Comment Of The Week

Throbbing Gristle describes what he’d do to Jessica Valenti, Slut Apologist:

Can I be the first to admit I would give quite a lot to grudge-fuck Valenti. She’s crying out to be ballgagged, trussed and put to the mighty Frothomir. Again and again and again. Then booted out on the street with but a tattered rag to cover her shame.

Consensually, of course.

Doubleplusvenality if her husband sits in a corner watching the debauchment and quietly sobbing as he pokes glumly at his limp noodle with a crabbed finger.

Read Full Post »

The Limits On Hypergamy

Via Randall Parker, here is a study of birds showing that less attractive female birds choose equally unattractive mates.

Less-pretty female house sparrows tend to lower their aim when selecting a mate. Addressing the lack of studies on condition-dependency of female mate choice, researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology found that female sparrows of a low quality prefer males of an equally low quality.

Researchers from the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology in Vienna studied sexual selection preferences in the common house sparrow. Though it has always been assumed that females will want to choose the best possible mate, in terms of reproductive and genetic fitness, Matteo Griggio and Herbert Hoi have found that, in fact, unattractive females dare not dream of mating with males who are considered out of their league. […]

“Actually, we found that overall, female sparrows don’t have a preference for badge size in males”, Griggio explains, “but we did find that less attractive females – those with a low weight and poor condition – have a clear preference for less attractive males with smaller or average-sized badges”. Rather than not find a partner, unattractive females will simply settle for an unattractive male.

Griggio continues: “There is some good news for the plainer females though – while they may be forced to settle for less dominant males with small chest badges, these males have been shown to invest more time in parental care than their good-looking counterparts.”

We here at the Chateau write a lot about female hypergamy, as it is a powerful motivating force in shaping the dating market and, ultimately, influencing your own success or failure with the opposite sex. Female hypergamy gets short shrift in studies and in popular culture because it is one of the uglier truths about women’s natures. Since gender is one of the four pillars of protected PC classes holding up the high church of leftist blank slate theology — right behind race but trumping homosexuality and any-religion-that-isn’t-Christianity — it makes sense that our commissars of media agitprop would work hard to avoid having to touch the subject of female hypergamy.

But we touch it here! And grope and fondle it lasciviously. That’s why it’s worth mentioning that even hypergamy must occasionally bow to the restrictions imposed on free market choice by female mate value. Although the above study is of birds, some parallels can be drawn to human behavior; parallels which are corroborated by real life experience. Women may loathe the idea of settling, but many of them do, as you can readily see by walking out your door and noticing all the ugly ass couples canoodling like they really enjoy the prospect of fornicating with each other.

Like the female house sparrow, less attractive women may deliberately avoid dating higher quality men in favor of beta males for a number of reasons:

1. Less attractive women sacrifice too much to keep an alpha male around. There are plenty of couples where a much better looking man invested absolutely nothing into a skewed relationship and got all the sex he wanted in return. This might be fun for the plain jane for a while, but I’m sure the thrill wears off after a few months, (or years, if she’s truly deluded about her own value).
2. Less attractive women figure they don’t have a shot, and so don’t bother flirting with alpha males. Call it the Sour Grapes Syndrome; a homely chick insists she prefers niceguys or nerds to the exclusion of those “meathead jocks” or “douchebags”, but in reality she is simply rationalizing her limited options. Sour Grapes Syndrome explains why ugly chicks don’t commit suicide en masse.
3. Less attractive women have to make a trade off that more attractive women don’t. A hot babe can land *and* keep an alpha male around to help her raise her young, but a homely chick has to decide between a one night stand with a horny alpha who will be embarrassed by his slumming the next morning and a relationship with a beta who will lavish more caring attentiveness on her and any brood she may have with him.
4. Less attractive women like to feel they are better looking than what their partner normally gets. This is a power law of mating dynamics. We all want to leverage our power in the dating market to the hilt, and a relationship where there is a big imbalance in power sharing is inherently unstable. Homely chicks know, either through experience or instinct, that dating alpha males results in a huge power differential that will almost always result in a breakup with her in tears. So she avoids dating alphas when it’s time to get serious about landing a committed man. Homelier women are smart to do this; studies have shown that the strongest relationships are ones where the woman is better looking than her partner. When a women feels pretty in the context of the man she is with, she will be happier… as long as the man keeps up his end of the bargain by having higher social status and/or game.

