The Danger of Idleness To Women

Commenter backchecking makes a perceptive observation about the condition of idleness and how it affects men and women differently.

******

You can destroy an engine by revving it without a load. Strange, but true, an engine can rev to 5,000 rpm under load and survive… 5,000 rpm without a load — it falls apart.

Which largely describes the female mind. Millennia of evolution have crafted a brain that can’t not be tasked.

Quite literally, idleness has been bred out. Slothful mothers don’t have offspring — or — if they do — that generation will be childless. (This category also includes mothers so neurotic that they ‘medicate’ themselves into passivity — booze, drugs, or both.)

(I’ve seen PLENTY of the latter.)

&&&&

The male is totally different critter. ‘Idleness’ for a man is often his most productive time.

The extreme examples:

Einstein famously slept (12-15 hours/day) and strolled (interminable bucolic walks) his way through life. He related that all of his best work was done while in solitude — if not in the transitory state between sleep and waking.

Newton was just as bad.

General MacArthur famously slept through the Inchon bombardment. His battleship was firing its big guns at the time!

One could go on endlessly…

Spectacular intellectual achievements require a state of relaxed composure — Zen, if you will.

This male-only tick comes from the ancient hunt. Like MacArthur, our universal ancestors had to totally shut up, stay relaxed — yet alert, to bag the really big, dangerous prey from a hide/ camouflage.

Persistence hunting does not work with mammoths, bears, aurochs. They only run towards you. { This ancient contest is echoed in Spanish bull-fighting. }

At the time of the attack, one must break loose and use maximum exertion — while at peak risk. Upon success, one can kick back and talk shop/ the hunt.

This male-only tick is replicated during the sex act. For it is the male who reaches peak intensity — never the female.

Unwittingly, every man, with every thrust, is communicating to his mate his hunting virility. This hits her limbic brain.

If you’ve witnessed enough pr0n you know that at the final stages, the female is always reduced to a quivering, dripping, bump target. (Yes, it’s not just your lovers.)

And, of course, there are endless battle accounts of men spontaneously creaming in their pants upon victory/ battle survival. Surviving a bullet festival is a highly arousing event. This aspect of battle is excised from most historical accounts — which are directed at teen males, anyway.

&&&&

This is the yin yang of humanity.

She slaves on as the heart and stomach of humanity — holding body and soul together — creating the next generation.

He risks all as the mind and vision of humanity — protecting and expanding the human space against all threats — while bringing home the bacon.

Equal, they are not.

Female culture is always drivel. For they are wired to talk to and understand babbling infants. Female social experimentation quickly devolves to having no children. Hence the complete absence of successful matriarchies.

(Though these are commonly seen in Africa: elephants, lions, …)

******

A woman with too much time on her hands is a force for destruction — to others as well as to herself. The SJWs (including the effeminate males) who now litter the internet are examples of what an easy life mooching off daddy’s money, filled with inexpensive gadgets, and delaying childbirth, if at all, well past 30 will do to the female mind. Idleness corrupts woman, much like power corrupts man. Keeping a woman barefoot and pregnant is probably the best thing for her sanity.

Read Full Post »

How To Spot A Charming Loverboy

You know, all these warnings by women about players and their charming ways wouldn’t be necessary if women weren’t instinctively falling for their charms. Think about it. You won’t read too many articles warning women away from boring beta males. Women manage to Heisman those guys all on their own without directives from Cosmo.

Vox notifies,

Take a bow, Heartiste. Once more, science underlines Game:

The article is titled ‘How to Spot a Manipulator’, but it may as well be a truncated game guide for men.

One study tried to determine which personality traits pickup artists, men and women*, share.

The article begins by explaining,

In some ways, pickup artists use traditional tactics that fall into the category of persuasion. Whether it’s yourself or a product you’re trying to sell, you rely on methods of persuasion any time you attempt to influence someone else’s attitudes. You’re hoping that by influencing someone’s positive attitudes toward the item or person you’re promoting, you’ll change that person’s behavior.

