The Menstrual Shift To Beta Males

SUWEE protests:

Women don’t seem like they are genuinely attracted to beta males when they aren’t ovulating. At best they are just nonchalant toward them, and only seem to want a long term relationship with them for a chance to cheat with the alpha and have the chump beta raise the kid. Women seem to think like this- “Ugh im not attracted to this stupid beta but ill let him hit it once in a while if he provides for me and my bastard spawn.”

It’s best to think of alpha and beta males, and women’s mismatched desire for each, as residing along a continuum, rather than as discrete variables. When I explain that during the three weeks a woman is not ovulating (and especially during her menstruation) her desire is shifted toward beta provider males, I don’t mean she is suddenly going to be attracted to the opposite of the alpha males she craves when egging out. Instead, I mean she will become more indulgent of men who are somewhat more beta than the last alpha male she banged, or wished to bang, when she was ovulating.

To put this in the simplest terms possible, a woman who is hot enough to bang greater alphas will subconsciously gravitate to lesser alphas as her ovaries power down for three weeks. A plain jane who makes herself receptive to greater betas when ovulating will subconsciously begin to warm to the attentions of lesser betas reading her poetry after her hormones stabilize post-ovulation.

So, no, SUWEE, beta males are not going to suddenly see action for three weeks with the women who aren’t ovulating. What they might see is more receptiveness — more openness — to their sloppy, guileless flirtations from those women.

As far as cuckolding goes, my advice, if you’re worried about that threat, is to cheek swab any tiny gift of god under dark of night and send it to a lab for verification. In the meantime, enjoy your two or three tepid bangs during the three weeks you are reasonably safe from the depredations of your sweet girlfriend’s behavioral modification egg assault and any interloper alpha males who might be conveniently available to her. No, you won’t ever get her to scream “choke the living shit out of me and plunge your divine cock into my tight puckered asshole as far as it’ll go until I’m bleeding tears of exquisite pain ps I saved my incredibly lubricated pussy all for you” like Olivia Munn, but at least you get to wrap up your two minute tenderly administered intimacy sessions scraping your beta peen along her dry vagina walls with twenty minute cuddleramas and a bloated chickflix queue.

Just try not to think about the torrid sexual abandon your sweet snoogumwoogums is capable of unleashing in bed, in the kitchen, in a public restroom, with a better man for that one week her womb can actually bear fruit. Those kinds of thoughts are not helpful to affordable family formation.

Read Full Post »

What Do Women Want? A Master

A reader asked if there were any books I could recommend that explored the psychology of women. I suggested “Story of O” and “9 1/2 Weeks”. (The latter was originally a book which is much better than the movie version.)

There is a maxim among the pick-up community that if you want to know what women want it’s better to watch what they do than listen to what they say. Very true. However, if you are going to listen to what a woman says for clues about her innermost desires, or read what she writes, you would do well to pay attention to what a woman says TURNS HER ON. Not what she says she wants in a hypothetical husband or boyfriend but what she specifically describes that got her horny and hungry for loving penetration. Any editorial commentary about the ideal man can be safely ignored.

The two books above, both written by women and featuring very beautiful female protagonists, are wide-open windows to the id of women’s sexual natures. What we find there is shocking to most, dispiriting to some, and unsurprising to a few. Women reading these books will, despite themselves, become uncomfortably aroused. Men will discover ancient stirrings within themselves they may have thought civilization and a PC academic indoctrination stamped out.

The beatings and brandings the women in the books suffer, provoke, and then eagerly anticipate in turn are distractions from the main message, which is that the self-confidence and exquisitely suffocating domination of the male characters caused the women to fall so helplessly in love with them that the men could do anything, make any demand, and the women would happily go along just to keep their love. Some men can handle this awesome power, some can’t. The man in 9 1/2 Weeks was consumed by his power as much as his lover, and it got the better of him.

These books, taken together with the real world observations of men who actually live lives like those of the men in the books, tell us what women want.

They want a man who takes charge.

A master.

Adopt the attitude of the master, and women will revert to their naturally submissive essence faster and more profoundly than you can scarcely imagine, and no amount of feminist propaganda, insulating credentials, or careerist ladder climbing will stand in the way of their joyous, even relieving, surrender to your intoxicating dominance and confidence.

Read Full Post »

Why Nurses Make The Quickest Lays

There’s a good article in the Washington BetaPost written by a hospital internist who laments the growing disconnect between the reality of death and people living in atomized, urban enclaves whose affluence allows them to warehouse their elderly parents into chambers of horrors death’s waiting rooms.

