Why Do Women Flirt More When They’re With Someone?

Commenter having a bad day writes,

one of the better things that i did to get confidence was to recognize the MANY IOIs that women are putting out all the time. women, especially young fertile (hot) women, ping their environment ALL the time. learn to recognize and encourage these, and it will build your confidence…you can also learn to spot these when they are thrown at other males in the environment…

note – it will also make you sort of depressed if you still hold any illusions regarding the nature of women. most of the ‘ping backs’ you will get are from women in ‘relationships’ (married or otherwise) with betas…sometimes (a lot actually) right in front of the guy’s nose…

This is true. The most obvious flirtations are often from women who are taken, and sometimes with their man present and accounted for! It’s less common to get aggressive flirts from single women.

My understanding of this aspect of female nature is:

1. Sublimated hypergamy. Women are always looking to trade up (whether they know it or not) and flirting while with someone comes more naturally to them.

2. Fishing for reassurance that she’s still attractive. Women in LTRs tend to discount the assurances they get from their partners as less valuable than the arousal they can inspire in strange men. The man she already snagged and who has invested in her is less trustworthy as a biased judge of her attractiveness.

Note that both reasons #1 and #2 are rendered null and void if the woman is in a relationship with an alpha male. (1: she won’t feel the urge to scope as much and 2. an alpha lover’s opinion of her remaining attractiveness is weighted more than a beta lover’s opinion.)

Read Full Post »

The Transmissibility Of Confidence

Is confidence an outcome of validating external factors, or is it an internal mindset that creates its own validation?

The feedback loops of male confidence are copious and fluid, so the question is the wrong one. External validation and internal beliefs synchronize to lift or deflate a man’s perception of self-worth. But it’s the nature of constitutional pessimists and unimaginative nerds to overrate objectively measurable variables that contribute to a man’s mate value and undervalue the invisible psychology that imbues a man with serious muff-massacring mojo. If you’re looking for proof of concept, I have a simple real life test.

How many naturals (with women) do you know, and have known for years, who physically or economically deteriorated with age? Most of us know one or two guys like that… high school romeos who packed a gut and a dead-end job by their late 20s. The guys I know like that continued doing well with women, despite losing their high school glam. They never stopped smashing grade A ass even as their more transparently conspicuous player traits abandoned them.

And you know why? Because they had the attitude. Their confidence that they could get women when they wanted never left them. True to their charming selves, their pudginess or crap jobs or studio apartments presented no obstacle to their mesmerizing game. Confidence — which is really a synonym for an abundance mentality — is like this; once you have it drilled into your subconscious, it’s hard to get rid of it.

Inner game matters. Confidence is transmissible over years and through different life stations. It can be cultivated with many fertilizers, and harvest time always means, “There’s enough clam to feast like a king. I will never go hungry.” How crucial is confidence? If you have no belief in yourself, a six pack or a year-end bonus aren’t going to transform you into a lady slayer. But if you think yourself god’s gift to women, and truly believe that should the need arise you can easily find fresh pussy, then a submerging six pack or a missed promotion at work won’t put a dent in your game.

Of course, the quickest way to achieve Voltaire level confidence is by amassing years of experience bedding women. But what to do if you’re new to the only game that matters? You strive for that elusive abundance mentality. Make approaches. You won’t convert every approach into a lay (not even close) but you will get some smiles and other positive reactions. These reactions will accumulate and reinforce your growing belief that women are plentiful and it wouldn’t take much effort to push at least a few of them into lascivious contemplation.

Another trick to crush limiting beliefs is a daily reminder that, whatever sexual market advantage women have got, you have a sexual marketplace window of viability that triples that of most women’s. When you’re feeling self-doubt, there’s nothing quite like the brisk pick-me-up of waking up a man with decades of romantic opportunity ahead of him.

Read Full Post »

Orca’s Razor

Most of you are familiar with Occam’s Razor, the principle that of two or more competing theories to explain a phenomenon, the simplest one is likely the true one.

With a nod to Occam, CH introduces Orca’s Razor.

Orca’s Razor: Of two or more competing theories for why men don’t want to date fat chicks, the most spurious, most convoluted, and least plausible explanation that assuages the egos of fat chicks and their barely male enablers will be insisted as the correct one.