Pickup artists have to influence people who have never met them to like them almost immediately. They rely on general strategies that others use to make a good impression, such as seeming attractive, charming, or successful. Unlike a person truly interested in getting involved in a romantic relationship, though, the pickup artist needs merely to look like someone who’s looking for love.  These qualities—being manipulative, self-centered, and insincere—are exactly those that show up in the personality constellation known as the “dark triad” of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism.

The HEXACO model of personality structure informs us that Dark Triad people are low on the Honesty-Humility factor. Lemme tell you a leetle something about honesty and humility as pertains to What Women Want™: Honesty is relationship lube, not attraction lube. All else equal, no woman makes the decision to fuck a man because he’s honest. And humility is actually counterproductive to sparking a romance; chicks dig those overconfident men.

Interestingly, they went into the research assuming that, despite the stereotype, women as well as men could fit the criteria—and in fact, the study included plenty of female pickup artists based on the self-reports the team collected.

*Female “pickup artists” are really just cockteases with borderline personality disorder, as you will see this study pretty much confirms. Unlike male pickup artists who are interested in increasing the quantity, quality, or both, of their conquests, female pickup artists are mostly just interested in manipulating a lover or two for incessant ego validation and, when the men she twirls around her fingers are inexperienced betas, for material gain.

In the pilot study that began the project, Jonason and Buss asked 102 participants—all undergraduate students and two-thirds of them female—to describe their experiences with people who had “pursued short-term sexual encounters.” The 71 acts the participants described ranged from abuse (verbal or physical) to avoidance (not returning emails or phone calls). Between these extremes, those who sought to keep their interactions as uninvolved as possible engaged in behaviors such as avoiding non-sexual intimacy (such as hugging), keeping conversations superficial, failing to introduce partners to family and friends, and seeming promiscuous or blatantly announcing that they were only seeking short-term sex.

Lessee… avoiding cuddling and pillow talk… playfully teasing… remaining somewhat mysterious… refusing to relinquish too quickly to expectations of commitment.

Sounds like abundance mentality coupled with Aloof&Indifferent Game. This combo is irresistible to so many women, it’s a wonder more men didn’t evolve the ability to express it naturally. (It’s such a wonder, in fact, that I am tempted to believe there was a time, a long epoch, in our human past, when strong environmental pressures dissuaded women from cleaving to charming players or dissuaded players from openly displaying their talents.)

Male and female pickup artists were equally likely to use the tactics that would keep the relationship from evolving into a one of longer-term intimacy, as well as to seek ways to keep the relationship sexual. However, there were some gender differences: Men were more likely to use violence directed toward their partners, while women were more likely to let a partner know that they were only in the relationship for the sex.

Both sexes use what they know works.

In the all-important personality domain, pickup artists showed specific traits, including antisocial tendencies. As predicted, they were also more likely to be narcissistic. Again, though, male and female pickup artists differed in some aspects of their personality profiles: Women who acted openly promiscuous, for example, were higher in psychopathy. Men high in Machiavellianism were more likely to adopt the tactic of not integrating partners into their lives.

This is interesting. Promiscuous women are, as this study found, CRAZIER than promiscuous men. And our real world observations confirm this. It makes sense. Men are built — some rapscallions would say evolved — for promiscuity, or, at the least, for a tendency to be promiscuous when opportunities arise. Men are thus better equipped, mentally and emotionally, for no-strings-attached sex than are women.

Persuasive charming men — the kind of men women LOVE LOVE LOVE — will manage their promiscuous lifestyles by CARING ENOUGH for their lovers that they don’t lead them too deeply into highly charged emotional and commitment expectations. Heh.

Overall emotional stability also played an important role, but one that differed for men and women: Women who were most likely to engage in keeping the relationship from becoming intimate were also the least emotionally stable. And for women, but not men, self-rated promiscuity was also related to conscientiousness scores.

Again, sex-focused, relationship-averse women are emotionally unstable and self-destructively impulsive in a way that sex-focused, relationship-averse men aren’t. The sexes are different on a fundamental level. Perchance, to deal with it.