Mass urbanization hasn’t been the only thing to alienate us from the circle of life. Rising affluence has allowed us to isolate senescence. Before nursing homes, assisted-living centers and in-home nurses, grandparents, their children and their grandchildren were often living under the same roof, where everyone’s struggles were plain to see. In 1850, 70 percent of white elderly adults lived with their children. By 1950, 21 percent of the overall population lived in multigenerational homes, and today that figure is only 16 percent. Sequestering our elderly keeps most of us from knowing what it’s like to grow old.

This physical and emotional distance becomes obvious as we make decisions that accompany life’s end. Suffering is like a fire: Those who sit closest feel the most heat; a picture of a fire gives off no warmth. That’s why it’s typically the son or daughter who has been physically closest to an elderly parent’s pain who is the most willing to let go. Sometimes an estranged family member is “flying in next week to get all this straightened out.” This is usually the person who knows the least about her struggling parent’s health; she’ll have problems bringing her white horse as carry-on luggage. This person may think she is being driven by compassion, but a good deal of what got her on the plane was the guilt and regret of living far away and having not done any of the heavy lifting in caring for her parent.

With unrealistic expectations of our ability to prolong life, with death as an unfamiliar and unnatural event, and without a realistic, tactile sense of how much a worn-out elderly patient is suffering, it’s easy for patients and families to keep insisting on more tests, more medications, more procedures.

The human impulse to detach from the specter of death is strong, so it’s understandable people would want to get away from it as much as possible. I have vivid memories of being escorted through an ICU ward, so heavy with the stink and sight of dying, mechanically assisted bodies contorted in pulleys and displayed in giant plastic bubbles, their lesions and bloat and sickly droop mocking the thread of life they cling to, that I nearly choke on the most fleeting recollection and search for an expedient distraction.

So I have to wonder how people who are surrounded by death all day, every day, manage the burden — families whose old, dying parents live with them, doctors who treat the husks of humans lingering in the limbo between living and the illimitable void. Most condition themselves to it, having honed a preternatural ability to sever their emotions from the constant reminders of mortality that accompany every dying person like a gloomy chaperone.

So what does this have to do with nurses and game, you ask? I have this running compendium in my hed of my lifetime lays, because of all my memories, it’s the ones spent intimately with lovers I strive the hardest to keep well-formed and prevent from dissipating into the murky mists. This is my tribute to their love. Some of these sex memories are technicolor brilliant, some are romantically hazy, some curiously abstract.

Two lays in particular stick out, both with girls who were nurses. And not GP nurses. One was ER, the other worked in a children’s cancer ward. They saw death, the worst kinds of death, on a daily basis. Sex with them was exuberant, unhinged even. There was little foreplay; they couldn’t wait to get their clothes off and my dick inside them. One would impatiently hike her skirt up and drop her panties as soon as I walked through the door, then back up into my daggering manhood, heaving a satisfied sigh upon penetration, like a junkie who just depressed the syringe.

While it was not, qualitatively speaking, the *best* sex I’ve ever had, it was certainly the most frantic, and the fastest from “hi” to “slide it in”. Both of these girls banged on the first dates. They were not ones for drawn-out seduction dramas in the bedroom of the LMR variety; kisses always followed couplings.

This is what those in proximity to death do — they embrace life more fully, and part of that embracing is total sexual abandon. For what besides sex, the generation pool of life, is a bigger middle finger in the face of death? Skydiving while having sex, maybe.

One of these nurses, it should be noted, had a father who was considerably older than her mother. Almost her whole life the looming of her father’s end must have surely weighed on her. Coyness was not part of her vocabulary. Hungry copulation was.

A familiarity with death might put a stop to escalating medical costs as more enlightened people choose to let their old relatives pass into the ether as part of a natural, unimpeded progression. It might reverse demographic decline seen in the form of childlessness, a condition caused in part by insulation from death’s omnipresence among the privileged class which obscures revelation of their finiteness. Familiarity has other benefits: it inculcates a powerful will to live for experience, to grasp that the doorstep of death misses no one, to apprehend that the luxuries of boredom and ennui are the province of the derelict who has fooled himself to believe forever is now.

But my favorite death-accepance benefit: quick lays!

Read Full Post »

A Valentine’s Day Thought Experiment

What’s more degrading:

a. paying a whore because you have no other way to get laid

b. sleeping with this for free:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Read Full Post »

Occupy Bitter Spinsters

There’s nothing funnier than lonely, unloved feminists stewing in their angostura bitters. They bring out the sadist in me.

Down with couple-talism!