Note that none of the above reasons should imply that female hypergamy is rendered null and void for unattractive women. Human females are a little more complicated than house sparrows. In real life what we see are homely girls giving hypergamy the ol’ college try until their options, and their ability to stoically endure continual pump and dumps, are exhausted. This often plays out in practice with the widely observed phenomenon of urbanized 4s, 5s, and 6s suffering a series of humiliating short term flings with men well above their level during their 20s, followed by a grudging acceptance of the utility of settling for the boring beta male in their later 20s and 30s.

Seduction artists who like to dumpster dive (and really, you should probably turn in your PUA card if you prefer taking the easy road to low quality pussy) should continue treating the playing field as if female hypergamy was in full effect all the time, because most homely chicks — even the married ones — can’t resist getting used like a disembodied hole by a superior man.

Read Full Post »

What Should She Do?

A reader sent the Chateau the following email with no explicit instructions to withhold releasing for readership consumption the photos she attached. As per Chateau rules (Sec. 8, para. 14), if you don’t want your advice-seeking email correspondence or accompanying pics posted to the blog, say so. Otherwise, it will be assumed you are OK with it.

Hi Chateau,

I have been reading your blog and although I’m not a fan of some of the misogyny some of the guys that comment spew, I respect overall that you have a pretty good handle on the dating game. I saw the post & advice you gave that one girl who posted. I’m wondering if you would give me your honest opinion on how well I can do in NYC dating based on my attractiveness & other stats? I just moved here from California & it’s a jungle out here 🙂

Background on me: I just turned 25, am 5’6, around 125 pounds (attached photos). 0.7 hip to waist ratio, D breasts (they’re real).

Other statistics: went to Stanford, used to work in finance but quit that when it started changing my personality into a man’s, am now a writer / marketer. I can be funny, I have good manners & etiquette, I’m usually very positive and nice, and guys I’ve dated have said I’m fun to be around / very low drama/maintenence. Although I can be opinionated & want to be respected, I definitely voice those opinions in a respectful way. I can also cook decently well & I like sex a lot.

Money is important to me since I want to be a stay at home mom eventually (or at least have the option) and I never want to worry about money, and I’m wondering if I can do better than the guy I’m currently dating who wants an exclusive relationship with me. As I know my prime is now, and my options will only decrease with time, I’m wondering if you can give me an honest opinion of whether I should stay with him or start taking other offers more seriously? My friends don’t like this guy because he gives people shit sometimes / doesn’t care about being polite & so they’re saying I can do better, but they always say that. I like him, and I want your opinion. I have recently had the CTO of [major bank] ask to date me, and various other high earning finance guys. I just want to know what my chances are of actually landing a guy like these instead of being dicked around, or if I should even be concerned with it since I am really enjoying the guy I have now who I think is on the way up and I’m definitely unsure I’ll be able to match the level of chemistry and compatibility? I am wary of dating in NY because I’ve heard how brutal it can be, and I remain pretty much unscathed so far. I’d really hate to lose my optimism by getting abused by some douchebag who was never that into me anyway.

There’s nothing wrong with us, we get along really well for the most party. [Editor: A most excellent Freudian slip.] He’s a beta, 27, learned a lot of this pickup stuff and is dominant, which is great. Also can be cooperative & talk about psychology / relationships with me, which is so fascinating. He comes from a poor background in eastern europe, just started working for a hedge fund (seems to be good at it, the youngest guy there by 20 years) & sends money back home (admirable but a possible detriment in the future if they need to be continually supported). Very focused & interesting. Negatives are that he can be manipulative & critical, and doesn’t socially dominate / lead like some guys I know (was very uncomfortable in one large party situation where he didn’t know anyone & I knew some guy friends from school). Although he’s not the largest guy (5’10), he could probably hold his own in a fight (have heard stories about his rough upbringing).

Anyway, your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry the email is really long, I’m not a concise person 🙂

L.

She wants to know whether to stay with her doting, all-around niceguy boyfriend or to dump him to take one more stab at trading up in the hothouse dating market of Manhattan.

(rubbing hands)

She’s come to the right place!

Reading between the lines what we have here is a girl who likes, perhaps loves, her boyfriend, but has recently been propositioned for a date by a higher status man (the CTO of [major bank]). Her sexual market options suddenly thrown into stark relief, her hypergamous instinct is kicking in and she is contemplating, via the sounding board provided by the residents of the stately countryside Chateau, whether her boyfriend is really all that she thinks he is, and whether her ego isn’t as big as it deserves to be.

Gentlemen, behold the awesome power of female hypergamy. You can be the best boyfriend in the world, (and judging by her description of him, he sounds like a stand-up guy with plenty of positive traits), but if a higher ranking man comes along and shows some interest in your girlfriend (or wife!), you can bet your last penny she will be unable to resist pondering the opportunity to trade up and the concomitant reevaluation of her own market worth that goes along with attention from higher status suitors.

