisted the decision-making process entirely onto her. Priceless to the point of caricature, the expression on her face spoke a million words. And none of them flirty or sexual.

There are some primal forces of nature that were never meant to be meddled with.

Read Full Post »

Equality Ruins Sex

Here’s a simple formula:

Economically empowered women + empathetic men = loss of female sex drive.

Who’da thunk it!

Well, apparently not feminists, because the latest slew of research is sure to give them a crusty old vagina hemorrhage.

Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.

And that gender equality, far from liberating women sexually, actually inhibits desire.

This is not news to anyone who reads this blog. This research supports a critical CH maxim:

Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both by the laws of human nature.

When women make as much or more money than men, when they have equally prestigious jobs and an army of assistants, they will find that the pool of sexually desirable men dries up, and the inevitably lowered status men who are available to them are perceived as veritably castrated. Male dating inequality results, where more and more men are deemed unworthy mate prospects while the few men who still wield high status over the majority of women find their prospects enlarged.

A choice quote by a classic lawyercunt from the above article:

Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.

‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.

But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex.

‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says.

‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’

Women are hardwired to prefer submission to a strong man, and the stronger the man, the more abject her surrender. See: Story of O. Women BEG for you to exert your power over them. A woman craves it like you crave stuffing her holes full of love.

Luckily for men in this epoch of economic contraction and anti-male bigotry, game will allow them to bypass the female algorithm to screen for high status men by giving women the SUBMISSION TO POWER that they so desperately need without men having to rely on any societally conventional status metrics. And women will love them for it.

For the haters and doubters who latch onto the whiny cry Fake! every time this rule of game is rubbed in their faces, ask yourself a simple question. Would Amy, the corporate lawyercunt in the story, feel

a. more turned on, or

b. just as turned off as before

if her lower rung lawyer lover started gaming her using the principles espoused on sites like this one?

Rhetorical. We all know the answer to that. She would love every last second of it, and her nag-to-blowjob ratio would quickly reverse.

Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.

Ironically, while feminism has opened the pussy floodgates for alpha males, enabling them to have their fill of noncommittal sex, the uptight little ideology has simultaneously ruined the libidos of women by, in turns, masculinizing women and emasculating men. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature and expect no blowback.

According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.

What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.

Maxim #2: All successful seductions are adversarial in nature.

Even female rats exhibit the same tendencies that human females do: the love of being chased, the anticipatory flirting, the insufferable but charming coyness, the anti-slut defensive posturing, the desire to submit to a dominant male, with ass perched high in the air, undulating in expectation.

When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.

‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.

‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”

‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’

I think we can declare, with this vaj-smash CH post, that on the date of 18-8-2011, feminism died. May the gruesome corpse shortly rot into spinsterly decrepitude and spare us all the spectacle of watching me do the Snoopy happy dance and gloating “I told you so!”

Read Full Post »

Break Rules, Get Laid

When you break rules, you seem more powerful.

When people have power, they act the part. Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.

People with power have a very different experience of the world than people without it. The powerful have fewer rules to follow, and they live in environments of money, knowledge and support. People without power live with threats of punishment and firm limits according to the research team lead by Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam. Because the powerful are freer to break the rules—does breaking the rules seem more powerful?

Good question. If game is a valid concept and an effective means of making oneself more attractive to women by projecting the behavior and mannerisms of higher value, then the answer will be yes. Let’s find out!

People read about a visitor to an office who took a cup of employee coffee without asking or about a bookkeeper that bent accounting rules. The rule breakers were seen as more in control, and powerful compared to people who didn’t steal the coffee, or didn’t break bookkeeping rules.

Acting rudely also leads people to see power. People who saw a video of a man at a sidewalk café put his feet on another chair, drop cigarette ashes on the ground and order a meal brusquely thought the man was more likely to “get to make decisions” and able to “get people to listen to what he says” than the people who saw a video of the same man behaving politely.

Survey saaays… you don’t have to actually be powerful to be perceived as powerful by others. Corollary: You don’t have to actually be servicing a harem of hot babes to be perceived as an attractive man with lots of options on the table. All you need to do is mimic the traits of the powerful and the attractive. This study, despite its modest aims, is a huge endorsement of game.

What happens when people interact with a rule breaker? Van Kleef and colleagues had people come to the lab, and interact with a rule follower and a rule breaker. The rule follower was polite and acted normally, while the rule breaker arrived late, threw down his bag on a table and put up his feet. After the interaction, people thought the rule breaker had more power and was more likely to “get others to do what he wants.”

“Norm violators are perceived as having the capacity to act as they please” write the researchers. Power may be corrupting, but showing the outward signs of corruption makes people think you’re powerful.

Bingo. And showing the outward signs of male desirability makes women think you’re desirable.

Chicks dig power. If you can ape the mannerisms and conversational technique of powerful men, chicks will think you are more powerful than you may objectively be. When chicks think this, they get wet. Some of them even have your baby in secret.

A big part of the mission statement of this blog, this outpost of outrageous sanity, this kingdom of clear thought, is to impart you, the readers, with the knowledge and tools to act in such ways that you maximize your attractiveness to women. This includes improving your body language, voice, and social skills so that you emanate the aura of a powerful man, a state of male being which is universally arousing to women. And now science has come to the fore, zig zagging along its destination, to confirm what we implacable womanizers have known all along — game is the real deal. Call it game, or call it charisma — if you don’t have it, you are handicapping yourself in the dating market.

So the next time you want to impress the ladies with your massively tumescent power, kick your legs up on the table, drop your ashes on the ground, interrupt freely, glance around the room when others are talking, nod up then down, take your time responding to questions, and for god’s sake, stop smiling like a goof.