A reader forwarded a link to a website called Occupy Valentine’s Day, created by an ur-feminist who is the executive editor of Feministing.

[V Day] puts pressure on couples to be a certain way, it privileges one type of love (think heteronormativity!) and it makes single people feel incomplete.

Like most outcasts nursing grudges, she has a thing against normal people behaving in normal ways.

we can use Valentine’s Day to raise awareness about the limited ways we think about romance.

In the past, petulant sophists like this would be ignored and allowed to fade into obscurity. Today, they get a platform and a sympathetic media treatment.
When the degenerate is elevated to a voice of wisdom
and the customary and ordinary subverted
confusion arrests the strongest hearts
until weakness is to excellence inverted.

The goal of the OVD website, near as a sane person can tell, is a hodgepodge advocacy of the usual rainbow coalition and femcunt agenda crap, plus a general lashing out at love and anything that smacks of romantic gestures shared between a man and a woman (romantic gestures between man and man, woman and woman, and spinster and cat are perfectly fine, though).

Blog about how traditional ideas of romance perpetuate gender inequalities and hurt people of all genders

If taking my girl out to a romantic nighttime spot for heavy petting under the silver moon manages to perpetuate gender inequalities and make life miserable for the rejects who post on Occupy Valentine’s Day, I consider that a successful two-fer.

Have a sexy conversation by candlelight with your partner about structural inequity

You think this is a parody, but then you remember that feminists have no sense of humor. All real, all retarded.

Commit to never settling for anyone who is not good enough for you just because you are afraid to spend another Valentine’s Day alone

Ever notice how women with the fewest reasons to feel entitled are often the ones who most loudly proclaim their refusal to settle?

These are just a few ways we can use Valentine’s Day to raise awareness about the limited ways we think about romance.

Maxim #210: If you are using a romantic holiday as a pretext to raise awareness instead of raise erections, you are probably a fat loser.

Celebrating love is wonderful and romance can be great too. But we don’t need corporations to dictate how we should do it, a mainstream media chastising us for not doing it right or traditional ideas touted over and over by our friends and family.

Hey, I’ve got not problem with skipping out on the corporatized aspect of V-Day. I’ll be the first guy to tell men they don’t need cards and chocolate to inspire girls to feel love. Nothing kills romance faster than dreary obligation. The difference between me and this feminist loser is that I don’t make a capital case out of traditional romantic gestures as being somehow symbolic of hatred for weirdos, dweebs, fatties and fuglies who can’t get a date.

That shit is oppressive and hurts us more than helps.

You can pinpoint the exact moment in history when the West began its decline as the moment when we started caring what spiteful losers think. A little oppression and hurtfulness is a healthy society’s cleansing mechanism. Time to reoccupy the icy wastelands with society’s waste product.

Read Full Post »

Prosperity Is The Problem

What, ultimately, is the cause of the decay happening in the West?

Reader carolyn writes:

[do] all young women nowadays go for the alpha exclusively, disdain the beta?

there must be women even now who size themselves up realistically. and don’t shoot for the unattainable, or more accurately, the alpha who’ll use them but never settle for them.

my own experience back when dinosaurs roamed the earth as the baby-faced ‘fattie’ (so dreaded around here) led to a fear of any overly aggressive ‘alpha’ types that came my way. i just knew intuitively it would not end well. i aspired to get a smart guy, hopefully one with a sense of humor; a _cool_ guy was out of the question. which characterized the man i married. sorry to refer to my own experience but it’s the one i know best.

my point is that there must be plenty of young women out there with a similar mindset. did all girls suddenly become stupid?

I would answer it’s not a question of exclusive vs inclusive, smart vs stupid, right vs wrong. Female hypergamy (and male preference for younger women) just IS. It’s a fact of life, and society accommodates it or corrals it depending on its goals. It’s best to think of women’s love of alphas as residing along a sexual/personality continuum (mediated by the wiring of the hindbrain), where at one end we see the thug lovers who run back to boyfriends who beat them up, and at the other end we have the wilting flowers who prefer the less volatile alpha males drawn from the pool of soft betas.

As society relaxes its controls of female sexuality — and unleashed female sexuality is the wilder and more fluid and more dangerous of the sexes — more women rush to the “thug lover” side of the hindbrain continuum, and away from any latent preference for dutiful betas. Conversely, when society strengthens its controls over female sexuality, something close to the opposite happens: women are incentivized to favor the company of beta males.

Thug loving serves a useful purpose in evolutionary terms. The sons of thugs make better protectors of the tribe, and in point of fact stupider, thuggier people outbreed smarter, empathetic people. Experiments in fruit flies have actually proven the concept of an emergent idiocracy.