Women, of course, will cheer this as an example of female empowerment and being honest with oneself and yada yada down with the patriarchy yada, but imagine a man doing the same to his loyal girlfriend when a hotter, younger, tighter babe flirts with him. Those same women would be screaming like banshees from the rooftops.

It is the nature of the beast when the sexes have opposing reproductive goals.

But enough highlighting the underlying mechanism. Let’s examine this woman’s situation in point by point detail to determine whether it is in her interest to risk a breakup with Beta Lover for a shot at Mr. Big.

The Chateau keepers have reviewed the facts and rendered their judgment.

She is:

A 5.5. Maybe a 6 on a good day. She is not especially cute, but not invisibly plain either.

Her youth is her strongest asset. 25 years old gives her three to five years to complete her marriage quest according to the demands she has set for herself. Much depends on how well she ages. Her swarthy ancestry (Puerto Rican? Half black? Lebanese?) suggests she will stave off wrinkles for a longer time than the average white chick.

Her body is good. The numbers she has given put her at 20.1 BMI, which is right smack in the center of body weight desirability. But the photo she supplied makes her body look chubbier than would be expected with that low BMI. There is some tentative agreement among the hosts that she could stand to lose ten pounds.

Her breasts are magnificent funbags. But watch out! D cups are mesmerizing in their prime, but their prime is short-lived, surrendering rather quickly and ignominiously to National Geographic style sag.

The tone of her email gives the impression of a pleasant personality, but the content tells otherwise. She might qualify as a genuine golddigger. Golddiggers are one step below whores, because at least whores have the integrity to follow through on their end of the deal.

Look at the waist-hip ratio. She is the submissive type who needs a dominant man to make her feel like a woman.

She had a U-shaped smile. Untrustworthy.

Stanford? Irrelevant.

Writer/marketer? Irrelevant.

Good manners and etiquette? Meh. Girls who know where to place the salad fork have a detailed mental schematic for how to get them off in bed. Woe be the man who deviates from the script. Also, “good manners” reeks of try-hard, as if she is compensating for a poorly mannered cultural background.

Positive and nice? Your boyfriend might think differently if he reads this.

Opinionated? Translation: Loudmouthed nag.

Cooks well? Bonus.

Likes sex? Double plus bonus. But not much of a selling point in this raunchy day and age.

Her current boyfriend is:

A greater beta. He sounds like a higher ranking man than she is giving him credit for.

27 years old. So much for closeness of age being an important factor.

“Gives people shit sometimes / doesn’t care about being polite”: This is a trait of a greater beta, lesser alpha. Regular old betas do not give people shit. Instead, they take shit.

“On the way up”: Greater beta. At least.

“Level of chemistry and compatibility”: This guy sounds too good for her. If I were him I’d tell him to let her go get pump and dumped by the (likely married) CTO. When she comes crawling back, he can have his new, hotter girlfriend see her to the door.

“Learned a lot of this pickup stuff and is dominant”: Not seeing the problem with this guy? Oh, that’s right. He’s not a CTO. Manhattan, isle of twue wuv!

“Also can be cooperative & talk about psychology / relationships with me, which is so fascinating”: She is talking herself into staying with him. The hamster is really running the shit out of his little legs in this email.

Poor East Europe background? Irrelevant. Possible net positive, if he has brought over to America some of his cultural learnings for benefit of good wifely obedience.

Hedge fund work? Slimy, but alpha.

Sends money back home? As much as women say they admire generous family men, their self-interest pushes them into the arms of selfish men who give all their money only to wifey and the kids to the exclusion of her in-laws.

Manipulative and critical? Again, this is a characteristic of greater betas and alphas, not run of the mill betas. A beta always attempts to assuage his woman when she is upset. Stronger, more dominant men take a different tact.

Doesn’t always socially dominate/lead like other men she knows? This is beta, true. But it also shows how a woman’s perception of her lover is so heavily skewed by the behavior of other men in her social circle. If you are a beta, you’d do best to date a girl who is not often in the company of alphas.

5’10”? Neutral to slight negative.

******

The Chateau has rendered its judgment:

You are a fucking handful. You ask for advice, and yet every other sentence is a self-pleading justification for staying with your current boyfriend.

So stay with the man. But don’t be surprised if, in a few years time when his status goes up as yours is going down, he decides to dump your demanding 463 bullet-point checklist ass for a hotter chick.

Quite simply, in New York, you don’t have the looks to compete for the alphas as anything more than a convenient wet hole to be discarded unceremoniously when girlfriends #3 and #4 call.

