Top 5 Signs That A Woman Is Using You

If a woman you know isn’t having sex with you, it pays to be cognizant of signs that she’s using you for emotional or material support. You may not want to be used in this manner, so knowing her intention is half the battle. Even if you don’t want sex with her, you may also be uninterested in serving as an emotional sponge which she can fill with her tears.

Sexlessness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for female exploitation of male friends, but since most men want to bang their female friends, the unreciprocated desire for sex is enough for afflicted men to feel as if they’re being exploited, regardless of the purity of their female friends’ intentions. It is thus in these men’s interests, and for their mental health, to know when they’re giving above and beyond the call of a casual friend and not getting what they want in return, so that they can exit stage right while they still have a shred of dignity left to preserve.

The lure of prime vagina can cloud the most perspicacious men’s minds, so one must devote pointed mental energy to noticing any signs that a woman is using him for friendship without benefits. In my travels across these blown-out post-patriarchy lands, I’ve seen dicksploitation that would shrivel an elephant’s nads. The following list is a summary of the most common methods I’ve observed women employ to snare betas into unwitting friendzone or house eunuch arrangements.

The top five signs a woman is using you, in no particular order of certitude:

1. She’s a single mom.

That’s all. Single mommery is not just a promise of emotional manipulation, it’s a guarantee. The single mom in your life could be the kindest, most generous woman alive, but she’ll be unable to resist the succubus song of her sex’s prime directive: Extract resources from an available male to help her lil’ bastards survive. If a single mom becomes entangled in your life, it won’t be long before you’re shuttling her sprog to soccer games and sex ed classes. Many single moms instinctively know how repelled men are at the thought of raising another man’s issue, so these half-moms often pay their hapless beta volunteers in pellets of post-partum poon. Assuming attractiveness thresholds are reached, this is all well and good… until about three weeks in when, rubbing your knee after having tripped over yet another infernal toy on your way to the sexroom, mommy coyly wonders aloud if… oh never mind… what? what?… oh, it’s just that it would be a really big help if [robe opens to reveal one breast]… yes?… [uptalk alert] if you could take little Sarah to school tomorrow morning so I can get ready for a job interview?

And by then, it’s too late. She has her hooks in you. My advice: Single moms are short-term sex aids. Get in and get out before a fortnight has passed.

2. She’s a flirtatious flake.

Don’t confuse a flake for a flirtatious flake. The latter is FAR more dangerous. The flake is usually a one and done deal. She flakes, you never hear from her again. The flirtatious flake will reinitiate contact on a regular basis, filling you with renewed hope every time your phone buzzes with her latest ego-stroking scam. The dead giveaway of the flirtatious flake is the phony joy she exudes when anticipating the date you proposed — “can’t wait! c u then!!!” — which is followed by an abrupt last-minute cancellation. A few days later you’ll hear from her again, in full apologetics mode, and the cycle begins anew. If she has a real sucker in her hands, she’ll get you to meet her out with friends and buy everyone rounds of drinks… and you’ll leave later, with dry crotch and empty wallet, wondering if what you just experienced was an actual date or a group hug. Hint: It wasn’t a date.

3. She’s a date whore.

This is the girl who muscles in on the man’s prerogative to choose the date venue. She likes dating; she doesn’t much like sex with the types of men who will agree to her demands for endless dating. No matter what date you suggest, she’ll counter-offer with something that will invariably cost you more money. “Oh hey, I read about this new play downtown… I’d love it if you went with me?” Of course, there’s no logical procession from her date suggestion to her paying her way. If you agree to whatever exorbitantly priced scheme she has in mind, you’re stuck coughing up the cash. Unless you’re a total asshole (ahem) and slip out the back Jack, when Jill gets the bill.

There are two ways to smoke out a nascent golddigger: 1. Absolutely demand she meet you for drinks at your favorite cheap dive bar. If she balks or, worse, if she goes but sulks all night while trying to bounce you to a pricier venue, you’ll have evidence that she’s a user of losers. 2. Suggest an outrageously expensive date idea. If she jumps at the chance after having spent weeks evading your efforts to meet up with her, she plays tools for fools. Don’t try to stick it out with her; if you think sex is “just around the corner”, that’s a corner that never ends.

4. She likes to play “Let’s you and him fight”.

Some girls love to incite white knight theatrics. They get a rush from manipulating dupes to fight other men for their sake. These girls typically have very high tolerances for drama, so it takes a lot to rev their egos. The spectacle of a betaboy friend confronting another man for the approval of a fair maiden is too delicious to these women to pass up. If you find yourself precariously edging toward such situations every time you’re out with a girl, take it as a given she’s using you for emotional orgasms. And those are the least interesting orgasms from a man’s perspective.