Soft alpha/beta loving serves a useful purpose in civilizational terms. The sons of K selected women make better builders and maintainers of prosperous societies.

Both strategies come with their weaknesses and strengths, but it has to be said that, in most practical senses, the evolutionary goals are at odds with the civilizational goals. In simpler terms: what’s good for the individual man or woman is not necessarily, or very often, good for a prosperous society. This has been a core concept here at the Chateau since its inception.

And so a great truth about humanity is revealed that liberals mostly, and conservatives to a lesser degree, have trouble wrapping their brains around.

Jason Malloy, a drive-by commenter at blogs I occasionally read, usually has very smart things to say about the form a dystopia might take, and the factors that lead to cultural and national dissolution. When he writes, I generally give his words more than a second’s thought. And lately, his words have been echoing much of what is written here.

The larger sorting patterns [seen in rates of dysfunction between the upper and lower classes] need to be viewed through the lens of latent behavioral variation. Social pressures were already biased towards high investment reproduction. People were shamed for having premarital sex or children outside of marriage. Female economic dependency was just one more practical limit on these behaviors. However, once prosperity and secularism unraveled the cultural expectations, only internal behavioral motivators were left, and the motivations previously dampened and suppressed through practical and social limits could now express themselves.

The internal motivators tend to form a psychological and behavioral package: some people are oriented towards higher investment reproduction and this entails higher cognitive ability, long term goals about education and career, later first intercourse, fewer and more stable relationships, reproduction within secure pairbond, and mate selection biased towards reliability and parenting qualities. Other people are oriented towards lower investment reproduction and this entails lower cognitive ability, few long term goals, early first intercourse, more sex partners and less stable relationships, reproduction outside of pairbond, and mate selection biased towards “sexy” qualities (looks, charm, creativity, athleticism). (Many of these traits are functionally related (e.g. lower IQ mostly is a major cause of higher time preference), but they are also compounded through assortative mating).

***

[Re: the upper half of women having sex before marriage but still getting married.]

As much as I appreciate [Charles] Murray’s sociological perspective, I think this is his weakness as a bio-conservative trying to piece together the trends. The upper and the lower classes aren’t sorting by cognitive ability, so much as they are by life history behavior (which also includes cognitive ability).

A conservative libertarian has a lot to grapple with here: freedom and prosperity are the real “culprits” here, and their interaction with natural genetic variation. Not the welfare state. Not the government. Not apathetic elites. Not globalism or “stagnant wages”. Any major reversals in these trends would seemingly require major, forceful social controls, because they are the consequences of a very pervasive kind of individualism and of freedom of thought.

Chew on that. Realize what is being said here. If you do, you should feel a shudder descend your spine. Individualism and freedom of thought are the enemies of the very values and morality which gave birth to them and elevated them to primacy among advanced nations.

What libertarian, conservative OR liberal could read and accept the above premise and not feel at least some elemental — some PRIMAL — part of his worldview shatter into a million pieces. Libertarians: laissez faire means the cementing of intractable human hereditary differences into antagonistic classes and milieus. Conservatives: freedom and prosperity mean a slackening of external behavioral motivators and the erosion of commonality and shared values and the means with which to argue for them. Liberals: nonjudgmental individualism means a collapse of social capital and a surrender of any moral or aesthetic authority.

None of this is to say that people would, or should, prefer to live in less prosperous, backward nations. I don’t see too many Westerners clamoring to move to Zimbabwe for the quality of life. And yet, there has to be a recognition among the cognoscenti that a deeply embedded human nature exists, and that this nature — immutable, unalterable, suppressed only with great effort — when allowed to fully express or, alternately, when stifled at great psychic expense guarantees the slow unwinding of the very prosperity it desires and refuses to relinquish when it achieves.

Maxim #1,000: Prosperity contains within it the seed of its own destruction.

Could this ever not be the case? Perhaps if there were not significant differences in ability and talent between people and groups of people, differences in possession of civilizationally advantageous traits, you could say then that prosperity may become, theoretically, self-perpetuating. Feeding and growing without limit.

But evolution would not exist were that the case. Evolution would have to stop for such a social condition to manifest. Thus, we grapple with reality, whether we choose to or not. Because it grapples with us.

The prosperity America achieved will be her undoing. This isn’t idle apocalyptic talk. There is plenty of historical precedent. There are plenty of indicators that cultural and economic and lifestyle collapse are beginning their long march through the Western citizenry and institutions. The armies of disintegration have amassed and the first waves have stormed the citadel. Aided and abetted by people who don’t understand the forces at work, and who wouldn’t change direction even if they did understand. Prosperity is enervating. The will to dismantle it, temporarily, to save it, is weakened totally by the comforts it provides.