Having delivered that harsh judgment, the Chateau does understand where you are coming from, and your feelings in the matter. A higher status CTO wants to fuck you. This makes you feel good about yourself, and you wonder if maybe, just maybe, this alpha will be the one who marries you and gives you the life of the princess stay at home mommy you’ve always dreamed of. There is room in the world for such arrangements. But based on your looks, it is more likely that you will begin dating the CTO only to either

a. find out he is married, or

b. get dumped after a three month fling.

What you didn’t tell us was a description of the looks of the CTO. If he is particularly ugly or nebbishy then there is a chance that dumping your loyal boyfriend to date him would work out for you. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of couples featuring hot chicks dating physically unimpressive but rich herbs in our glorious cities.

But the bottom line is this: You answered your own question.

If you were truly tempted to stray with the CTO or any other high flying finance guy, you would have done it without emailing the Chateau beforehand for the imaginary green light. That you have done this instead tells us that you find yourself falling in love with your good-hearted but sometimes awkward boyfriend, and it scares you.

It scares you because love means a cutting off of options. But that is a risk worth taking. Before it’s too late.

Read Full Post »

These Boots Were Made For Divorcing

“We looked!
Then we saw it
step in on the mat!
We looked!
And we saw it!
The Marriage Trap!”

“I know it is costly
And the sex is not sexy.
But we can have
A dog and one kid
that is trendy!”

“Buy the ring!
Buy the ring!
Buy the ring NOW!
It is work to get married
But you have
to know how.”

“’Have no fear, single man,’
Said the Marriage Trap.
‘Marital Things are
good Things.’
I can promise you that.”

“Then our lawyer came in
And he said to us two,
‘Did you have any fun?
Tell me. What did
you do?”

And Wifey and I
did not say
the same things.
You see she was bored
and wanted away.”

“My fortune in limbo,
my stocks in a lock,
I sat silent and fearful
in a state of shock!
Well…what would YOU do
If your lawyer asked you?”

Chalk this up to the latest sign that marriage — versions 1.0, 2.0, and coming to a theater near you, 3.0 — is a raw deal for men and an institution on the precipice of falling cliffside into a shattered heap of anachronistic uselessness. Wives are now leaving perfectly good marriages and their sacrificial beta provider husbands because they are bored. Naturally, they will be leaving with their husbands’ hard-earned cash to fund their adventures in swarthy saguaro hunting. Welcome to the Eat, Pray, Self-Love era of the Fall of America. Next stop: hyperinflation.

A lot of midlife women in my acquaintance are leaving what appear to be perfectly good and loving husbands. Or thinking about it. Or cheating on them. Or wanting to. Or staying married and faithful but buying their own houses, which they either live in or keep as a bolt hole. […]

In a 2004 AARP survey of divorced people 40 and older, 66 percent of wives said they had requested the divorce, and 26 percent had surprised their husbands, often after planning for years. Women were especially likely to have no regrets, and 43 percent did not want to remarry. In another national study that year, ex-wives were three times more likely to say that they wanted the divorce, rather than their husbands wanting it. Fewer than 40 percent of marriages of more than 15 years were rated as successful by respondents.

A multitude of factors likely contributes to the urge to spousally purge of the modern American wife. The Chateau has discussed the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse before as triggers or exacerbating conditions for the rising divorce, single momhood, and infidelity rates that will herald the denouement of the Grand American Epoch, and now we can throw in a couple more factors —

The death of shame and the glorification of status.

We now exalt that which we used to shame into invisibility. Pathetic single moms are paraded as exemplars of tough-as-nails fortitude and moral virtue. Infidelity is de rigueur, an exciting life transition that self-actualized women find empowering. And of course, taking your husband for all he’s worth in divorce, regardless of marital fault, is practically its own sacrament — the Sacrament of Separation Theft.

And then there is the compelling allure of status jockeying. When women are surrounded by lots of other women cheating on, divorcing, or leaving their dutiful husbands, they feel an odd predilection to ape the group dynamic. Women are herd animals, and will do what they see is trendy in the group. A bunch of well-heeled upper middle class ladies on the block had affairs, including Susie with the best landscaping in the neighborhood? Clearly the heretofore faithful wife thinks she is missing out on something. The stampede of the herd fills her with anxiety, morphing into unhappiness. She plots and connives; her heart bursts with excitement at the taboo! The outsized role of status seeking in shaping women’s choices may help explain why Western populations — excluding the peasant immigrant hordes rapidly displacing us — are demographically imploding: when half the properly educated and economically independent women you know have zero kids, you impart higher status on that childlessness, and then you will seek to mimic the behavior of your admired peers.