A case study of Orca’s Razor in action (via reader yeahokcool):

from the front lines of tortured logic (see comments):

guy: I’ve dated a lot of heavier girls and I’ve definitely felt the judgement from other men. The problem isn’t that men don’t like big girls; it’s that men don’t like the way other men look at them when they’re with big girls.

girl: Yeah, I don’t think this is commentary on forcing yourself to be attracted to someone who you’re not attracted to. It’s about letting societal pressure bully you out of being attracted to someone who you ARE attracted to.

reality: yes, you are being judged by other men and women because you are everyone innately knows that only losers are fat and/or date fat people. furthermore, women fail, yet again, to realize that their attraction to men is entirely different than men’s attraction to women. i love how much women (fat ones, particularly, i imagine) just WANT these comments to be true!

Orca’s Razor is in effect the inverse of Occam’s Razor. Instead of slicing away superfluous concepts, Orca’s Razor slices the most elegant explanation to shreds, and then presents as incontrovertible fact the id gruel that is a mix of the viscera of various feelgood theories that were made up from whole cloth with the express purpose of avoiding and nullifying the simplest and truest explanation for why men are repulsed by fat girls.

Occam’s Razor: Men don’t date fat chicks because fat chicks are disgusting to look at.

Orca’s Razor: Men don’t date fat chicks because men secretly like fat chicks but have to suppress their urges to avoid being looked at in a funny, judgmental way from other men.

Like most equalist cant, Orca’s Razor is poopytalk pumped at high volume to fill you to the eyeballs with shit so you’re blinded to reality. No one is ever truly blinded to reality, as we can see by the real life decisions that people make even inside hothouse leftoid reeducation camps, but that won’t stop the walrus warriors from rolling over to crush newborn realtalk that chafes their megafauna hides.

 

Read Full Post »

Incel Vs Insol

Incel stands for involuntary celibacy, and it refers to beta and omega males who, for a variety of factors, are horrible with women and wind up enduring long and unwelcome sexless droughts. Rumor has it there are whole forums of quasi-men who, for reasons likely having their origin in mommy’s quickness with the back of her hand, nurse a deep hatred for game and “players”, and who spend most of their time on these gayforums analyzing with the precision of a spectrometer the facial dimensions of various pick-up artists for their conformity to Brad Pitt’s visage, apparently believing that no man ever in the history of the world who didn’t look like Brad Pitt got laid with a cute chick.

The incel is now an internet caricature, loathed and ridiculed by men and women equally. But there’s a female analogue of the incel. And CH was reminded of this when resident female apologist Amy, once again bravely trying to salvage the reputation of her sistren with squirrely semantic maneuvers intended to evade the Guns of Heartisterone, made the claim that there are men who would willingly sleep with fat chicks and that this must mean those men find the fatties sexually attractive.

But what about beta fat guys with no game? There are plenty of them. Who are they going to date? They want relationships. They’re going to end up with women like this [fat] chick. And they must feel some attraction for them if they’re having sex.

Settling isn’t attraction. Settling is, for men, finding a hole that is a little bit wetter than the couch crease. Losers settle for each other all the time. But fat chicks are so repulsive to men that there aren’t enough omega males willing even to settle for them as a last resort and think of England while spelunking the pig. As a result, fat chicks are alone more often and for longer dry spells than are thin girls. And the fatter the girl, the more intractable her involuntary solitude. Call it… Insol.

The Insol is the female equivalent of the Incel. She fails at finding the one thing in life that is most important to women: The love and commitment of a desirable man. Her failure is no less dispiriting or cruelly mock-worthy than is the failure of the omega male who can’t get laid in a brothel with a fistful of hundreds.

People don’t think of fat or ugly women going long spells without love, because those women are adept in ways that beta males aren’t at concealing their misery from public scorn and pity. And, to be sure, the fat chick has a better shot of getting pumped once or twice than does the omega male of getting laid. Because of this slight sexual disparity, and because of the male instinct to project their sensibilities onto the female sex and imagine that getting laid is proof of romantic success, the Insol receives more of a break than the Incel.

Sure, you’ll occasionally hear about fat chicks getting face fucked by drunkards, but rarely will you see them in long term happy relationships with men who aren’t complete rejects. And this reality grows with the pounds. Female fatness has exponentially increasing blowback. Ten extra pounds won’t put too big of a dent in a chubster’s sex life, but 100 extra pounds will relegate her to incel with the omega males.