So how should women spot a charming loverboy? A short list to start them off:

Telltale behavioral signs

1. Engaging in unkind acts such as verbal or physical abuse intended to drive you away.
2. Avoiding physical intimacy other than sexual.
3. Being unwilling to introduce you to the important people in their lives.
4. Openly flirting with others in front of you.
5. Being unavailable and nonresponsive to attempts to maintain or establish contact.

The joke, of course, is that women can spot these signs and it won’t do a lick of good. It’s like asking men to spot the signs of beautiful women so that they can avoid them for low maintenance frumps.

Telltale psychological signs

1. (for men) Seeming to care only about what you can do for them, not how they can help you. [ed: chicks dig a sexually entitled man.]
2. (for women) Being late, sloppy, careless, and unconcerned about meeting other people’s expectations.
3. (for women) Seeming unstable, worried, anxious, and insecure.
4. (for both) Being highly preoccupied with their own appearance, showing undue self-centeredness, and expressing feelings of entitlement.
5. (for both) Showing lack of regard for other people’s feelings, not just yours, and expressing lack of remorse for actions in which they caused harm or pain to others.

The few BPD chicks I’ve dated were, without exception, perpetually late and lived in clutter boxes. I knew early on that women who had no interest in keeping up their homes (however humble square-footage-wise) and who preened constantly while simultaneously fretting about their looks (without justification) were basketcases who fucked like champion mares and who would be gone from my life, of their accord or mine, within six months. It’s funny how these female archetypes are universally recognizable. Special little snowflakes, my ass.

Read Full Post »

Rationalization Hamster, Meet Psychological Projection

For those of you new to the Chateau, the rationalization hamster (original hamster — O.H. — introduced here) is a descriptive term for the typical woman’s tendency to rationalize her decisions to fulfill herself sexually such that her personal culpability in making the sex happen is removed or reduced. Since that original definition, the rationalization hamster has come to acquire a broader meaning, encapsulating all the odd little mental tricks that women (and sometimes men) do in service to their glowing self-conceptions.

Psychological projection, in its conventionally understood sense, is attributing to others feelings or motives that you yourself possess, but are uncomfortable acknowledging or unable to perceive in yourself. In dating market parlance, projection is a form of rationalization for an opposite sex’s idealized behavior. For instance, women often project onto men their own expectations and attraction triggers, fooling themselves into believing that what they desire in men is what men must desire in them, (or, similarly, that what women dislike in men must be what men dislike in women).

FYI, men, especially inexperienced beta males, project their desires onto women as well, though this particular self-deception is more commonly found in use among women, (for reasons that have been explained in previous posts, namely, the paradox that women have more to gain from their self-deception). A good example of a low N beta male projecting his desires onto women is the man who believes that women will only be intrigued by him for his looks, because that’s what he primarily desires in women.

The reason I bring this up is because I swoon with anticipation in presenting to you, CH celebrated readers, what I consider one of, if not THE, best representations of female psychological projection ever put to print. The article is titled, ‘8 Reasons Why You Should Marry The Complicated Girl’, and, if you check the authoress’s accompanying photo, the listicle was compiled by what appears to be a high testosterone woman with a glare so evil she could make the Grinch recoil in horror.

First, she begins by explaining the basis for her theory,

I am not simple. I am a challenge for any man, I will admit. As hard as I try to be the simple girl, it is just not in my nature to be one. I demand more from everyone because I see great potential.

I only want the best for myself and for my partner, so I will never just go along with some semblance of a mediocre, passionless relationship.

An unevolved man or a boy will always want the simple girl. He doesn’t want to have to work hard for anything, especially not a relationship. He doesn’t want to be challenged or confronted.

But, a real man knows that by being with a complicated girl, he will be better for it.

So, essentially, slander is the basis for her grand theory of male-female relationship dynamics. “Unevolved” men want simple (i.e., kindhearted) girls; “real” men want complicated (i.e., drama-prone) girls.

Her eight points are a gold mine of accidentally revealed preference… that is, her own revealed preference for what SHE wants in men, not what men want in women.

Marry the girl who tells you exactly what she expects and follows through.

Men who aren’t named John Scalzi despise domineering women. Women, in contrast, have shown a noted proclivity for enjoying the company of decisive men with leadership qualities.