One Texas friend’s 40-something daughter is divorcing her husband. His son’s wife had an affair and they’re also divorcing. In another family, an uncle and nephew are both being divorced by their wives. These women had once been renowned for their utter, perhaps excessive devotion to family. The men are both handsome, kind, good fathers. Great catches. Both women have new boyfriends, while the men are still too broken-hearted to date again.

Great catch != gina tingle. It’s been said here many times, often to the guffaws of the haters and disbelievers:

You want to save marriage? Learn game. What are the odds that these “great catches” the wives are unceremoniously divorcing are betas to the bone? The answer is in the last sentence.

“while the men are still too broken-hearted to date again.”

Readers, these wives did not marry “great catches”. They married pushover herblings with steady jobs. Any man with a lick of game and an alpha attitude would not be broken-hearted for long after a divorce, even a surprise divorce that caught him off-guard. He would be lining up dates while the ink on the papers was still drying. Better yet, he would’ve skipped out on marriage entirely and enjoyed the fruits of the female sex free of charge.

Now being a provider herbling might’ve been adequate in 1950, but that was then, this is now. The deck is stacked against men, and marriage is the legal equivalent of cliff diving into a rocky shoreline. Game is one of the few resources men have left to protect themselves against women and a system that sees them as wholly expendable, ATM flesh pods from which to squeeze the last ounce of blood and coin tribute to feed the insatiable marriage machine that is the root of the modern consumption economy.

One divorced mother of two sons put her complaint succinctly: “I realized my husband was of no added value.”

To get the full chill of that statement, try imagining a husband who had divorced his wife saying it, or this next one.

It can’t be imagined, because any husband who initiated divorce on such grounds, overtly or tacitly, would be ass raped by a team of special ops lawyers. Not that husbands don’t feel the same way about their fat, aging wives; they just can’t act on the impulse with the same impunity that wives can. In fact, wives can divorce on these grounds and *still* walk away with a considerable share of his assets. There are many checks and balances built into society to keep the id monster chained in the cellar of the mind, but the prison warden of the female mind has left his post and the id monster has escaped to terrorize and feast freely.

None of this would be the crisis for individual men that it is if the playing field were level. (The impact on society is another matter.) If, in the case of divorce, women could not get a SINGLE RED CENT of the ex-husbands’ money, then the 7 year or 14 year or whatever itch that is seemingly built into the coding of every human being could proceed rather uneventfully, as bored wives would leave their marriages with EXACTLY, AND NO MORE, of what they brought into the marriage. That way, shocked and disillusioned ex-husbands would still have their material resources with which to help them attract new lovers.

If the marriage racket was reformed in this way we’d see a lot fewer bored housewives leaving for sabbaticals in Italy to get boned and robbed by Francisco the smooth talker. But this will never happen absent a revolution triggered by societal extinction level events. Women would wail and gnash their teeth and vote en masse with their lickspittle lackey hubbies in tow and the slow bleeding out of Western civilization would continue apace.

“My married friends seem to envy me. They think I have so much freedom,” she said. “I don’t think their husbands like them coming around me.”

This is an excellent Public Service Announcement. Husbands, you’d be wise to monitor your wives’ social circles and act to limit her time spent with cat collecting, unmarried harridans. They will whisper poison thoughts into your wives’ brains.

University of Virginia research shows that progressive wives are less happy than traditional wives.

“More traditional women may wear rose-colored glasses, but they also benefit from a sense of male and female roles,” said sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, who conducted the research. “They don’t expect their husband to act like a woman.”

In contrast, the idea of marriage with a soul mate “who will meet their deepest needs for human connection” may ask too much of marriage, he said.

Another PSA: Marry conservative women if you want to avoid divorce theft and you believe in those lofty marital vows. Marry liberal women if you like getting taken to the cleaners and nuzzling your herb face into her fat lap.

Rutgers University biological anthropologist Helen Fisher sees the rise of working women as a cause of women asking more from marriage, but she’s not worried.

“Women have always commuted to work to gather fruits and vegetables, and for millions of years women were just as economically, socially and sexually powerful as men. … Data suggest that many ancestral men and women had two or three spouses across their lives,” she wrote on The New York Times’ Room for Debate blog.

“The same occurs today: I have examined divorce patterns in 58 societies and everywhere that spouses have some independent means, both sexes leave bad marriages to make better ones.”