Loser women, like fat chicks, can sometimes pull off a simulacrun of a relationship, but only after a lot of time alone and sacrifice of anything worth living for. The occasional sight of a fatty in an LTR notwithstanding to the contrary, most fat women go epically long times without a man’s love. You just don’t see them because most fatties don’t advertise their loneliness the way loveless beta males advertise theirs.

The problem with the “even the ugliest/fattest women can get laid” trope is that the issue is not whether a fat chick can manage once in her life to get a weirdo to drill her face for three perfunctory seconds in an alcoholic haze. For women, sex isn’t the relevant metric. Women want love and commitment with a high value man. On that score, fatties fail miserably.

Even if we limit our claim to three second drunken sex with losers, fat chicks still have problems in that department that thinner girls don’t have. It’s hard to directly compare the two groups because thinner/prettier girls are less slutty than fatties and fugs, but if we draw on the subset of sexy thin girls who don’t mind boffing the same losers that fatties boff, then we would find the fatties badly outcompeted for the sexual attention of those losers.

Simply put, there is the tendency of people to miss what they don’t see. Omega and to a lesser extent beta males repeatedly try and fail with women. We see that. Fat chicks, being women first and fatties second, are more passive about courtship. When they fail, it tends to be less spectacular, less conspicuous. They are simply ignored rather than rejected. When fat chicks fail in the dating market, they retreat away from men or they surround themselves with female friends so that they can continue engaging the social scene without the stink of celibacy driving them to isolation or handicapping their ability to converse with strangers. The involuntary loneliness of fat chicks is thus more concealed than the loneliness of loser men.

In contrast, incel men don’t have large groups of socially attractive male friends to shield them from their own failure. The sexual poverty of the male incel is more readily apparent in his loner lifestyle and his bitter, stunted personality. When he fails, he retreats, regroups, fails, retreats again, and the cycle continues. His failure is unmissable.

In the grand scheme, incels and insols are two sides of the same coin. Both lose in the sexual market. Both lose in the LTR market. Both suffer long droughts of sexlessness. If there’s a difference between the omega male incel and the female fatty insol, it’s that perhaps the fatty can amass (heh) a couple more lays in her lifetime than can the omega male. But two extra lays over a lifetime does not a proud, confident, non-bitter woman make.

Read Full Post »

When Evolution Fails

Can evolution fail? I offer the following thought experiment as evidence that there are circumstances in which evolution proceeds along a path that violates its own precepts.

A high SMV (sexual market value) man who likes the idea of being an anonymous father but not a real father, donates to a sperm bank. One thousand low SMV (fat and/or ugly) women get impregnated by his sperm and have one son each. Will this de facto harem leader’s sons grow up to be

a. more attracted or

b. less attracted

to fat or ugly women?

As commenter Arch Hades put it,

Higher quality male peckers have evolutionarily evolved to not want to impregnate fatties.

But what happens when a high quality male pecker makes a contribution to the wombs of low quality females via an aesthetically neutral conduit like a sperm bank? The intrinsic desire of the man for slender, beautiful women will still be passed onto his one thousand sons, despite the fact that, from his genes’ point of view, he willingly plunged the portals of a lot of gross women. He didn’t start with a predilection for fat or ugly women, so whatever genetic code he passes on through the sperm bank women won’t appear in any of his male progeny as an increased attraction for ugly women.

In this instance, the ironclad law of evolution has been overturned. The “attraction for ugly women” genes that would increase in a state of nature where men with those innate predilections seek out ugly mates and pass their predilection onto future generations does not increase in this scenario of the sperm bank acting as middleman.

Now one could say the sperm bank is unnatural and thus the laws of evolution don’t apply, but anything created by humans must be natural in the sense that culture and its appurtenances are manifestations of genetic architecture previously selected for. The sperm bank is as much a part of the evolutionary biofeedback loop as is the stick that a chimp uses to flush out termites.

What does it say then about evolutionary theory that a sperm bank can essentially sever the connection between reproductive fitness and sexually selected traits? What about contraceptives? In a sense, condoms and the pill act like individually owned and operated sperm banks, altering the ancient equation between female (and male) sexual choice and what kind of children they eventually bear (or not bear).

All this is to say we as a species are entering uncharted territory. Anyone who thinks there won’t be awesome consequences lacks the requisite imagination.

