The Wickedest Links

1. Bruce Charlton wonders if the perpetual lying of the ruling elite is having a biological effect on their brain wiring.

After years and years of conditioning in dishonesty, the typical modern intellectual (whether journalist, scientist, lawyer, teacher, doctor or whatever) becomes physically unable to think straight.

Thus the lack of common sense of the ‘Clever Sillies’ who rule modern societies and are driving them into suicide and self-destruction may, in practice, be intractable – short of mass repentance and long-term rehabilitation and retraining of neural pathways and connections.

I can think of another method that would work to wonderfully focus the mind and bring common sense back.

******

2. A study from June 2012 finds that porn was a direct cause of 10% of all divorces in the US in the 1960s and 1970s.

We test whether pornography causes divorce. Using state-level panel data on the divorce rate and sales of Playboy magazine, we document a strong cross-sectional and time-series relation between lagged sales of Playboy and the divorce rate. The simple correlation between divorce and sales lagged two years is 44 percent, with a T-statistic of 20. This large correlation is robust to using only the first half of the sample, adjusting for all state-level heterogeneity and for any time trends by including state and year fixed effects, and using an instrumental variable to correct for any possible endogeneity in Playboy sales. Divorce rates are also significantly correlated with sales of Penthouse but they are not correlated with sales of Time magazine. Our overall estimates suggest that pornography probably caused 10 percent of all divorces in the United States in the sixties and seventies.

Options = instability. Porn isn’t a male sexual market option in the traditional sense, but it is an option in the hindbrain sense. The viewing of porn satiates the libido and tricks the gene’s prime directive into believing — that is, biochemically reacting as if — it has been fulfilled. Married men who watch porn are, in a truncated fashion, having dalliances with hundreds of sexy mistresses. Combine this phantom psychological grooming of feeling like one has limitless high quality mate options with the bursting female obesity epidemic that took off right around the same time porn ejaculated onto the cultural mainstream, and the only surprise is that the deadly one-two punch didn’t directly account for more than 10% of divorces.

In case you’re wondering, yes, female porn — aka pulp romance novels, celebrity tabloids, and soap operas — which coincidentally also took off as a cultural phenomenon in the 1960s, has likely contributed to marital dissolution as female consumers feed their growing hunger for alpha male love and drama and consequently drive a wedge of dissatisfaction between them and their real-life beta male spouses.

******

3. Chinese aren’t on board with the whole “democracy is great!” Western line of thought. Fancy that! Human population groups aren’t fungible, in either capability or sensibility. HBDers will nod knowingly at this latest revelation into real diversity, but the ruling elite, steeped and suffocating in a stinking silo of their own shibboleths, will grapple with this unsettling information the best way they know how: By silencing discussion.

******

4. Speaking of silencing discussion, it appears that the Left is now fully committed to the principle of speech restrictions. Ah, the Left. Remember those lovable guys? The ones who used to whine about witch hunts and censorship by the antediluvian Right? Yeah, well, times have changed, and victory in the endless war over less enlightened white people requires a… reassessment… of battle tactics. Now that the truths being uncovered are discrediting just about everything the current incarnation of the Left believes, and that the Cathedral is being mischievously subverted by agents provocateur who don’t fear them and in fact love taking a steaming dump in their faces, cherished principles will need to be adjusted to accommodate some progressive speech suppression so that no one’s feelings are hurt, except for the feelings of those implacable moral reprobates who don’t toe the party line. Naturally, the leftoids are confident they can pull off their inspired con, because the top of the rank is filled to brimming with the sorts of people who evolved an exquisite verbal facility for sophistry.

******

5. Boys with sisters are more likely to be Republicans. Correlational? Causative? Who knows, but this does hint that men who are exposed to female nature early in life and continuing forward are inclined to drift to the political right. The reason for that should be obvious: The earthy, organic right is where a realistic appraisal of the world substitutes for idealistic zeal in the perfectibility of humans. Or: Sisters be keepin’ it real, yo.