Well, there is something to worry about, if worrying’s your thing. For one, those prehistoric working women still needed the muscle of men to protect them from all sorts of environmental insults. In contrast, today’s working women have air conditioning and On Star. They are now free to choose based on whim instead of necessity. (Game is very good at catering to female whim.) Two, not all prehistoric women were equal. Those of the cold, damp forests of Europe certainly evolved different traits than those of the hot, dry African savannah. But it’s futile arguing “evolution did not stop at the neck” with modern anthropologists; they are drowning in self-deceit too deep to rescue with simple logic.

As it is, our society is at a fork in the road. We can go one of two ways if an end to the divorce industrial complex is your goal:

1. Rescind feminism.

Basically, turn back the clock on the so-called “improvements” in divorce litigation. Put divorce lawyers out of business. Custody of children would be split evenly, half the time with mom and half the time with dad, unless solid evidence of extenuating fault could be found, such as pedophilia or physical abuse. End all affirmative action and favoritism, explicit or implicit, for women. This means no more maternal leave or sexual harassment workshops. Return shame to its rightful place as a molder of human behavior.

2. Follow feminism to its logical conclusion.

Completely gut the traditional notion of marriage by legally establishing polygamy and assorted polyamorous relationships as equally valid unions. (Should be easier now that there is legal justification for gay marriage.) Make divorce as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Reform marriage so that it better reflects the evolutionary disposition of people to fall out of love after seven years (or approximately the time the kids are old enough to function without constant parental supervision.) If we are biologically designed by evolution to weary of our partners after seven to ten years, then why is marriage not arranged in such a way that acknowledges this reality? After all, we don’t force gay men against their biological disposition to marry or screw women. Tenth wave feminists and principled libertarians could easily make the case that marriage is constricting of natural human urges, and thus inhumane, so should be offered to people on a contractual basis of varying length. You could get married for two years, seven years, twenty years, or till death do you part. At the end of the contract the spouses would go their separate ways, no muss no fuss, no exchange of assets or punitive payments of any kind. It would be as clean and hassle free as leaving your barber for another one. The option to renew the contract for a set number of additional years would of course be available for those remaining idealists and lucky few soulmates. Contracts also could be stipulated with allowances for cheating based on frequency and number of extramarital lovers. Children of divorce would be remanded to a state orphanage where, no doubt, they would be raised in stricter accordance with the dictates of governmental progressivism, because it takes a village.

The Chateau favors option 2, but that’s just because we’re a mischievous bunch of rascals. And it’s more doable. Fuck, we’re halfway there already.

Read Full Post »

The Depedestalization Shall Continue Until Morale Improves

AshleyMadison.com, the dating cheating website for married people, had the second-largest number of sign-ups on the day after Mother’s Day this year.

Momlogic has exclusively learned that 31,427 women signed up for AshleyMadison.com yesterday — which is over ten times the average number of women who typically sign up on any given Monday.

What are AshleyMadison’s first and third biggest recruitment days? If you guessed the days after Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Day respectively, you get a gold cocka.

This “day after” trend is nothing new to AshleyMadison.com: Their biggest day of the year for female signups is the day after Valentine’s Day, and their third-biggest day is the day after New Year’s.

Why are holidays like these such turning points for women? Noel Biderman, president and founder of AshleyMadison.com, says, “Because they have expectations — expectations that their partnership will be celebrated and even romanticized — but that is often not what transpires ….”.

Expectation is just low rent entitlement. Hey, men have expectations too!

Men expect —

Sex on demand. And in various contortionist positions.

A variety of vagina. The same old, same old ain’t cutting it.

A home-cooked, low carb and natural ingredient dinner ready for us when we get home.

Women to chill out about keeping the house squeaky clean all the time. A pile of socks isn’t gonna kill ya.

Lots of gifts, like TVs, golf clubs, and tube amps. Using your own money.

Women to grasp that romance suffers when it needs to be “celebrated” on phony pre-arranged, corporate-sponsored days of the year.

Welly well! The expectations game goes both ways. Of course, some of us can realize our expectations simply by avoiding those things which are most likely to leave them unfulfilled. Like, oh say, marriage and kids.

I wonder what expectations went umnet for cheating women post-Valentines’s Day and New Year’s? The rose stems too short? The hubby too beta? The midnight kiss shockingly askew, careening to the right of center lip?

Biderman (a married father of two) believes there are several reasons why women turn to AshleyMadison.com after Mother’s Day in particular:

– On Mother’s Day, women in general expect to be celebrated by their partners. However, for many already suffering from a lack of appreciation, this day represents a continuation of neglect and disappointment.