Marry the girl who demands your respect.

Girls are respected when they earn that respect, not when they demand it. However, men who make inordinate demands on women do tend to get rewarded sexually for their impertinence.

Marry the girl who can talk politics, even if her opinions are different from yours.

Again, pure female projection. Nothing, other than obesity or a secret penis, kills a man’s incipient boner faster than a girl who is jabbering about politics on a date and is making a point of defying the man’s opinion. Women, otoh, do feel delicious yearnings for men who have strong opinions and stand their ground in the face of opposition.

Marry the girl whose eyes flicker with passion about a number of different subjects.

Translation: “Please marry me for the same reasons I want to marry you, oh passionate and learned man whose eyes flicker with life about a number of different subjects.”

Marry the girl who won’t let you get away with slacking on your talents.

Nag. Even a died-and-uncool male feminist will weary of a nag in time. But women do love a man who qualifies them as worthy partners.

Marry the girl who pushes you to be better every day.

Demanding potentate. But women do love a man who keeps them on their toes and away from the pints of ice cream. What she’s really admitting is that she wants to craft a man to be more like the type of alpha male who turns her on. This doesn’t translate into what men desire in women, though.

Marry the girl with whom you sometimes fight.

Drama queen. These kinds of girls love the pre-sex fight as much as they love the post-fight sex. Men just love the post-fight sex. Most men would be glad to jump straight to the post-fight sex without actually having the fight.

Marry the girl who is your equal or greater.

And here it is. Distilled female rationalization hamster projection. Pure femergy. Men don’t want women who are their “equal or greater”. Men want sexy, pretty, young(er) women with a feminine, more or less submissive disposition. It’s women who strongly desire an “equal or greater” lover, because women are viscerally attracted to mentally, physically, and emotionally strong men.

Post-list, the funny keeps on giving:

My dad always says the thing that attracted him most to my mom was the fact that she was smarter than him.

Gullible, thy name is desperately ego-assuaging woman.

Only a real man can say that and know it’s good for him.

Or a smart man who knows that empty flattery works on aging wives.

Don’t get me wrong; a complicated girl who is not yet mature will be a pain in the ass.

Define “mature”. (Answer: It never arrives.)

She will pick fights with you about everything, and you will always feel like a failure in her presence because you won’t know how to make her happy. But, with a little experience and wisdom, this is the girl who will become wife material.

Maybe the reason why men don’t want to commit to attention whores like herself is because they can see the writing on the wall. Just a thought?

And, once she’s at that point, you better never let her get away, or you’ll risk losing the best thing you ever had.

High blood pressure?

In some respects, this is one of the saddest, and most textbook, feminist limbic blurts I’ve read. Pained by men who have rejected her need for screed, she, like many women, refuses to look at herself squarely and instead puts all the onus on men to accept that they are really attracted to girls like her, and only men’s unevolved immaturity is holding them back from realizing this about themselves.

Yet again, a sterling display of a woman avoiding the consequences for her actions. The best thing she could do for herself — deep examination of her off-putting drama whore behavior and steps to correct it — she won’t do. Those eyes say it all:

“I am woman, hear me roar for validation.”

Read Full Post »

The UVA False Rape Fabulists

As most CH readers know by now, a gaudy account of alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity (Rapegate) was exposed as a hoax, or, more charitably, as a freakin’ lie. Many feminists and lapdog betaboys were left shell-shocked by the sudden undermining of their religious belief.

This isn’t the first rape hoax. The Duke lacrosse stripper rape never happened. And more recently, Lena Dunham, SWPL heroine, was outed as a fabulist for concocting a story about a “Republican conservative” who raped her in college. In Dunham’s case, she named a man. Hopefully he will sue her to kingdom come.

What makes the current false rape accusation (FRA) craze so dissonant is that it’s happening in a social climate where actual reported rapes are in decline and at a 40-year low, at least among whites. It’s almost as if feminists WANT to gin up a rape culture because the current rape-less society they live in is unsatisfactory to them.

The Jane Jones hysteria demands explanation. What is motivating all these rape hoaxes? I have some theories.