Women can also play the “let’s you and him fight” game with invisible ex-boyfriends. She’ll insert an ex into the conversation as a psychological combatant to measure your response. It’s crisis and observation, and if you don’t dismiss her ploy out of hand, you always come out the losing party. Women who bitch and moan about exes on dates aren’t really needing your “support”; what they need is to see what kind of man you are.

5. She’s a self-made martyr.

The old damsel in distress scam. “Pity poor me! My ex/BFF/pimp did this horrible thing to me, and now I don’t know what to do… [bats eyelashes]… maybe you can help?” Beware the walking sob story. She’s a predator who strikes at men’s weakest access point: Their protective instinct. Many a beta chump has been swindled to do the bidding of a doe-eyed martyr expertly wielding the distant reward of sex. These women know that many betas nourish a powerful fantasy of winning the girl through acts of heroism and sacrifice, and they exploit that delusion mercilessly.

If you’re dealing with a self-made martyr, resist the urge to be a Captain Save-a-Ho. Remember the First Rule of Fuck Club: Fuck first, favors later. Sex can always be followed by favors, if you wish. But favors are rarely followed by sex. Get your priorities straight.

Bonus!

Top five signs she’s a true friend and not just using you.

1. She brings her own drugs to share.
2. She pays for the first round, and insists on alternating after that.
3. She never mentions ex-boyfriends or family problems on dates.
4. If you ask her about an ex, she’ll say you don’t want to hear about it, and mean it.
5. She genuinely surprises you with unexpected gifts, because she remembers that time you did something for her.

Double Bonus Round!

How to turn a friendzone to your sexual advantage.

Preemptively friendzone the girl if you suspect she has similar designs. Getting the LJBF jump on a girl will seriously fuck with her mental toolkit. Expectations UPTURNED! Sense her attraction isn’t quite “there” yet? Worried she might try to insert you into her group of friends as the reality of your animal desire looms? Tell her, “I like hanging out with you, because there’s no pressure. It’s good that I’m not interested in you that way.”

A preemptive friendzone is a sucker punch to a girl’s ego. What was once her romantic inertia will become her raging curiosity. “This guy just wants to be… friends?!?” Humor her attempts to drag love interests and exes into conversations. In fact, ask her for more juicy gossip, because you like hearing about all the guys who fall for her tricks. Agree & amplify. Brag about yourself, because now you’re no longer “trying” to impress her. Exaggerate your indifference to her sexuality; “I’m glad we can be this physical because it doesn’t mean anything.” Play it cool and play it with sincerity, and you can energize the sexual tension until such time that you decide you’ve “had a change of heart” about her. It’s the rare woman indeed who doesn’t fall for this convenient about face. Proceed to plunder at will.

Read Full Post »

Why Are Women More Liberal Than Men?

It’s hardly a secret that women vote more liberal and Democrat than do men. Even married women, while voting less liberal than their unmarried cohort, retain the sex disparity in vote preference. A study has found that suffrage moved the country inexorably to the left, and it hasn’t stopped moving in the degenerate direction since.

CH proposed a biological mechanism that follows from an understanding of the sexual market to explain the greater liberalism of women. As the resource-exploiting sex, women are neurally charged to extract support and transfer provisions from men to themselves to see them through the tough times of pregnancy and the raising of small children. To aid them in this purpose, women have evolved an innate (if subtly shifting) warmth for men who can provide for them and who show it through romantic displays of fidelity.

But when women become self-supporting, either by their own financial independence or via government largesse (which is in practice the redistribution of beta male resources to women), then the limbic impulses that help them connect with beta providers become short-circuited and redirected to charming cads and government growth. The cad serves the pile driver need while the sugar daddio big government serves the provider need. Under this arrangement, women can indeed “have it all”, (except for long-term commitment from men, which loses its incentive structure in this beta-bypass system).

Therefore, the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.

All’s fair in souls and shivs, but this may be only part of the story of women’s infantile harm-based liberalism. The political and economic liberalism of women coexists with a greater female tendency to collectivism and religious feeling. Oddly, women appear to be both more liberal and more conservative than men, at least when the metrics used for comparison are sliced thinner. (And the hamster went wheeee….)

Researchers have (re)discovered that boys are slugs and snails and puppy dogs’ tails and girls are sugar and spice and everything nice.

Can disgust sensitivity help explain why women tend to be more collectivistic?

The researchers sought to examine why women are more likely than men to endorse the socially conservative attitudes of collectivism and religious fundamentalism. Both attitudes encourage cooperation with one’s own social group and the shunning of outsiders.

Women on average tend to adhere to social and religious norms, and practice within-group reciprocity more than their male counterparts.

So… women are conformist lemmings who get the vapors when someone dissents from the party line. Never woulda guessed.

“Females are more likely to exhibit forms of social conservatism that involve ingroup cohesion and outgroup avoidance (e.g., collectivism)…”

White women, in particular, are assiduous about dating within their race. SWPL chicks may chant kumbaya, but their revealed dating preferences say “white is right”.