America is dying. Unless the powerful divest themselves from their voracious egos and accept that they have been steeped in a mountain of lies for 60 years, perhaps 150 years depending on your point of origin, and until that day they reverse the path they have taken this country, America’s slow, asphyxiating dying will finally, unmercifully, reach closure… in her death. Today, the Lords of Lies are our masters. Tomorrow, the truth will reign, over a rejuvenated America or a bitter wasteland. Either way, the truth will reign.

The Lords of Lies must first be defeated if the path we are on has a chance to be corrected. The only thing we know for certain is that they won’t go easily to their irrelevance.

Read Full Post »

The Allure Of The Coy Man

It’s easier to judge men’s sexual interest than it is to judge women’s sexual interest.

Everyone Can Predict The Interest Level Of Men On A Date – But Not Of The Women With Them

When it comes to assessing the romantic playing field — who might be interested in whom — men and women were shown to be equally good at gauging men’s interest during an Indiana University study involving speed dating — and equally bad at judging women’s interest. […]

“The hardest-to-read women were being misperceived at a much higher rate than the hardest-to-read men. Those women were being flirtatious, but it turned out they weren’t interested at all,” said lead author Skyler Place, a doctoral student in IU’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences working with cognitive science Professor Peter Todd. “Nobody could really read what these deceptive females were doing, including other women.”  […]

“How people talk might convey more than what they say,” Place said.

Observers did not have to see much of this non-verbal behavior. They were just as good at predicting the speed-dating couple’s interest if they saw only 10 seconds of the date as they were if they saw 30 seconds. The researchers say this showed that observers, even with limited information, could make quick, accurate inferences using “thin slices” of behavior. […]

Evolutionary theory, said Place, predicts a certain level of coyness or even deceptiveness in women because if a relationship is abandoned they may face greater costs, including pregnancy and child rearing. When choosing a mate, it is in a woman’s best interest to get men to open up and talk honestly to give her a better idea of whether they would be good long-term partners.

“In a speed dating environment, you would expect to see these effects dramatically, with the women trying to get the men to be more straightforward, while they themselves remain more coy,” Place said.

Female coyness is an evolutionary adaptation that serves two important purposes; one, it pressures male suitors to be more forthcoming with personal information that could reveal their mate value (and male mate value is more complex than female mate value, which for the latter amounts to mostly how the woman looks), and two, it alters perception of a woman’s sexual fidelity. Coy women tend to be perceived by men as less slutty and therefore better long-term mate prospects who won’t cuckold them.

So that sly smile and subtle shit test tossed out over drinks in a cozy lounge are nothing more than a woman’s mental executions of ancient biological algorithms operating at the subconscious level. Romantic poetry and sweeping odes are man’s attempt to elevate this sordid and banal clanking of the machinery of genetic legacy beyond the realm of disappointment. Can you blame us for smearing lipstick on this pig?

So coyness is the natural state of woman. And informational overload the natural state of man. Men sell, women buy. Men market, women browse. This is the current that carries courtship over hormonally-tossed helical seas.

And yet game, in theory and in practice, teaches men to act opposite their natural instinct; to assume the role and the prerogative and the mindset of the woman in seductive affairs. In essence, to flip the script.

Flipping the script works. It works because women can’t resist a man who won’t tidily play by the established, and oh so boring, rules. A coy man — a man who is as circumspect and judgmental and inscrutable as women normally are at the beginning of a courtship — triggers women’s attraction, much like a woman’s firm round ass and pretty face triggers attraction in men. Male coyness — aka the art of insinuating you are the one being chased — is so odd, and so at adds with biological, not to mention social, norms, that women are compelled to chase the man who effectively adopts such a conceit. A woman thinks to herself, or rather she subthinks to herself (because these thoughts never really materialize fully into conscious awareness):

“This man is coy for a reason. What is he hiding? And how amazing is this part of him he’s hiding? He hasn’t asked a question of me yet. Does he like me or not? I can’t tell. He must have other lovers at his beck and call. I feel strangely intrigued. I need to know more.”

Once a woman is put in this chaser pattern, the seduction is yours to lose. She will be the one readily offering information about herself to win your approval, while you will lean back, literally and figuratively, judging her harshly. For it is true that every woman, despite her boilerplate blather to the contrary, secretly wants to be judged by a man. That’s how she knows you’re better than the rest.

Read Full Post »