1. “Rape-culture culture”, driven by white females, and particularly by academic white females of a highly ethnocentric minority tribe (Erdely, Merlan), and targeted primarily against the white fraternity brother archetype, is revealed hatred of a certain majority group’s men for being, well, what they are: The tribal bogeyman. Sexual desire for these men and warped shame for feeling that desire must underlie some of that irrational hatred.

2. Rapegate is the proxy mechanism by which underattractive white females get to express their true resentment of the sexual aggression of black men and the asexual indifference of white men. As iSteve commenter countenance writes,

Because “rape culture” is how white men in frat houses get the blame for black men raping white women.

White women do get real raped (and sometimes killed)… disproportionately by black men who look like this guy:

But of course, because race is the ultimate totem of intra-white status whoring, academic white females can’t come out and say “Hey, a lot of black guys are raping us.” So they release that anger through a convenient proxy: white frat bros. And why are white frat bros, mostly harmless even when drunk, the preferred alternative rape culture oppressor? Because they don’t give unattractive feminists the time of day. Thus, their expediency as punching bags for feminists is rooted in the latter’s resentment at being overlooked as sex objects by high mate value white men.

3. The sex ratio on college campuses — 60%+ women and rising — favors men in the dating market. Female students are thus put into a position, by virtue of their natural hypergamous instincts, of being one of the shared side dishes of a popular male student, of dating less desirable nerd betas, or of getting shut out of the dating market altogether. At the margins, this lopsided sex ratio and its consequences will cause some mentally unbalanced women (feminists) to act out like lunatics.

4. This is the darkest theory, and the one therefore favored by CH priests. Rape fantasy is a staple of subliterary erotica, aka female porn. A fair number of women are sexually and romantically aroused by violent men. Death rows are filled with the clutter of love letters and even marriage proposals from swooning women. Lurid rape hysteria really may be psychological projection of lurid sex fantasy in a world full of sexless betaboy drones. It’s a parsimonious explanation for Lena Dunham’s obsessing over a “Republican conservative” man having sex with her many years ago, and her current transmogrification of that consensual event into a latter day Regret Rape political stance. Five minutes of right-wing alpha. She just cannot get enough of that memory of real man cock. Manlet SJWs, limp-wristed male feminists, and slobbering white knights will never get this about rock-ribbed feminists: Most of them despise the company of the weak men they feel forced to endure. These feminist rape-mongers dream of being assertively taken by a strong man torqued with unstoppable lust. (Related: I have a theory that women secretly desire men of opposite political persuasion, and that the reason most couples align politically is largely a result of convenience sorting and arid subconscious calculations of child characteristics.)

***

Some sadistic thinkers dismiss feminism as a relevant social force. I disagree with them. For example, look at this latest feminist flop; will the rancid ideology finally pay a price? UVA is Peak Feminism, right? No wait, that was Duke lacrosse. No, it was Lena Dunham. Seems Peak Feminism has yet to arrive. Lesson: Feminists benefit from power elite shielding. Individual feminists may be mentally unhinged and emotionally scorched, but their insipid politics finds its way into government and private policies. Women in the military, Title IX, affirmative consent laws, and bans on paternity testing, to name a few. Feminist propaganda matters. It has real world consequences that victimize real men, in ways direct and indirect. The Hivemind masters — the Lords of Lies — protect feminists from their own malignancy and prevent them from suffering due punishment for their slander and caustic beliefs.

Everything rotten about 2014 America is exposed by rape and race hoaxes: Leftoid duplicity, media boosterism, anti-white male animus. CH is doing its part to help bring balance to the force, which has tilted for too long in the direction of the Snark Side. But we can only do so much. Others must step up. You can start here: A website devoted to exposing corruption among our journalistic, political, and academic elite. Call them out on their lies, record it for posterity, ruin their reputations, and hope that the righteous backlash has only begun to start.

Read Full Post »

How Women Avoid Consequences

Commenter Wrecked ‘Em writes,

OT, but good comment over at iSteve about “Karpman Drama Triangle”… [ed: i can’t be bothered to find the link] and how women transmogrify from “strong woman – hear me roar” to “damsel in distress – rescue me” very quickly to wiggle out of consequences and to keep the blame on “not me”. Might be a good topic to investigate.