– Women have affairs for different reasons than men. Whereas men are usually looking for sex, women tend to seek attention that they’re not getting at home. This lack of attention often makes them feel undesirable — and feeds their need for validation. [Editor: Corollary: Men have affairs for different reasons than women. Whereas women are usually looking for emotional connection, men tend to seek the sex that they’re not getting at home. This lack of sex often makes them feel undesirable — and feeds their need for validation.]

Men should start coordinating their cheating after Father’s Day. That way, in case they are caught, they can tell their wives that their infidelity represented a culmination of neglect and disappointment and a lack of appreciation they felt on Father’s Day. And it’d be more true, because as far as I can tell Mother’s Day enjoys a lot more cultural significance than Father’s Day.

Last Mother’s Day, momlogic spoke with a woman who said that Mother’s Day ended her marriage. “I knew Mother’s Day was off to a bad start when my husband informed me the night before that the holiday had nothing to do with him and it should be between me and the kids. [Editor: Your husband was right.] In the morning, I was handed a cold cup of coffee by my husband. My card and gift were left downstairs. The card and gift had been bought hours earlier, after my husband asked me, “So, what do you want, anyway?” No thought, no advance planning, no special effort put forth at all. It was so disappointing. I chose to sleep on the couch that night. My husband chose to move out. Mother’s Day essentially marked the end of our marriage.”

So there you go, honored American father. Your wife and mother of your children is now justified in spreading her legs for strange cock because you gave her a cold cup of coffee in the morning and didn’t hand deliver the gifts to her as she lounged in bed.

Modern American married women — the most entitled, self-absorbed, selfish, egotistical collection of cunty harridans the world has ever known. Blessedly, I’ve learned one way to avoid the worst attitudes and character faults of American women: don’t marry them. Unmarried sexual relationships where the satisfaction of receiving the preciiiiiious ring of power is continually postponed do a pretty good job of deterring women’s most unwelcome compulsions.

Enough already with the holidays for wives and mothers. It’s time for real holidays for men. I propose a Patriarchy Day, sometime in August would be great. On that day, mom blogs, celebrity blogs, feminist blogs… in fact, the whole fucking internet… shuts their pie hole. In the sweet silence, only the gentle slurping sounds of hummers will be heard.

Read Full Post »

Why You Should Leave After Sex

Because it will signal your high male mate status:

Chapter 5, “Green-Eyed Desire: From Guarding a Mate to Trading Up,” deals with other economic constraints relating to the human mating market. Women appear to use sex to help guard male mates by keeping them satisfied, reminding men what they stand to lose should they defect—or as many women in the study put it, “keep[ing] his mind off other women.” Women also seem to be motivated to sometimes have sex with other men as a way of gaining information about their mate value or to obtain a better partner—i.e., to “trade-up” in the mating market. Attracting a high-quality mate can allow a woman to enhance and evaluate her mate value, and many women cited this as a reason to have sex. The authors refer to research showing that women do this more often around ovulation.

So what does this have to do with leaving a woman’s company soon after sex? Much can be inferred from the study results in the quote above. For instance, if women use sex to keep a mate satisfied and his mind off chasing other women, then a hasty post-coitus skedaddle undermines her mate guarding efforts; she will be compelled to try even harder in the sack next time. And as I’ve noted before, a solid, healthy relationship rests on a foundation of the woman chasing the man. The day your woman succeeds at guarding you is the day you begin the slide into betahood, infrequent sex, cuckoldry, and eventual breakup.

More importantly, since women sometimes use sex with new men to enhance and evaluate their own mate value, a calculated quick departure after sex will disrupt her self-evaluative process, leading her to conclude that she isn’t as hot as she thought (which is exactly what you want her to think). While landing a charming SOB like yourself for sex will boost a girl’s ego, persuading you to linger afterward to cuddle will send her ego straight into the stratosphere. Since American women’s egos are already in the stratosphere, theirs will get propelled into distant galaxies. It’s critical that you keep a woman’s ego in check if you want to enjoy years of blissful love and sexual release.

This study, and its implications, confirms my everyday experiences. I have noticed that when I leave a chick right after sex — either directly by walking out or indirectly by nudging her out — she will text or call like a woman in love the very next day, or even later that night. The post-coitus premature exit (PCPE) is especially powerful when executed at two in the morning.

If you are at her place, many times a girl will invite you to stay for the night. She’ll couch it in plausibly deniable terms, such as “You’re welcome to stay if it’s too late for you to grab a taxi now.” If you need an excuse to drop a PCPE, just tell her you have to get up early for a business trip. If you and her are at your place instead, assume the PCPE by announcing soon after sex that you’ll be happy to walk her to her car or her home, and that she must be looking forward to sleeping in her own bed.