Across four separate studies, the researcher found that those who were more easily disgusted and more afraid of contamination were more likely to be both female and socially conservative. The four studies were comprised of 980 undergraduate students in total.

WEIRD alert.

The link between disgust and conservativism is bolstered by previous studies. […]

But why do women tend to be more easily disgusted than men? The researchers think this can be attributed to evolution.

Men and women are both vulnerable to pathogens in the environment. However, the sexes face a distinct imbalance when it comes to reproduction. Women must bear approximately 9 months of pregnancy, while men’s “initial investment can be as little as the amount of time that it takes for copulation,” the researcher explained.

Women therefore have more to lose from mating with a bad partner. They also need to avoid exposing their gestating offspring to pathogens. Women with heightened feelings of disgust would have been more likely to avoid sickly mates and keep their fetus healthy, and consequentially more likely to pass on their genes.

Makes sense. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, pathogens were a much greater threat than they are today in the age of penicillin and indoor plumbing. Disgust and its concomitant moral rationale evolved because it increased the chances of one’s survival, and the survival of one’s children.

Women’s heightened feeling of disgust also explains the quickness with which they resort to labeling men they don’t want to have sex with as “creeps”.

Disgust, in turn, encourages “the preference of ingroup members over outgroup members, because outgroup members pose a greater disease threat,” the researchers wrote. This preference towards members of one’s own group manifests itself as socially conservative attitudes, like religious fundamentalism.

“In other words, disgust sensitivity prepares individuals to have a negative perception of others who may be a source of contamination and to avoid them.”

If women feel more disgust, why do they vote more liberal? The conundrum is solved if you don’t conflate “collectivism” and “conservatism”. The two are very different moral outlooks. Collectivists have strong liberal tendencies, such as wealth redistribution and PC policing. Conformism, too, is today more a trait of liberals than of non-liberals.

What about social liberalism? Aren’t women on the whole more socially liberal than men? First, SWPL women are not all women. For example, support for abortion restrictions runs about dead even between men and women nationally, but I’m sure you’d find that in the baby-less blue cities, pro-abortion is the default position among women.

Second, social liberalism can accommodate collectivism (or vice versa). If the prevailing view of “your tribe” is that gay marriage is doubleplusgood, then you’ll happily parrot newspeak if it means strengthening in-group cohesion. And you’ll do this even if your sex possesses a lower disgust threshold.

Jonathan Haidt has theorized that disgust/sanctity is one of five moral foundations, of which ideological conservatives weigh more heavily than do liberals. I think there is evidence based on women’s greater propensity to feel disgust to question Haidt’s categorization. The disgust reflex apparently acts to amplify women’s social liberalism, possibly by providing emotional justification for repurposing feelings of disgust against ideological outsiders. If this is happening, as I suspect it is, then natural female disgust is, in the modern context, less a behavioral adaptation to infectious disease than it is protection against “infectious ideological opponents”.

The analysis gets more complicated when race is added to the mix. Black women are liberal, but their liberalism is driven by different moral and self-interested motivations than that which drives white women. The question left unanswered is whether the disgust reflex is universally higher among women or if it varies in intensity between the races.

Finally, we can predict that liberalism is ascendent and will continue its cultural ascent in lockstep with generationally decreasing testosterone levels, because lower testosterone among men putatively translates to stronger feelings of (ideological) disgust in men (akin to what women feel), and a stronger predilection toward feminine collectivism and equalist conformism.

In other words, the world is becoming more womanly and scalzied. Those who hope for a return to reason and common sense may first need to figure a way to re-inflate the sad shriveled sacks of the manlets of the West.

Read Full Post »

The Unfathomable Mind Of Man

Sweet Rosalie writes,

I don’t understand how the married guy is “happily married” if he drinks so much and sounds so desperate. If I had been his wife I would have divorced him not for cheating, but for being such a desperate clingy beta (for a 36-year-old who treats him like s#it nonetheless). I wouldn’t mind too much my husband having an affair if he acts like a grown-up, but the sight of my husband losing his head like a (drunk) teenager would be unbearable.

It’s helpful to remind oneself that the male mind is as, if not more, unfathomable to women as the female mind is to men, and this is particularly so when we speak of the primeval parts of the brain responsible for regulating romantic feeling. Rosalie is Exhibit A. She can’t understand how a man can be both happily married and desperate to bang an office hottie. But men are perfetly capable of compartmentalizing sex and love, something women can’t do or can only do with strenuous mental exertions that defy their natural psychological predisposition.

FACT: Most men can simultaneously love their wives and lust for their mistresses.

FACT: More men than women are capable of LOVING two or more romantic partners concurrently.