******

6. This is the closest to realtalk anyone on Fox News has ever come. But Bill O’Reilly still can’t pull the shroud all the way back and confront the id head-on. He blames the destruction of the nuclear family for blacks’ failings, failings to which, admirably, he gives a clean airing, but the truth goes a bit deeper, and a lot uglier. As some liberal Cablinasians will inform him, black family dissolution likely has a cause itself, an intractable cause that originates in the neural gears, and that, when left to grind mercilessly and free from cultural constraint, ultimately propels the social dystopia of sky high single momhood rates and parasitic criminality. The fear to face the id by the left and right is understandable. Blame the family breakdown, and you leave hope that amelioration is possible. But admit that dark, ancient forces woven into the architecture of the brain itself are at work, and all hope is lost. And when hope is lost, what is there left to meddle in for morally posturing and preening leftoids?

I have a suggestion for discouraged leftoids with nothing Left to do: Ban soda! Obesity is a more recent emergence, and preaching fire and brimstone against refined grains, sugar and soda can go a long way to beautifying the country.

******

7. For purposes of artistic license, I was a little glib in my assertion above that the reversal of black (and white) family breakdown isn’t possible or will have no effect on overall social dysfunction. Of course, this is not true. Contra some trailblazing determinists, the relatively ahistorical recent rise of single momhood proves that it has a social component as well as a genetic one. But without a realization by the ruling equalism-adhering elite that underlying human mental algorithms which evolved over tens of thousands of years manifest as social phenomena, there can be no effective policy crafted that will competently address the problem of black, and now increasingly, white dysfunction. But in order for a pro-nuclear family policy to find success, it must violate in some way the liberal ur-moral aesthetics of harm and fairness. That is, no public policy with the goal of constraining and redirecting evolved social preferences that are at odds with advanced civilization will work unless, to put it metaphorically, the lash is taken to delusions about untrammeled individualism and nonjudgmentalism.

For a real world example of what such a policy would constitute, consider the following: There once was a time when a relentless shaming campaign to stop jaywalking was public and social policy. And it worked. Jaywalking dropped precipitously. We can do the same with single moms, thuglets, fly-by-night cads, and blubbery fatties: Mock them. Mock them until they are on the verge of self-deliverance. Mock them until their pain is so acute and palpable that it serves as a warning to others contemplating the same life paths. Humans are at heart a social species, and nothing clears the mind and alters the behavior like a scorching psychological scaphism in the town square.

Will some people’s feelings get hurt? You bet. But there is more on this moral earth than is dreamt of in the cramped, claustrophobic moral attic of tunnel-visioned leftoids who can only see a fatty crying but miss a nation groaning under the weight of millions of fatties.

Read Full Post »

Dan And Nadine

Dan readied his stick and plunked a ball in a side pocket. Relishing his fleeting achievement, he raised his eyes to check if Nadine had bore witness to his excellence. She hadn’t. Gruff, caustic Robert, his misshapen nose and squirrel’s nest hair coaxing annoyed leers, was directing to a general audience of three girls a crack about drunkenly seeing twelve holes and the improvement to his game that was sure to bring. Nadine was one of those girls, and Dan squelched a perturbation of despondency when he saw Nadine’s eyes shine for Robert’s boisterous wit.

Nadine was Dan’s project. He met her, he welcomed her friends, he introduced them all to his friends, he slept luxuriously fitful nights imagining Nadine warming to him and reciprocating his feelings. Kind, pretty and, lately, eager to hang out with him and his buddies, Nadine was unassailable. Dan allowed renewed confidence in the value he offered her. Soon, he would ask her out. He just needed a private moment. They’d been out together as a group enough that Dan believed Nadine was hoping he would lurch at a pretext to corner her alone and deliver the magical words she’d been secretly anticipating. Dan occasionally wondered if the moment, when it came, would be so flush with spent resolve that they would seal the agreement with a passionate (but endearingly tentative) kiss.

Dan: “D’ja see that bank shot?”

Robert: “That bank shot wasn’t good…”

PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT

Robert: “…that bank shot was GREAT.”

Nadine: *laughs*

Dan: *smiles weakly*

Robert: *touches Nadine’s chunky girl friend with chalky side of stick*

PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC REACTION

Chunks: “Hey! Not nice!”

Robert: “Blame Dan. He bet me I wouldn’t do it.”