This all gets back to the Fundamental Premise. Women are the biologically and reproductively more valuable sex, (men are the culturally and civilizationally more valuable sex), and this instinctive reality influences every social and political aspect of our lives. It’s the reason why women are eager to recuse themselves from any blame, no matter how deserving, and the reason why men are eager to enable women to do this.

Since this sex difference in blame apportioning and accountability is biological in nature, there will never be a program or seminar or rehabilitation camp capable of overturning it. The most you can do is point it out so the worst excesses of it aren’t codified into law by raving feminist lunatics and nancyboy beta suckups.

Women are indeed verbal magicians in the art of redirecting blame and avoiding consequences for their actions. They likely evolved this talent as an answer (antidote?) to male physical and martial superiority. Some other ways women avoid consequences:

– blaming “the system” or “the patriarchy” (this covers a wide swath of feminist philosophy, such as it is)
– pathologizing male behavior
– exploiting white knights (most of whom are beta males secretly yearning for romantic attention)
– making “for the children” pleas
– demanding female sexual empowerment, then demanding desexualized men (a fine demonstration of cruelty)
– gossip and alliance-building
– tears
– sex withdrawal (the male analogue of sex withdrawal is resource withdrawal. ask a wife how she’d feel about that!)
– its opposite: promises of sex
– poisoning children against their fathers
– making, or threatening, abuse and rape allegations (more common than most think, because a tyrannical state permits this vile behavior to metastasize)
– being unaware of or ill-disposed toward examining their own sexual machinations (it’s easier to defy blame for crappy behavior when you can’t perceive the importance of your agency, or the motivation for your desires)

It’s good to know these unsavory characteristics of women, but unfortunately the inertia toward idealizing the imagined purity of women is strong in tradcons like Steve Sailer and Ross Douthat. No offense to these gentlemen (ok, a little offense), they mean well and their Galileic work in these neoPuritan times is invaluable, but their #Realtalk stops at the bedroom door, like it does for most men with limited experience in the mating trenches.

Read Full Post »

Freelance Comment Of The Week: Chicks Dig Charlie Manson

Days of Broken Arrows provides a short history of Charles Manson, convicted murderer, cult leader, psychopath, and alpha male with a knack for harem building and marrying much younger women while in prison for life.

Manson:

Son of a prostitute.
No father.
Awful childhood.
Barely literate.
5’2″ tall.
Spent most of his youth in detention centers.
When he was finally released as an adult, he begged to stay inside, worrying he could not handle life on the outside.
With a few years he had harems of women.
Held orgies.
Orgies were so great that Beach Boy Dennis Wilson invited them to move in.
Dennis Wilson was a major Alpha Male rock star of the ’60s.
Manson then order his women to kill.
They were so devoted that they did.
His women were not ugly losers — some were former cheerleaders.

Say what you will about the guy, but he had an innate Alpha quality. Shame it was put to such bad use. Guys who whine they can’t get women should think about his life and how he managed to not only get women to sleep with him but basically make them servants to his will. He had some serious charisma.

I’m not surprised at the wife who is a fraction of his age. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have groupies.

He was even a talented songwriter. He placed a song on a Beach Boys album and penned this, which was later covered by Guns N’ Roses.

True love.

<dr seuss>

Yes, chicks dig jerks.
Some dig them a little
some dig them a lot.
Some chicks dig them
in the parking lot.
Some dig them white
some dig them black.
And some chicks even dig them
when they go on the attack.
Yes, chicks dig jerks
this much is true.
They dig jerks more
when they’re black and blue.
Chicks dig jerks
of all sizes and hues.
They dig charmers and badboys
and prisoners too!
Some chicks dig jerks
of the jerkiest sort.
They marry crazy killers
60 years older, and short.
Nice men and kind men
need not apply.
It’s dangerous folk
who catch a chick’s eye.
So when you see a puddle
and lay down your coat
just remember the chicks
backstage at death row.
Ol’ Charlie Manson
got himself married.
While you sit at home
and whack your tally.