FACT: A man can sustain and reconcile a happy marriage and a romantic fling for decades without feeling an urge to give up on either one.

Women have trouble doing any of the above three axioms with the same ease of execution and peace of mind that men naturally possess. There are exceptions, but this is the way to bet.

Rosalie, therefore, is befuddled. And Rosalie should not be chastised (gently mocked, yes) for her befuddlement, because it is the nature of her sex to project her own desires and compulsions onto the motivations of men. It is a rare woman indeed with the self-awareness to understand men’s romantic desires and to predict men’s actions based on that understanding. It is the rarer woman still who will forgive men for following their desires in the same reckless manner that women unabashedly follow theirs.

Rosalie’s confessional blurt reveals something else of the character of women. It isn’t the cheating per se that offends her; it’s the man’s clinginess and betatude with which the hope of cheating is pursued that gets under her skin. This is in line with the CH contention that, deep beneath the reservoir of polite social expectation that wraps cortically around the id monster, women aren’t so scandalized by a cheating lover as they are emotionally traumatized by a cheating lover who cheats with sub-par fare and does so with the mien of a mewling betaboy in a rush of love. (That post, btw, garnered a response from a more optimistic man than I.)

Rosalie is woman. The sex act of the cheater is not the crisis of heart for her. The betrayal of *love* is what sets her off. Like most women, what she truly fears is infidelity of the heart, not infidelity of the groin. This is why it’s so jarring to her to hear about, or visualize, an older husband falling gaga in love with a younger woman, and reverting to a primordial beta prototype in the process.

Sweet Rosalie, if only there were more women like you who spoke truth to id, and understood that alpha husbands sometimes need sexual and romantic outlets, and that this male desire needn’t mean the end of their marriages. Are you French, by any chance?

Read Full Post »

Alexis de Tocqueville’s Prescient Gaze

DAN IN ATL passes along wise words from a long-gone species of man: The keen observer of reality.

In his classic study “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville included this gem:

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things–their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

The twisted roots of American feminism trace back to the motherland: Europe. To find the malevolent pool of black goo that belched the feminism-equalism battleaxes-of-evil, you need to journey to the ancestral lands of your forebears. For most Americans prior the 1965 White Dissolution Immigration Act, that means the lands of Napoleon, Richard III, and Kaiser Wilhelm.

Weak men and disorderly women. de Tocqueville saw clear what many of us living in the grip of his realized dystopia cannot or will not. Time enough has passed; the weakness spreads and the binds of men and women fray. We had warnings. Why didn’t we heed them? Because, perhaps, free will is illusory. We crash in the machinery of these ageless, infinitely looping social cycles, rattling like loose nuts, dimly grasping the exhausted end we’re hurtling toward, but unable to do anything about it save rust within the decay. Our hopes and aspirations, it appears, exist in precarious balance with an ineradicable death wish.

Read Full Post »

The Good Gelding Project

A writer, Andrew Smiler, for the e-zine ‘The Good Men Project’ has unintentionally parodied the mission statement of that blog with such zeal that one expects their next post to advocate mass castration. Titled “A Guy’s Guide to The Gender-Minimized 1st Date“, Smiler offers suggestions to men for how to date without being a man. You think I’m joking. I’m not. The intro paragraph is auspicious:

It’s not possible to have a completely gender neutral date. Gender, our cultural and personal notions of how people should act based on their biological sex, influences too many aspects of our behavior to be completely neutralized. In the dating context, gender roles provide an outline of how things “should” work. But in a day and age where equality is the expectation, why stick to a rigid outline based on your genitalia?

Weighing the efficacy of mocking the puffboy’s pretensions or spelling out in tiresome detail where his premises are wrong, I am stuck deciding between low effort fun or high effort usefulness. *flips a coin* The latter it is.

1. Gender is not a synonym for sex. Only appeasing nancyboys throw around the word gender like candy, ostensibly to ingratiate their feminist overlords.

2. There’s no such thing as a sex neutral date. The point of dates is to bring together the two sexes and determine if there is enough shared attraction, based upon sex-particular needs, for a romantic entanglement. The sexes’ differing reproductive goals, especially the woman’s, require a relatively lengthy courtship period to override natural trepidation.

3. Cultural and personal notions don’t influence people to act “based on their biological sex”, (is there any other type of sex?). Rather, the innate biological foundation of sex differences influences cultural and personal expressions of dating behavior.

4. The moral presumption that sex differences should be neutralized is a feature of the warped mind of losers who compete poorly in the organic sexual market.

5. “Gender roles” don’t provide an outline of how things “should” work; instead, sex roles emerge naturally and unbidden from primal biological impulses that are activated and sustained in the most intractably evolved parts of the brain like the limbic system.

6. “Equality” is only an expectation in the stifling prison complexes of liberal arts universities and on the broadsheets of leftoid propagandists. Among normal people, concerns for equality are about the last thing on anyone’s mind during a date.