Interestingly, you can sort of see the outlines of the above ugly female client sperm bank scenario playing out in real time in the bars and clubs across America. Just substitute “ugly female client sperm bank” with “fat women”, and the picture crystallizes. Like the man contributing to a sperm bank patronized by ugly women who would otherwise only have sex with attractive women, a nontrivial number of men are crossing their lower bound of acceptable female sexual attractiveness to rut with fatties out of necessity and fear of unwilling celibacy. As upwards of 70% of all American women are heavier than their ideal weight, it’s simply a matter of insufficient suitable mate availability driving an evolutionary trend that is at odds with actual reproductive fitness or male sexual attraction predilection.

The future, should my attempts to clear the SMV fog prove prescient, looks like a horror show of gargantuan beastwomen and sexually and romantically unfulfilled men drifting in and out of each others’ lives in a loveless nihilistic melancholy.

***

PS On a related “Is evolution failing?” note, the buzzy AmRen article titled “Confessions of a Public Defender” is a harrowing read, and provokes some illicit thought about where we are heading demographically. The impression one gets from this titillating exposure to the minds and values of the zoo animal underclass is that the moral senses… fairness, reciprocity, empathy, guilt, even a basic conception of right and wrong… may very well be unevenly distributed not only among members of the same race but between the races in general. If you quake at the idea that average IQ varies by race, how badly will your bowels shake if it’s discovered that some races are more, or less, morally evolved?

CH has gone out on limbs before that have proven to be supported by trunks of strong empirical oak, and we’ll go out on a limb again, one so far up the tree that few if any will have the balls to venture out with us. Morality and empathy are evolved traits, and like many human traits they will be found in varying degrees and complexities of expression among the world’s races. Given this, the civilized nations would do well to consider that their jurisprudence systems are incapable of impartially subsuming the less morally evolved in a manner that suits their own elevated moral sense. If you cannot or are unwilling to grasp that the defendant sitting across from you is closer in temperament and moral evolution to a feral beast than to your kin, you will forever be stricken with crippling doubt about the nature of your race’s achievements and philosophies.

Demographically, then, it becomes imperative that advanced peoples act to limit the fecundity of relative moral degenerates in their midst, or barring that to erect barriers against the incorporation of the upwardly moral and the downwardly amoral. And yet the exact opposite appears to be the rule of the land currently. Evolution is failing, thanks to a warped altruistic impulse that has provided and sustains a fitness advantage for morally infantile, and thus exceedingly dangerous, humans. Again, like the sperm bank scenario above, the state of nature has been upturned and bifurcated by a middleman — in this case, misplaced leftoid equalist generosity towards lesser people who would impulsively kill them without losing a wink of sleep — and traits that would normally get culled due to the dual pressures of sexual and natural selection become instead numerous and widespread.

Deus ex machina has become hominis ex machina.

PPS This post is supameta, and readers will find it hard to resist pointing out the impossibility of evolution “failing” in a system that is part of the natural universe, but as humans we have also evolved a disposition to employ value judgments that maximize our Darwinian fitness, which is a jargony way of saying that an impersonal natural process can indeed fail if it results in the failure of the one species which has proven capable of identifying that process.

Read Full Post »

The Hivemind Fractures

Some call it the Cathedral. Others, the Blue Pill. Here at CH, it’s called the Hivemind, and it’s starting to show fissures in its cortical borg facade. Case study:

Why Girls Never Want Nice Guys — And Why It’s Too Late When They Do

I used to be a nice guy – way back when. Like most men, I learned rather quickly that being that nice guy wasn’t the best of decisions.

You see, I never saw being nice as a decision that needed to be made – I understood it as a state that naturally existed. I didn’t feel that I should go out of my way to be nice because I liked being nice.

More than that, I thought that’s what women wanted: men who were nice. Boy oh boy was I wrong. Sort of, anyway.

There are some women who want the nice guy because they understand that nice means good and not nice means bad. However, most women seem to have the concepts confused.

He goes on like this lamenting his discovery of the true state of female sexual nature. Bitter tears of cynicism streak the pedestal he used to polish to a shine.

But, like most embedded nodes in the Hivemind questioning their utility, his journey to the crimson side is not without setbacks.