Whatever you do, avoid the post-coitus cuddle with a new girl who is above the average quality of girls you normally get. If you’ve had the good fortune, or expertise, to bag yourself the female equivalent of a 12 point buck, you don’t want to ruin your established high mate value and budding relationship momentum by snuggling and squeezing her tight as if she were your childhood security blanket. Post-sex cuddling is like a chemical reaction which drains your testosterone by the minute. Intimate cuddling will convince a girl to give herself high marks on her self-evaluation, and once she’s done this the odds she will see you as a worthy mate for the long haul — sexual or otherwise – drop precipitously. It’s all done on the subconscious level of course, but that’s the level that is most dangerous, since it operates by flying under the radar of our conscious perimeter defenses.

Looking at all my flings, one night stands, and relationships, the ones where I rolled over after sex and gave the girl my back, or where I got out of bed and put on my clothes to go home, were the ones I was in complete command of the direction of the romance. I never had to initiate texts or phone calls, or come up with date ideas, with those girls; they did all the legwork.

Read Full Post »

Chinese Women Toughest Girls To Game?

This may be the quote of the year:

The hard-boiled bachelorette, Ma Nuo, has gone on to become one of China’s most recognizable bai jin nu [golddigger]. Marry for love? Fat chance, said the material girl: “I would rather cry in a BMW than smile on the back of my boyfriend’s bicycle.”

That’s from an article about the rank materialism of Chinese women. Hmm, now what does that quote remind one of? Oh yeah:

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

You go, future time oriented girl! Now, normally, only the hottest chinagirls are gonna have a realistic shot at crying in a rich man’s BMW. Most of them will have to settle for getting pumped and dumped, sans engagement ring, in the beemer’s back seat. But these are not normal times in the middle kingdom. For one, their sexual market is all kinds of dysfunctional; armies of single men prowl for whatever scraps of single women they can sniff out. With a ratio that bad, it’s no wonder men have to advertise flat ownership (15 square feet!) before some chinese version of a dumpy jelly splingerette casting call reject deems him worthy of a peck on the cheek. We’ve come a long way since foot binding, baby.

The Chinese, being the massively Special K-selected race that they are, are likely the world’s preeminent, badassiest provider betas. This is the land of niceguy hugs, excruciatingly long courtships, the zippered non-fling, and video game substituting for… well, for just about everything. You drop your typical soybrained China dude in America and he is gonna get chewed up and wetly expectorated by our badboy loving women, house or no house. Which system is better? Tough call. Personally, as a fan of love and being human, I’d wither in an environment where chicks were so calculatingly miss roboto about dating and all that slimy emotional stuff that lubes the whole process. On the chubside, you can straight buy your way into some fairly loyal, and non-obese!, vertically epicanthic vaj. No game needed. Of course, the price of entry is steep, and climbing like a stripper reaching for a hundred windexed to the top of the pole.

The Sino-sordid spectacle reminds me of stuff I read from somewhere about how the English evolved mucho smarts and were able to kickstart the industrial revolution, and eventually, America. Turns out they practiced good old fashioned eugenics, the way nature intended — all the smarties and upper classmen had way more kids than the poor and smelly, who were left to die in the streets very uncompassionately, and after many generations of that, a new people was born. (Any current reversal of the process is a figment of your imagination. Ow, my balls!) But you religious bleeding hearts can sleep easy; God watched over the unfolding dirty Darwinian events with an eye toward a future kinder, gentler humanity, so you know it had His heavenly stamp of approval. Back to the point: I see the same thing happening now in China.

I’d say Chinese men need an infusion of game, stat, but they’re probably constitutionally incapable of understanding the concepts, let alone applying them. These Chinese chicks may be megamaterialistic, but I’m nigh certain that you drop a nuclear neg on a moonfaced gaggle of them and suddenly that legalistic mental mate checklist (house? car? sinecure with the Party? Now we talk long time.) evaporates like so much empty bluster. Why do I think this? Because I’d bet coin of the realm that in a country of 500 million men, not more than three girls have been negged, and I’m counting the whores. The conceptual reality of Chinese men couldn’t be further from the world of pickup.

Hey, if a lonely sex-starved Chinese man can’t get a nibble, he could always pull a van der sloot. That’s guaranteed to get him an avalanche of marriage proposals. And it’s a lot cheaper than paying for a house 22 times the cost of the median Chinese annual salary. But seriously, let’s hope this banal, arid materialistic quid pro ho doesn’t infect the rest of the world. Last thing America needs is another layer of absurd entitlement on top of the noxious layers currently defeminizing our women. Remember, every time you buy a fat girl a drink, or a house, Satan smites a beta.

Read Full Post »