7. The genitalia produce no dating protocol outline, rigid or otherwise. The brain is primarily responsible for the phenomenon of sex differences in courtship behavior. A man or a woman don’t follow rigid outlines only after they locate and identify their genital package. (For Smiler, this could take hours.) They follow sex-specific behavior patterns because their brains are wired differently, and this wiring began at the moment of conception, and before that at the moment the human race was conceived.

Now you see why low effort glibness when dealing with these fruits is so tempting.

I’m trying to write this guide to apply across all genders, masculine, feminine, trans*, etc.

There are two sexes. Anything else is an escapee from nature’s discard pile.

 If I’ve missed or something is very wrong, I have faith someone will let me know in the comments.

Good sire, I think yee’ve forgotten the thimblepeeners. Inclusiveness is job one, chop chop!

The butch asks some version of “I’d like to take you out to dinner, a movie, coffee, etc.,” does all the logistical work to make that date happen, initiates physical/sexual contact, and is responsible for starting conversation the next day if “he” wants the relationship to continue.

“He” is in nuance quotes because I suspect this pastry impersonating a man has relinquished the butch role to his morbidly obese feminist dates to take the lead jamming antique walking sticks up his rectum.

Hetrerosexual American guys assume they’ll pay for the first date, regardless of whether they endorse traditional or egalitarian gender roles.

More precisely, beta males assume they’ll pay for wallet-busting dates. Savvier men know the smart play, if a free date isn’t an option, is to pop for a cheap drink and tease the girl about buying the next ten rounds.

This role means the femme becomes the “sexual gatekeeper” because “she” is the one who accepts or rejects the butch’s sexual advances.

These “roles” you speak of are intractable properties of evolved human sexual psychology. They aren’t tasteful dresses you slip on in the privacy of your masturbatorium before an enthusiastic audience of Realdolls and brony onesies.

Very little of this requires sexually dimorphic genitalia.

Technically, this is true. You could lop off a man’s junk and he’ll still have a male mind, with the suite of behaviors that entails. I’m sure pudding bowl here has a wealth of experience in the matter.

Talking to someone, kissing and groping, and asking to see someone again (or not), requires a heart, a brain, a mouth, and the ability to communicate.

Well fuckin knock me over with a feather! Here I thought disembodied telepathy was all the rage.

Your genitalia—and your partner’s genitalia—are only relevant if you prefer some types of genitalia over others.

Trying to parse this, getting nowhere. I think he means a vagina is optional on a date. Her vagina, not his.

To minimize the impact of gender roles,

you’ll need to think about this now so you know what you want to do before you start doing it.

Hmm, sounds like… game!

Before you can do something new, you’ll need to get past the messages that have been beaten into your head by American culture.

“Cultural conditioning.” Define this “cultural conditioning” without resorting to circular shamanistic chanting. Use of any mathematical formulae in your presentation of evidence for cultural conditioning discernibly influencing sex specific mating behavior earns you bonus points. Stamping your wee feet doesn’t count as evidence.

Male feminists so funny thinking they can wave away biological reality by uttering two words ad nauseum. Which antediluvian “messages” have been beaten into American men’s heads the past sixty years? The gay marriage message? The black doctor message? The fat is beautiful message? The Lena Dunham is hot message? The white privilege message? The you go grrl message? If I didn’t know any better I’d say the cultural messages percolating throughout the entirety of the media and academia complexes extols a qausi-androgyny and sex role reversal. Funny, too, how *this* cultural conditioning has been so effortlessly rebuffed by all those men and women who continue to adhere to outmoded sex norms.

One part of this is learning to adopt the other role, at least at times.

“I’m wearing panties. The lace tickles my scrotum!”

Given how many times most guys hear some version of “don’t act like a girl,” that may not be the easiest way to approach it.

Maybe men are advised to not act like a girl because it’s a turn-off to women? Just a thought.

Instead, think about being asked out as someone paying you a complement and offering to buy you dinner in exchange for the chance to get to know you better.

If men wait around to be asked out by women they are gonna be pulling their puds alone for a long time. I suppose to get around this minor obstacle, you could taser women until they agree to your enlightened terms of engagement.

If a woman asks a man out or puts the sexual moves on him, it doesn’t mean she’s a slut (and it never did), it just means that she was ready for those things to happen before he was.

Leftoid reductionist thinking. Women don’t usually make the first move because it leaves them feeling less attractive, and it robs them of the need to gauge a man’s ardor and his drive. A man, of course, will take a pussy freebie if it’s thrown his way, but he won’t prize a woman as much as if she had retained her womanly prerogative to play coy and coax his initiative. These are fundamental principles of human value assessment that exist because the reproductive goals of men and women are different, and that transcend lazy, vapid platitudes about “being ready” first.