Read Full Post »

Leave Her Place More Often Than She Leaves Yours

You’ve spent the day with her, come back to her place, had sex, watched a movie and drank some wine. But instead of sleeping over, you decide to go home to chill by yourself for a night. As you head toward her door to leave, she skips over, throws her arms over your shoulders, and kisses you goodbye, whispering ‘i love you’ with the tone of urgent expectation that it would be answered in kind. Her eyes speak with that giveaway limpid twinkle that tells you she was never more enraptured by you than at that very moment, and lurking underneath her joyous exterior is just the tiniest undercurrent of anxiety — sweet sweet anxiety — as she watches you walk away from her.

Yeah, she knows, consciously, that she’ll see you tomorrow, but for know, the act of physically leaving her presence to set off for a homeland 1/4 mile away imbues her subconscious with the same exquisite dread of loss that her distant female ancestors must have felt when their men left in the morning for the hunt on the plains just over the horizon.

Logically, it should make no sense that leaving her place would fill her heart with even stronger longing, and more powerful sexual attraction, when she knows that you live close by and you aren’t going on a dangerous hunt or raiding expedition with your laptop and cellphone. And yet, those ancient feelings bubble to the surface unbidden, caring not for logic or sensibility.

It’s a quite rudimentary act, this leaving your lover’s place so she is standing behind to watch you saunter off; one so devious in its simplicity that most men do it by accident, unaware of the soul-stirring effect it has on women.

When you spend time with a woman at her place, and then leave, you are artificially boosting your status relative to hers. This status boost triggers powerful feelings of lust and love in her. For reasons that harken back to a time shrouded in the mists of our tribal antiquity, a man who parts from his lover rather than waits for his lover to part from him is perceived more attractively to her.

The corollary to this phenomenon is also true, and should give you pause. If she is at your place, and she leaves to go do something by herself, the physical nature of her parting from your abode and you kissing her goodbye reverses the omnipresent status tension that must always exist to foster her desire for you. Do it enough times, and barely comprehended forces emanating from the deepest abyss of her id will push outward, staining her subconscious impression of you as a higher status man, until spite and resentment begin to intrude on once idyllic moments of loving peacefulness.

Therefore, try to make it a habit to part her company more often than she parts yours. A mirror image of Poon Commandment V — follow the golden ratio — applies: for every two times she leaves your place, leave her place three times.

What about those of us who cohabit?, some of you are asking. Well, there are ways to leave a woman without really leaving her, and without leaving for another home. Just imagine you have your own interests, and occasionally adventure calls, and you must heed it, without her. She can’t help but love you when you leave her behind.

Read Full Post »

Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl

Don’t call back right away. Done properly, you will start to hear girls say things like “I didn’t hear back from you. You were making me nervous!”

Never buy better gifts for her than the gifts she buys for you. (Occasionally, you will want to buy her a gift, you cheap fuck.)

Dress better than her on random, uneventful days. “Wow, you look spiffy today. What’s this for?”

Take frequent leaves of absence. Preferably international.

Drag your feet about introducing her to your friends and family. Just keep saying “Someday.” Your delaying tactic will earn bonus points if she has already introduced you to her friends and family.

Never give her spare keys to your place.

Don’t live together. It’s much harder to project mystery living under the same roof, watching each other fold laundry every week. (Not to mention side action will be more difficult to coordinate.)

Subtly acknowledge other girls flirting with you when you are out with her. An eye lock usually does the trick.

Don’t ask questions about her. (“Aren’t you going to ask how my trip went?”) A high value man does not find the lives of others very interesting in comparison to his own.

Get drunk without her.

Cancel dates. (Make the reason seem apparently legitimate, but suspicious.)

Show flashes of anger. She has to know you will never be a doormat.

Occasionally be emotionally distant. She has to think you mull the idea of leaving her.

Muse wistfully about past lovers.

Never take her on dinner dates before you’ve had sex with her.

Never agree to meet her friends before you’ve had sex with her.

Nerver spend more than the price of a few high alcohol content drinks on her before you’ve had sex with her.

Never do her a favor before you’ve had sex with her.

Always try to get her to do you a favor before you’ve had sex with her. (Compliance tests. These are the male version of shit tests.)

Never introduce her to anyone you know before you’ve had sex with her, unless its former hot girlfriends or friends who happen to be hot girls. (Exception: If you have a known player buddy for a friend, make sure she sees you hanging out with him. This way, in the future, every time you mention you are having a beer with him, her hamster will run the wheel off its axel.)

When you receive texts and phone calls in her company, never tell her who they’re from. If she asks, scold her for being a creepy eavesdropper.

Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny. If you must, chuckle under your breath.

Password protect EVERYTHING.

Do not have a Facebook profile. If you do, it is filled with pics of you and an assortment of hot chicks. No exceptions.

On the morning of a first or second date with her, send her this cryptic text message: “Change of plans.” If she responds, do not reply. Give her the gift of fretting all afternoon. Two hours before the scheduled date time, text her again: “Meeting at [bar B] instead of [bar A].” She will breathe a huge sigh of relief. If on the off chance she says she made other plans, don’t reply. The goal of nearly every communicative interaction with women in the early stages of courtship is to keep their hamster spinning as much as possible.

When at her place, eat all her food, leave the seat up, change her TV channels, and torture her cat. Act like it’s your second home.

Do all of the above and you will be able to date women one to three points higher than you could be expected to get by societal standards. Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her. A god among penii.

When she sees you as a god, she is:

– less likely to stray
– more likely to do anal
– less likely to bitch and moan
– more likely to wear lingerie every day of the week
– less likely to dump or divorce you
– more likely to forgive your cheating
– less likely to make demands of you
– more likely to cater to your needs.

Does that sound good to you? Yes? Then get to artificially pumping up your status! Years of sacrifice in academia and the corporate world not needed.

Read Full Post »