Dan: “No I didn’t.”

Robert: “Come on, Dan, you’re always causing trouble. Don’t try to hide it.”

Nadine: “He doesn’t look like the one causing trouble here.”

Dan: “Thanks, Nadine.”

Robert: “I knew there was something between you two!”

Dan had always taken to understand that he was a handsome, if aesthetically understated, man. He certainly saw nothing in Nadine’s limpid gaze to suggest extended exposure to his countenance irritated her. If Dan were to count up the hours spent in Nadine’s company, (an exercise which, in point of fact, he did one evening while nervously fiddling with the bracing decision to text her one mere day after they had spoken by phone, the nerve!), the sum of their unspoken love would add to a considerable investment of life energy.

And so it was with naive expectation that Dan foresaw no interference, nor any of the usual social rifts that erupt when the sexes mix, issuing from Nadine & company’s enfolding. He was therefore emotionally denuded when Nadine’s redirected attention usurped his blueprint of steady bonding. A sickening awareness jammed his guts as he recorded the mounting toll of Robert & Nadine’s wet glances, slithery torso feints, forearm grazing entreaties, and joyously faux indignations, each a sharper dagger than the last. He sunk his last shot, and excused himself to “make a call”, which no one heard, nor needed to hear.

Seven years later, Robert would be married to a svelte, head-turner blonde, and they would reside in a charming suburb. Dan would have moved to another corner of the country, met an uninspiring but trustworthy woman, and married as well, settling in a jurisdiction not known for its disruptive temptations, but not mattering anyway. Government statistics would show that Robert worked in a high-stress field and had one child with his comely wife, and that Dan was a productive contributor to state coffers and had two children by his wife.

Acquaintances who knew Dan would say if asked that he was a happy, well-adjusted man. A real stand-up guy, a normal guy. The sort of guy who had everything going for him.

Read Full Post »

Be A “No, Dear” Man

The results from an interesting scientific study which could be fairly interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of the neg shows that men and women cooperate with each other differently, and that this cooperation disparity is based in differing expectations between the sexes. {Greek chorus: *FEMINISTS WEEEEEEEEEPT*}

In summary, women don’t trust beta males well-meaning men who appease them.

While men tend to match their partners’ emotions during mutual cooperation, women may have the opposite response, according to new research.

Cooperation is essential in any successful romantic relationship, but how men and women experience cooperation emotionally may be quite different, according to new research conducted at the University of Arizona.

Feminists are getting ready to weep.

Randall wondered how the act of cooperating, a beneficial relationship process, might impact emotional coordination between partners.

“Cooperation – having the ability to work things out with your partner, while achieving mutually beneficial outcomes – is so important in relationships, and I wondered what kind of emotional connectivity comes from cooperating with your partner?” she said.

What she found in her recent study – published in SAGE’s Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and featured in the journal’s podcast series, Relationship Matters – were surprising gender differences.

She and her colleagues found that during high mutual levels of cooperation with a romantic partner, men typically experience an “inphase” response to their significant other’s emotions. That is, if the woman in the relationship is feeling more positive, the man will feel more positive. If she feels less positive, he will feel less positive.

On the contrary, it seems women experience more of an “antiphase” pattern during high mutual cooperation. If her partner is feeling more positive, she will tend to feel less positive, and vice versa.

Aaaand… torrent of termagant tears!

Take, for example, the following familiar scenario: A woman emerges from a department store fitting room and asks her husband what he thinks of a potential new shirt. He likes it, he says, hoping his time at the mall is nearing an end. So does the woman head straight to the cash register and make the purchase? Probably not. Chances are, her husband’s enthusiasm won’t be enough; she’ll want to try on a few more shirts first.

Social psychology literature on cooperation tells us that women generally tend to cooperate more, while men often try to avoid conflict. Thus, men might be subconsciously syncing their emotions with their partners’ during cooperation in an effort to avoid conflict or reach a speedy resolution, Randall says.

If that’s the case, it’s possible, although Randall’s study didn’t test for it, that women may pick up on the fact that their partner’s agreeability is not entirely authentic. If she suspects he’s not really as positive as he seems, or that he has an ulterior motive, she may become less positive herself in an attempt to get at his real feelings and reach a more mutually satisfying resolution, Randall suggests.