 If a guy doesn’t initiate, it doesn’t mean he’s a wimp.

A leading indicator of gutless lapdog faggotry is a penchant for using the word “guy” in place of “man”, yet maintaining the use of “woman”. As some readers might have perspicaciously noticed, CH combats this puling media trend by using the terms “man” and “girl” with bracing regularity. The upturned prolapsed rump of the anklebiterrati must be balanced by the forces of righteous phallocentrism.

He might be shy. Or maybe he doesn’t trust his ability to read your nonverbal messages and has adopted a “better safe than sorry” approach.

No nuts, no glory.

In any dating scenario, you’ll need to decide if and how much sexual contact you want to have with this person at this time. Remember,guys are allowed to refuse,

This is how eunuchs like Andrew Smiler rationalize their never ending procession of sexless dates.

even if you’ve never heard one admit doing so.

The universal cheat code of the SMV reality denier. Something about the sexual market that bothers you because it highlights your inability to compete? Just claim the opposite happens all the time, but no one admits to it. It’s super secret and stuff.

If you’re not sure, you can always say something like “I’m not ready to [fill in the blank] yet. Can we go back to what we were doing?”

A man who says “I’m not ready to get a blowjob yet. Can we go back to what we were doing?” as the girl is unzipping his pants has to think seriously about his sexual orientation.

Some of this is inevitably influenced by those gender scripts we’ve all learned

Present a hard copy of this gender script for examination.

If you want to get out of gender-land quickly, share some of your “gender atypical” interests.

“I masturbate into doll houses.”

Or, if you’re really bold, talk about the fact that you don’t really (or only partially) buy into gender stereotypes. Heck, you could even send the link for this article.

Along with a restraining order form she can fill out at her convenience.

Interestingly, there is a subgenre of game that implicitly mocks the new age sensitive gumbo that is especially effective on overt feminists. By adopting a pose of antipathy to “traditional” sex stereotypes that will be taken as intellectual flattery by the feminist, the sneaky player can breach her perimeter defenses and then seal the deal later by acting like an unreconstructed cad. The feminist will have to square contradicting paeans to her worldview with behavior that speaks directly to her libido. The enticement to “understand this wild man” will be insuppressible.

When you ask someone on a date, it means you make all the plans. Start by selecting an activity (e.g., dinner, bowling, movie) and asking your partner if they’re ok with that choice.

Never ask a girl if she’s ok with your date suggestion. Make a plan, and leave it to her to nix it if it’s something she really doesn’t want to do. If she demurs, make a counter offer, and if she nixes that one, sarcastically admire her spontaneity and adventurism.

I firmly believe that whoever does the asking is also responsible for paying.

How conveeenient, since it’s men who will have to do the asking if they want to get anywhere with women who aren’t desperate, purple-haired fatties.

When I’ve initiated a date, the bill comes, and my date has asked to split the cost, I’ll usually just say “why don’t you pay next time?” But if it’s going poorly and I don’t want there to be a next time, I will accept that offer to split the cost.

If the date is going really poorly and the girl turns out to be a first class cunt, slip out the back Jack, and leave her with the bill.

If I’ve asked someone out, I never ask them to pay for half, even if it’s going poorly. I asked, so I pay.

This is why if you’re going on a date with the expectation you’ll be paying, just go for drinks. May as well liquor the girl up on your dime and make a dent in her inhibitions.

You’ll need to get ready before the first date. That means getting dressed in a way that shows who you are and may—or may not—mean emphasizing the parts of your body that are sexually desirable.

I’m trying to think of a scenario where emphasizing the parts of one’s body that are sexually repulsive is the winning move. I suppose men can get away with the tactic as part of a game of signaling overconfidence by self-handicapping, and making light of it. Women should not pursue this strategy under any guise.

Given that our standards of attractiveness are closely connected to gender, this is one place where you probably want to get all gendered up.

How conveeenient, part 2.

Then again, “getting all gendered up” might be confusing if you’re mostly not following the standard gender script.

I could carve a straighter man out of Andrew McRawGlutes Sullivan.

Beyond this, there’s no formula. You can maintain one roll (leading or following)

You *can*, but it would be personally advantageous, if you’re a man and not a castrate, to lead rather than to follow, because the overwhelming majority of women prefer men in the former role to the latter role. So yeah, switch sex roles around all you like; just don’t expect to avoid the consequences.

Although it can be awkward, I recommend having at least a little conversation about gender roles—especially as they apply to dating and sex—during the first date.

Do NOT talk about “gender roles” on a first date in anything but a humorous, self-aware tone. I can’t think of a faster way to deep six a date than droning about society’s pressure on women to conform to cross-legged sitting positions. If you’re gonna game a hardcore feminist by pretending to be sympatico with her dumb beliefs, at least choose topics that are tangentially related to sex, so that the idea of sex with you gets lodged in her brain.