She may believe she wants a nice guy, but in reality, she doesn’t want a nice guy. In her eyes, nice is weak – it’s boring. She wants excitement. She wants mystery, surprise, drama. She wants a bad boy.

Until she gets stuck with one, of course. Then all of a sudden logic swarms back into reality and bad, once again, means bad.

As any not-nice man with romantic experience will tell you, women don’t want to ditch the badboys they “get stuck with”. Women want those badboys to stick around, and they perform extraordinary psychological feats of manipulation and rationalization to convince those badboys, and themselves, to choo-choo-choose them for the long haul. Even 💋SCIENCE💋 has shown this to be true.

The Hivemind fractures don’t stop there. The Rude Word of CH is tunneling into the ids of MSM women who can’t help but squint at the glint of the slicing CH Shiv.

Are female breadwinners a recipe for disaster? […]

She’s always been ambitious and career-minded, so Stella’s not surprised that she’s earning big bucks — but, she admits (under guise of anonymity), this wasn’t the way she imagined her relationship dynamic would play out. “I had always known that I wanted to make money and be successful,” she says. “But it was still ingrained in me that the man makes more.” […]

Like any major cultural change, this one comes with growing pains: Sorting out new gender roles can be tough on both partners in a household where she’s the one who brings home the bacon, no matter how progressive both parties might think they are.

“Ingrained in me” = “My vagina doesn’t tingle when we swap traditional sex roles”.

Female breadwinners are tough on relationships and marriages because women *instinctively* want to admire a man and look up to him, while men *instinctively* want to provide for and protect a lower status, more vulnerable woman. This is a timeless fact of human sexual nature that will not be denied, no matter how many hamsters spin or reeducation camps are opened for business.

“My husband and I talk very candidly about the disparity,” says Torabi, who is pregnant with their first child. “He knows he may never make as much as [I do], but he is interested in pursuing a career with more income potential, if for no other reason than to get me to be less stressed [ed: “less frigid”]. I would love for him to be the breadwinner one day. It’s a really awesome position to be in!”

Behold the passionless marriage. Their numbers swell.

CH was on top of these cultural schisms before they were a tentative tremble in the Hivemind’s collective keyboard fingers. Good to see the ugly truths are beating back the black tentacle goo of the equalist lies. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

Read Full Post »

Robert Cialdini And The Triumph Of Game

Robert Cialdini is an expert in psychological manipulation, i.e., goal-oriented communication. (Something we all do, more or less successfully, whether we are aware of our own machinations or not.) He wrote the seminal book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. What you may not know is that Cialdini was, in many respects, a founding father of Game. He is cited by many well-regarded pickup artists, and his ideas, like “social proof”, percolate throughout the game literature. Game has had, from its inception. some pretty solid scientific, theoretical, and experiential backing.

Something else you probably don’t know: Cialdini was tapped, along with other renowned behavioral scientists, by the 2008 Obama campaign to help propel Obama to the highest office in the land.

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama’s campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. “BUT, BUT, BUT,” deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama’s GOTV operatives nationwide, “What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!”

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation’s leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: “A Record Turnout Is Expected.” That’s because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. “People want to do what they think others will do,” says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. “The Obama campaign really got that.”

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. “It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it,” Moffo tells TIME. “These guys really know what makes people tick.”

Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.

That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.

You can thank Game for our first two-term halfling SWPL President and the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy. Now, if Game can do that, imagine what it can do on bored girls at bars yearning for a little excitement in their lives.

Some have said the 21st Century will be the age of biology. I think what we are entering is the age of Orwellian mastery over human psychology. Scarily, the two might be related. The power to shape people’s opinions and emotions through mere word and expression, and guide them to actions they may not have taken otherwise, is reaching an apotheosis that could be magnified a thousandfold coupled with the power to alter people’s genetic architecture.

If your eyes are open, you don’t have to look far to see foreboding signs of this new age of the human aquarium rising into view. Unaccountable secret government agencies using the internet to “manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations”. Your webcam commandeered by shadowy operatives. Cameras on every street corner. Cathedralsourced slanderswarms of crimethinkers.

Cialdini’s name has been found in NSA documents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man himself is working for them.

Doubters can snark about “PUAs” to their hearts’ content, but the arc of recent history is proving that PUAs were at the leading edge all along. Will people listen only when it’s too late?

Read Full Post »