Read the bolded part again. Here are the grounds for interpreting this study as providing evidence for the effectiveness of the game concept known as the neg. If you agree too readily with a woman — if you appease her and supplicate to her and seek her approval — she’ll feel less happy, even less aroused, in your company. She’ll instead attempt to “dramatize” your mutual interaction by becoming a sourpuss and challenging your agreeableness, which in certain contexts (such as bar pick-ups) materializes as the shit test.

Now we have the insight to know why, perhaps, the neg works on women: Because by deliberately adopting a pose of contrariness, of resistance to accommodation, a man can inspire feelings of connection, curiosity and craving in women. Be the jerk, and you’ll be beloved. Be the placater, and you’ll be perpetually pestered for proof of sincerity.

If you’ve ever had to endure a grilling from your girlfriend or wife for your opinion on something she’s wearing, you’ll know the pain of being a “yes, dear” man. The harder you try to smooth the waters, the more tirelessly she churns open sea turbulence. And so, having been in this exasperating situation a few too many times for my taste and sanity, I had discovered a better way, a way now bolstered by ♥SCIENCE♥:

Be a “no, dear” man.

Tell the light of your life, “No, dear, that dress looks bad on you.” “No, dear, those shows don’t make you look good.” No, dear, this look isn’t working for you.”

[GBFM version: “No, dearlzzlol, that thongzz covers the butthosllezx. Don’t make me do all da work when all da men before me got your butholeszzs for free lzlolzzzlolz”]

Betaboys shriek, “But she’ll hate me for saying that!” FEEBS! Have you not learned a single thing reading this blog? Lemme tell you what really happens. She makes an indignant face, looks shell-shocked for a half second, retreats to the dressing room or closet, and returns with a new item to buy or wear, no further questions asked, yerhonner. The “yes, dear” demon infant has been killed in the crib.

Seduction is the art of flirting, and flirting is an artful term for pushing away and pulling toward. All betas know how to do is pull toward, aka “Please like me! You’re the best! Here’s proof of my love!” game. But this is boring to women, and actively repulses them during their one week ovulatory period. Taking the opposite tack is the blinkered douche, who only knows how to push away. This is exciting for women at first, but the novelty wears off quickly.

The right balance is struck between alternately pulling toward and pushing away. As all great seducers know, and as science is now coming around to confirming, the ideal male lover is the man who understands the value of emotionally desyncing with women. He doesn’t distance himself from a woman; rather, he cleverly directs her arousal by undermining feelings of closeness just at the moment she starts to relax and senses that she can predict his desire and behavior, and then drawing her back in when she fears his loss of interest. By alternately undermining and reengaging like this, he subverts the Male Chaser-Female Chasee expectation, and thus flips the normal sex status differential that is the standard operating procedure of an unobstructed and undirected mating market so that, by his manipulations, he is perceived as the more valuable commodity.

From there, female hypergamy finds root and the labia flower like spring lilies in the noon sun.

Prompt punishment for bad behavior, intermittent reward for good behavior, emotional desyncing and resyncing for creating deep feelings of arousal and connection: These are the tools of the modern Casanova in a global mating village where the old rules to curb the primal chaos of female sexuality have long been discarded and forgotten.

PS Here’s Psychology Today‘s analysis of the same study.

Read Full Post »

The Inner Workings Of The Cathedral

Ben Shapiro, neocon-ish man of the right who specializes in explaining and reframing the leftoids’ control of the propaganda arm of the Cathedral, (aka the virulently anti-white male Establishment), has a dozen or so videos of interviews with Hollywood leftists where they admit to a leftoid agenda. Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mUVp5qq3SU#t=20s

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5A8VHTyMzg#t=20s

Hollywood and the rest of the media industrial complex are staffed and run by leftoids. Its product is the result of what I would call an emergent conspiracy, or an informal conspiracy. It’s not a formal, deliberate conspiracy in the sense the word is typically used; there’s no secret council meeting of elders in an underground bunker plotting the best way to transmit their degenerate meme virus. Rather, something resembling a conspiracy develops from the collective actions of an industry in which nearly all of its members think alike, as a hivemind.