If you 1) have a disagreement about one of these topics and 2) it’s a topic that you both feel strongly about, it may be a sign that you’re not supposed to be with the person. Personally, I’d rather know sooner than later. If the two of you are able to find common ground and resolve that difference, that’s also good to know.

Older men with abysmally low testosterone levels become more interested in finding “common ground” with women at the expense of getting laid. Then they upsell it as enlightened thinking when all it really reflects is an inability to get aroused by the wrinkly cougars they’re stuck waltzing to arid dinner dates.

If you’ve been leading the whole time, then momentum says it’s your job to follow up.

How does momentum say this? Citation number counts toward your final score.

If you enjoyed the first date, tell the other person;

Because no woman worth pursuing ever liked a little bit of ambiguity in a man.

From here, it’s back to flirting and you’ll need to make a decision if you’re going to initiate the second date or wait for your partner to do it.

Never have so many words said so little with such dullness.

The key here is that you don’t need to stick to a set of gender-based rules that are older than you are.

These rules are ancient for a reason, you dumb fuck. You shitlapper. You Facebook mom.

You and your partner can structure your romantic and sexual life—who is responsible for what and when—any way you like.

You can live in your home any way you like.
You can take care of your body any way you like.
You can shit in public parks any way you like.
But that doesn’t mean women want to live in pig sties, bang soft manboobs, or date men who crap into water fountains.

Actions have consequences. Repeat until your misfit rage against reality consumes you.

Apparently, to the desiccated male specimens at The Good Men Project, a good man is a gelded man. This Andrew Smiler and his ilk are the mirror image of the fatty feminists who assert with no real world evidence besides apocryphal anecdote that fat women are just as desirable to men, and women should stop worrying so much about staying slender. The gelded man asserts an equally pernicious and debilitating reality warp about the appeal of asexual psychological neuters that would, if taken to heart, contribute to the total repository of ugliness and unhappiness in the world, both by men suffering romantic rejection and by women suffering the disappearance of alluring men.

One wonders what motivates these modern manlets. Are they sincere, or are they fly by night viral marketers for page views? Are many of them in the midst of sexual identity crises that collaterally drive them to public forums in outsized numbers to broadcast their self-hate? Is there really some kind of a gender-bending parasite, or a chemical, that has seeped into the rivulets of Western society and shriveled the nut sacks of millions of men?

Whatever they are, whatever their origin, CH will stand as a bulwark against the anhedonic emasculati’s dangerous nonsense. The Shiv of CH will disembowel their id viscera and display the mess on the operating table for the world to ridicule as mercilessly and joyously as we turn out the vitals of the freak feminists and malign equalists.

Read Full Post »

The Leftoid Media Lie Machine

As most CH readers are likely aware, mass media suppression of hatefacts has accelerated and intensified in recent years, with signs that 2014 will usher the Year of Crimethink Suppression. As a minor but telling example of the effort the liberal-owned-and-operated media industrial complex (aka the propaganda arm of the Cathedral) will go to maintain their Narrative and excise uncongenial facts from their copy, Mangan tweeted (can someone please create a social media platform with a manlier sounding name, ferkrissakes?) the following,

Dishonest, groupthink journalism: 98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

In the scheme of things, it’s a small “oversight” by the journalistic zero integrity clown show, (and ironic considering that global warming is the one liberal pet cause that is buttressed by at least some respectable science), but when you multiply this trivial slight against the truth by the millions of other big and little anti-white lies the Cathedral tells every hour and every day of the year, it becomes clearer that the American public is being deliberately lied to on a scale so massive it may dwarf in sweep and penetration the propaganda outlets of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century East.

Why do they lie? And why do they lie on such insignificant details, when telling the truth would seem to do them no harm? For answers, you need to get inside the heads of your Columbia Journalism School SWPL foes.

The Leftoid Media Lie Machine operates under the direction of two fundamental psychological processes that exist in every human being, but are especially pronounced in your typical leftoid: Ego preservation and status whoring.

Media mavens and liberal lickspittles alike fancy themselves the cognitive elite; they take pride in their smarts and their education. They are world class humblebraggarts and suck-up credentialists. Their insufferable ideology — a caustic mix of snarkism, childism and feelsism — is their coin of the realm, the barter they use to signal their smarts and to draw up cultural battle lines that give them tactical advantage. When their beliefs are challenged, as is becoming more their reality every day thanks to shiv masters like yours truly, they go into rabid attack mode, because a threat to their egos is like a threat to their bodies. The leftoid is nothing if he is not his glowing, pulsing ego. If the leftoid loses his Narrative prerogative, he may as well lose his reason for living.