</dr seuss>

On a related topic, F. Roger Devlin pondered the reason for the observable preference of women for jerks, in an article titled “The Question of Female Masochism“. A CH read of the week. The take-home punch:

I would suggest that female sadism might be expected to emerge in a society where men refuse to or are prevented from displaying dominance. A society-wide failure of men to take charge of women is likely to produce a great deal of conscious or unconscious sexual frustration in women which may express itself as sadism. […]

I do not know if frustrated masochistic instincts cause sadism in women—it is just my hunch. What I do feel confident in stating is that female masochism is a critically important subject which neither feminist denial nor the sanctimonious gallantry of Christian traditionalists should dissuade us from investigating.

You only had to listen… to yer loveable Heartiste.

Read Full Post »

The Origin Of Women’s Love For Jerks?

SCIENCE! has given us a glimpse into the possible origins of the renowned human female mate preference for jerkboys of varying jerkitude.

Male sexual aggression: What chimps can reveal about people

Male chimpanzees that wage a campaign of sustained aggression against females sire more offspring than their less violent counterparts, new research finds.

The results suggest that such nasty behavior from males evolved because it gave the meanest males a reproductive advantage, said study co-author Ian Gilby, a primatologist at Arizona State University in Phoenix.

This chimpanzee behavior could also provide some insight into the roots of sexual aggression in men.

“It is possible that in our early ancestors there may have been an adaptive value to male aggression against females,” Gilby said.

Chimps aren’t the only closest living ape relatives of humans (bonobos and gorillas are the others), but their present-day characteristics could help shed light on deeply embedded human sexual behavior that is resistant to shorter term cultural or ecological changes.

But sexual aggression in male chimpanzees isn’t directly parallel to rape, because it typically takes place at times distant from copulation. Female chimps also mate with multiple males anyway, Gilby said..

To understand the roots of this behavior, Gilby and his colleagues recorded instances of male-on-female violence in a troop of chimpanzees living in Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. The researchers studied violence that occurred both when the females were sexually receptive, or swollen, and when they were not. The team then compared that information with paternity tests on all the offspring born since 1995.

Chimps have a strict male dominance hierarchy, and more-dominant males generally engage in a greater amount of gendered aggression. But even when taking this into account, the team found that aggression increased a male’s chances of siring offspring — regardless of whether the chimp was more or less dominant.

The sustained intimidation in which chimps engage, which has some parallels to human behaviors such as stalking or domestic violence, is a form of mate guarding. The behavior may make female chimps less likely to sneak off with a partner of her choosing during her most fertile times, Gilby said.

So male aggression isn’t primarily about coercing sex from females. It’s a mate guarding strategy, similar to the violence that lunkhead alpha human males may occasionally visit upon their in-demand hottie girlfriends (cf., Chris Brown). And according to this study, that mate guarding aggression has a genetic payoff, so it would be selected over genes for “niceguy” supplication and everlasting tenderness.

Obviously, this isn’t the whole human story, as niceguys are still with us, and women don’t fall for jerks all the time every time. But there is clearly an observable female preference for jerkboys that has no parallel in a male preference for jerkgirls. Think of a jerkboy bell curve, and place women on it. At the far left, you find good girls who never go for men with even a hint of jerkish characteristics, in the middle are the majority of women who like their men best when they exhibit some jerkboy flair, and at the far right of the bell curve are your women who fall in love with serial killers and prisoners.

There is no such equivalent bell curve for men.

The study explains why men might have evolved a taste for flashing gang signs of intimidating assholery upon lovers, but what about women’s taste for receiving that assholery with open legs? One can surmise that a “jerkboy gene” which improved men’s reproductive fitness (in an environment where reproduction wasn’t thwarted by cheap and easy contraception) would, over generations, ride sidesaddle with a “jerkboy loving gene” in women that improved the reproductive fitness of those women who acquiesced to, or even sought out, the very special lessons in love that jerks are fond of teaching. It’s a variant on the sexy sons hypothesis; call it the sexy sonofabitch hypothesis.

Read Full Post »