Now, as Shapiro has revealed, many of these Cathedral clerics are perfectly aware of what they’re doing. But they act individually instead of at the directive of a leftoid overseer. The problem is that they so vastly outnumber opposing viewpoints that the sum of their individual creative decisions are indistinguishable from a single conspiratorial directive. What few opposition members there are find it easier to go along to get along.

What’s the answer to this propaganda juggernaut serving as an agent of mind infection? Some suggest that wealthy anti-leftoids should start their own media conglomerates and go toe-to-toe with the reigning narrative. But as S. Sailer has noted, many would-be rightist benefactors are blowing their wads on college football programs. Sports are fine spectator fun, but they aren’t going to win the hearts and minds of white suburban women like Desperate Housewives does.

The right simply doesn’t have the taste, nor the skill set, for fighting a full-blown culture war like the left does. The right by and large avoids culture war conflicts, while the left relishes them.

But there’s another problem with the clarion call for anti-leftoids to recreate the media landscape in their image, and it goes much deeper than ill-chosen recipients of funds. The root of the problem lies in the differing psychologies of leftoids and non-leftoids.

According to the Five Factor Model of human personality, leftoids score higher in the trait “openness to experience.” The intensity of this trait expression is multiplied by the exaggerated leftoid sensitivity to the moral concepts of harm and fairness, as described by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind.

Someone who loves novelty and bleeds profusely from the heart will naturally gravitate to the creative fields, where he can get his ego boost feeling like he’s making the world a better place for defectives and whiny man-children.

If leftoids and anti-leftoids simply differ in fundamental biological ways, and occupational ratios reflect this difference, then there isn’t much that can be done to thwart the propaganda machine that rides the crest of civilizational decline. The only hope for anti-leftoids — and it’s a small hope — is to identify and cultivate those few like-minded individuals who peculiarly score high in openness to experience and also have a creative energy that propels them beyond the realm of rooting for the home team. In other words, those who wish to sabotage the Cathedral will need to find rightists who love to fight, fuck and flip the bird to the orthodoxy.

Read Full Post »

The End Game Of Manboobery

Some days you read stuff that makes you think the entire internet is a put-on. A multi-sourced, wirelessly streamed, infectiously emanant theater of absurdity and manipulative schlock, the sole purpose of which is to entertain chuckling elites proud of their Trilateral Council Trollery. This would be the charitable interpretation. Regrettably, souls so blackened with disease that parody would hardly suffice to capture their wretchedness effloresce on the eunuch enabler echo chamber known as the world wide weirdness.

They squawk among us!

The latest specimen of Manboob Totality demonstrates the logical conclusion of the ideology of masochistic, morality whoring, self-annihilation. This is the leprotic gollum that emerges from the bowels of loserdom when the animating impulse to gratifying powerlessness is left unchecked. Behold… the male thing who believes “penis-in-vagina” sex is evil misogyny.

PIV, or penis-in-vagina sex is something that may seem inconsequential to most people, but is absolutely not.

Most people who’d reject the relevance of sex in politics haven’t really understood the concept – especially men.

So this is going to be an article, by a man, for men(and womyn) who find PIV sex to be inconsequential to feminism.

Firstly, understand the concept of female risk(I’ll talk about condoms later) – the fact that PIV is dangerous to women – the fact that it can even kill them. Pregnancy is the main problem, with all kinds of STDs being the side dishes. Now, there’s very little risk for men as compared – it can all but ruin their lives. Now, considering the risk, the patriarchy has created several tools to reduce the dispensibility of womyn – condoms, the pill, and all kinds of fucked up shit. Now take that, and consider the fact that men all over the world just lurve PIV(womyn – would you have PIV if the risks were on the men’s side, if they had to take the pill, if they had to face the consequences of rape? If you’re not as apathetic as most people, the answer should be no).

How many parents are driven to thoughts of suicide by witnessing their children flame out so badly at life?

By the way, as any womon will tell you, PIV doesn’t really feel that good. Most womyn don’t even orgasm with it. But I’m not your bloody sex-coach, go google that rubbish.