And so the temptation to lie lie lie is strong in the leftoid when the truth begins to come out and undercut his manicured mental world and cherished self-conception as an enlightened and kind-hearted wunderkind. He responds to the crisis by working tirelessly to keep that Overton Window securely in his playing field. Three consequences of the threat against the leftoid’s haughty but paper-thin smugness then emerge:

1. The Cathedral suppression of truth will intensify as realization spreads among the true believers in the ranks that everything they’ve believed is a lie.

True believers hide contradicting facts from themselves as much as they do from others. This is an ego protection countermeasure. It isn’t logical, but it is human.

2. The ruling elite who are cynically aware of the truth but can’t escape their emotional attachment to their ideology or to status whoring on the backs of the wrong kinds of white people will encourage the lying as a tool of psychological and political warfare.

Cathedral leftoids loathe the idea that they might give aid and comfort to their non-leftoid enemies. In this scenario, they know the truth on some level, but refuse to acknowledge it (despite any journalistic ethical strictures commanding them to do so) because they believe acknowledging it will embolden and gird the spirits of those they consider horrible, no good people. To these leftoids, the prospect of Heartland Joe (Votech, Class of 1975) beaming with satisfaction that his intuition about the way the world works was right all along drives them insane with rage. Even worse, the thought that a sadistic demon like me would take an eviscerating scalpel to their egos armed with their de facto surrender papers keeps them awake at night in terror.

3. Slander, spying and sanitization will become the default actions of the liberal gatekeepers of discourse gaping ineffectually into the teeth of intractable social problems caused primarily by their own ideas and preferred policies.

Expect shitlib hysteria to reach epic contortions in the coming years, because it will be the only reaction they have left to assuage their fraying egos as the world they constructed falls to pieces around them. The more unsolvable the mass scale social problems become, the more readily leftoids retreat to shrieking bansheeism as a policy prescription and psychological balm.

In the end, the truth wins out. The question is whether it wins in the arena of genteel exchange of ideas, or it rises as the last man standing in a blood-soaked thunderdome.

Read Full Post »

Is A Blubbering Inner Party Leftoid Trying To Silence Chateau Heartiste?

News alerts over the Twitters reveal that a smug bearded mole allegedly within the WordPress organization has contracted the womanly vapors from reading Chateau Heartiste and is searching for remedies to make the hurty stop.

@alternatekev Hunting down cowards on the internet because they’ve just collided some worlds for me and they aren’t going to like it.

@jaydot https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/sociopathy-is-increasing-in-america/and http://www.returnofkings.com/24142/why-did-karl-halverson-pierson-attack-his-school-and-kill-a-pretty-girl

@jaydot if i find enough evidence of incitations for violence in the first link, I can have them removed from the internet.

We hear so much about liberal tolerance and open-mindedness, yet in practice it’s hard, and getting harder, to find actual examples of anything but the opposite behavior from these self-declared humanist champions of free expression. The typical liberal now is as much characterized by his quickness to silence dissent as he is by his weak jaw-concealing hipster cheek scruff and his ability to pass for a woman in a tasteful skirt. He’s not a subversive; he’s a schoolmarm.

For those wondering, this is how leftoid Cathedral media power operates when their first line of attack — an attempt at social shaming and ostracism — fails: Backroom machinations by a vocal and ideologically strident pro-goon contingent, protected by thick corporate layers of less strident but emotionally sympatico allies that vastly outnumber any opposition, leverages their power to cow resistance and control the discourse by literally censoring open inquiry and speech that upsets the delicate balance of their uterine flora. If @alternatekev at WordPress.com can’t win on the battlefield of ideas, well, he can always make the ridiculous claim that a post about possible increasing levels of sociopathy in America is an incitement to violence, and convince a few nerds in SysAdmin to burn the ASCII books. Problem solved, as Stalin might say.

WordPress is a great platform, and a model for other hosting companies. They have provided a free service that has fostered a true renaissance of ideas on the hallowed grounds of CH. One wonders if WordPress.com is aware that one of their employees is a gung-ho advocate of disappearing wordpress-hosted blogs for writing things that offend his exquisite sensibilities? I’m not a fly on the wall at WordPress headquarters, but I can’t imagine an employee so transparently antagonistic to the first principle of a company to expand the means with which free thinking men can communicate to the masses would be the sort of saboteur with whom the company wishes to associate.

So here we are, another mental manboob (and physical manboob, if you had to bet) thrilling at the prospect of executing his own private Watsoning to the hoots and hollers of his ignoramous leftoid compatriots, beaming ear to ear that he fights the good fight to squash truth-seeking for the cause of conformist cant. Stand proud, @alternatekev, for your struggle is the struggle of untold millions around the world who must suffer in silence the humility of reading stuff that turns them red in the face and incites them to hunt for the witch to burn.

What’s more to say? You sit in the driver’s seat, @alternatekev. Take your shot. Suppress or get off the pot. Victory is within your grasp.

Read Full Post »