“womon” 😆 What, “womyn” wasn’t obsequious enough for it?

Let’s take an example of your average Joe – you’re a straight white guy, horny, love to have sex with womyn. Now, take the womyn in your life, and give them one property – they will NOT let you have PIV-centric sex with them. Does your value for womyn drop? By how much? Why? What’s so important about your right to shove your dick into womyn that lowers your value for them?

Why is it that risking their lives for your pleasure is so damn important? Should the fact that they are human beings who value your existence be enough? But nooo… sex is responsible for fucking god-knows how many ruined marriages, so much drama, I can’t even begin.

Tori Amos on a weepy rape-reminiscing bender would laugh at this dork.

See – that’s where privilege comes in. A man’s privilege to a womon’s genitals, and consequently, her life. Owning a womon.

It’s amusing the mental contortions incels will go through to rationalize their sexual isolation.

Men need to value womyn as HUMAN BEINGS, not as fuck-holes that tell them how great they are.

“A jock gave me an atomic wedgie, and sadly, I didn’t feel a thing down there on account of my very tiny penis and undescended testes.”

I hope that knocked some sense into someone out there.

It was certainly revealing.

PPS – Yes, I’m a “virgin.” Now piss off.

That’s surprising.

Did things like this exist in 1950s America? Yes. You’d have found them in mental institutions, unable to communicate with anyone but a padded wall. It’s time for overly harm-sensitive liberals to accept the reality that the icy wastelands serve a valuable function as a culling ground for the irredeemable refuse of humanity.

Read Full Post »

Unemployed, Alcoholic Badboy Game

A 30 year old couglet writes to Slate’s Emily Yoffe (first mistake) about the strange pull that an unemployed, alcoholic alpha male ex-fling badboy has on her romantic imagination, while a loyal and NICE dentist betaboy who’s practically begging her to marry him can’t seem to fire up her loins. Bonus track: The badboy nearly gave her herpes.

I would leave everything I have to be with [the guy who almost gave me herpes and dumped me after a weekend of multiple orifice violating that I wouldn’t dream of allowing my beta dentist fiance to do to me].

Five minutes of alpha…

A regular CH reader, Zombie Shane, left a comment over at Slate (amazingly left undeleted) which sent the femborgs and manboobs ululating into righteous, backboob swinging, indignation.

Two points:

1) Women are incapable of knowing what they want – if they knew what they wanted, then they’d be men.

2) What this particular woman wants is what every woman wants – the gina tingles which come from the dangerous liaisons with an “alpha” cad – not the bed-death predictability which comes from entering into the prison which is married life with a boring, dependable, politically-correct, utterly emasculated “beta” dad.

Alpha cads, not beta dads.

That’s what women want.

So either dentist dude can step it up a notch, grow a pair, and start acting like a man, or else he can prepare [or at least he ought to prepare] for a lifetime of raising a family full of children who were biologically sired by the likes of her tennis instructor at the country club.

“dutchshepherdconspiracytheory” replies,

Oh so glad one of the menz could tell me what I wanted.

Anyone who (erroneously) pluralizes words with the letter z is guaranteed to be a triple-chinned nerdo leftoid or cauliflower-thighed chunkster chick. No exceptions.

Is it the alcoholism, unemployment or herpes that women love about sexy badboys? No. What women love about them is their ATTITUDE.

The attitude dictates that you don’t care whether she comes, stays, lays, or prays. I mean whatever happens, your toes are still tappin’. Now when you got that, then you have the attitude.

The Attitude is sex panther cologne reformulated to work 100% 100% of the time. The Attitude is powerful enough to induce in women a quasi-catatonic, chronically orgasmic state that renders them unable to discriminate against men failing on several objective measures of conventional mate worth. Many sexy cads with venereal diseases, low future time orientation and crippling addictions do well with women because they possess The Attitude, and that is often all that’s needed to outcompete beta males for drilling rights to women’s peak nubility hearts.

Read Full Post »

Aloofness Will Make Women Want Sex More

Readers have been writing to express their gratitude ever since the CH “Dread” post was published, which advised men in loveless relationships to become more aloof and unavailable as a means of reigniting their women’s desire for them.

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you.

The bitterboy haters really swooned with indignation after reading that post, feeling deep in their bones that anything less than flowers and constant supplication was the only way a man should act if he wanted to revive a flagging relationship. Hundreds of testimonials to the contrary would not convince them. Theirs is a Hallmark world, and goddamnit it’s going to stay a Hallmark world.

By why heed your real world experiences and the wisdom of CH when you can wait for CREDENTIALED EXPERTS to give you the go-ahead to try something new and daring with your life?

But the [female] rationale [for wanting sex] I’d like to focus on here is one that’s rarely alluded to in the literature: namely, a woman’s wanting sex–and at times desperately so–out of fear that her partner may be on the verge of leaving her. That is, she may actively pursue her spouse sexually to help deal with powerful feelings of anxiety, stemming from her intuition or knowledge that her relationship is in jeopardy–fragile, teetering, or on the brink of collapse.

The woman’s apprehension about a possible break-up may derive from her partner’s broadly hinting that he wants out of the relationship or, in fact, from his directly informing her of his intentions to move out and file for divorce. Or it’s possible she might suspect that he’s having an affair; or (because of the vast emotional distance separating them) that he’s actually fallen in love with someone else and, on that account, secretly planning to desert her. In a panic about it all–especially if she still feels devoted to him, or there are children involved and she’s frantic to keep the family together at all costs–she may be desperate to initiate sex to feel less helpless, as well as to exert some control over (and hopefully alter) her husband’s errant, non-loving behavior toward her. […]

As a consequence of her distress, or anguish, she’s strongly impelled to prompt a heated sexual encounter whereas previously she may have shown ambivalence, apathy, or even a marked antipathy toward making love with her partner. Withdrawn and quite possibly sexually shut down, in the bedroom she may take on the role of “aggressor”–or, probably a better term, “seductress.” […]

Ironically, the sex that can emerge from the considerable trepidation and anxiety I’ve been describing can be unusually passionate. Though I’ve already characterized such sex as “fear-inspired,” the very intensity of this fear can transform itself into substantially heightened sexual arousal — such that the end result of lovemaking can be electrically charged (what noted sex therapist, David Schnarch, actually refers to as “wall socket sex”!). It’s as though, ironically, the woman’s pronounced fear of abandonment renders her capable of having more abandoned sex than she may have been capable of before.

As we say in the business —  Game. Set. Snatch.

Le Chateau ahead of the curve, again. A little bit of fear and dread will motivate a sexually retreating woman to joyfully spread for the sake of committed love. To put it in even more concise terms: Do the opposite of a beta male.

Dread is essentially a form of the scarcity principle, producing effects in the sexual market similar to the effects seen in the economic market when an in-demand good is in short supply. Not only will calculated doses of dread revitalize relationships, but it will also allow average men to date much hotter women than they would be expected to date by the dunderhead masses.

Maxim #55: A man can shoot way out of his league if he acts as if he is the one occupying the higher league.

Dread, or fear-inspired romance, is not a relationship cure-all. An average man can keep a level-headed hottie on a string for about six months using nothing but anxiety-inducing seduction techniques, but beyond the six month mark fissures will begin to erupt. Women’s hindbrains can fry from too much sustained anxiety, and past that point relationship management with a beautiful woman becomes more difficult, requiring more emotional investment from the man. Accepting this reality, the man will usually opt for gaudy beta displays of commitment, and as if on cue this will cause the hottie to reevaluate her relationship options.

Given the long-term risks of overuse, dread is still the winning move for the average man. Just as five minutes of alpha > five years of beta for women, six months of sex with a hot babe > ten years of sex with a plain jane for men.

The best news is that dread is exceptionally effective as a tool to coax hot sex from a woman if you are within an already established relationship, such as marriage. The trick to keeping the bedsheets stained with poos joos is the subtle application of intermittent dread, which releases your woman’s anxiety just long enough that she swings wildly between cuddly comfort and ravenous restlessness. Sustained dread is better when you’ve started dating a girl, and particularly the types of eye-catching girls who get propositioned on the daily.

Read Full Post »