The Evisceration Of Penelope Trunk

You say evisceration, I say loving ministration.

Ah, Penelope Trunk. For some reason, she gives fellow aspie and open borders ivory tower bubbleboys chubbies, who can’t stop linking to her blog, (comments by “Dave” and “Anotherphil” are illuminating). But Chateau Heartiste called this broad out for the psycho, man-hating bitch she really is a long time ago. And how that judgment has been vindicated. Prescient? Nope. Just open-eyed observers of the human condition, coupled with a smattering of experience with these types of whipsaw women.

The latest Penelope Cunk dramafest comes courtesy of a post on her blog where she displays her wrinkled slate-flat cougar ass and her wretched uncaged id on national internet, complete with bruise she alleges was from her husband, who got sick and tired of her “look at me!” provocations and pushed her into a bedpost out of frustration.

The Farmer told me that he will not beat me up any more if I do not make him stay up late talking to me.

If you asked him why he is still being violent to me, he would tell you that I’m impossible to live with. That I never stop talking. That I never leave him alone. How he can’t get any peace and quiet in his own house. That’s what he’d tell you.

Translation: Penelope Trunk berates, nags, pesters, humiliates, shrieks and wails at her husband at ungodly hours of the night and throughout the day, and he responds, in piques of frustration abetted by his normal male propensity to avoid extended verbal fights with no ending or solution in sight, by physically stifling her to make the unbearable shrew torrent stop.

What feminists either don’t understand or don’t wish to understand is that a nontrivial amount of physical domestic abuse is in response to non-physical provocation. For every action there is a reaction. Women abuse men psychologically because that is where their strength lies, and fortunately for them the marks made by psychological abuse are less photogenic than the marks made by bedposts. So women, in addition to being the beneficiaries of the ancient biological force that subconsciously deems the female of the sex a more valuable commodity than the male, get to enjoy the sympathy of the bovine crowd when they post jpegs of their thigh bruises.

These volatile domestic scenarios are almost never one way streets. Look at Rihanna. Chris Brown is a violent thug, but Rihanna could have easily avoided his flying fists of fury had she just stayed the fuck away from him. And yet, she couldn’t do that. She *still* can’t do that, in fact, and in returning to him to shower him with her love rewards his shitty behavior. Penelope Trunk does something similar with her Farmer hubby, but takes it a step further; she instigates his flashes of anger and desperation purposefully to get a rise out of him, so that she can avoid feeling abandoned. Or whatever the fuck it is she missed out on from daddy.

When guys talk about crazy bitches to stay the fuck away from, Penelope Trunk is Exhibit A.

Now don’t get me wrong. These kinds of women have some use: they are great in bed. Gung-ho master class fucktoys who’ll take it up the poop chute and lick you clean if it means you’ll gaze deeply into her eyes just a little longer. But that’s where it ends. Save your love and commitment for the relatively sane chicks. You give your heart to a drama queen and attention whore like Penelope Trunk and you are asking for a world of emotional torment if you don’t know anything about the proper handling and care of such spaztastic specimens. Because when the screaming and crying and berating don’t work, she’ll step it up to openly flirting with other men in front of you, and then to cheating and leaving clues for you to find out about it, and finally to resorting to insane outbursts to get her hamster fix.

And you will never experience such roided up, coked up, caffeinated hamsters in your life. These critters are unstoppable.

My edumacated guess is that Penelope Trunk’s husband is a beta male at heart who has no clue about women, and even less clue about women like Trunk. He was smitten by her willingness to screw early and often, and her slender proportions, while well past prime attractiveness, compared favorably to the lumbering middle-aged cows on his horizon and put the boner in his pants for the first time in years. Being a man of little breadth of experience with women and zero game or state control, he was easy prey for Trunk’s urbane sadomasochism. She takes advantage of his rustic beta ignorance and naivete and pushes him to the brink as often as she can get away with it, while enjoying the thrill of refueling her ostentatious craving for coerced, theatrical displays of love and a relationship perpetually teetering on the precipice of doom. He, being a salt of the earth kinda guy, has no idea what he got himself into, and his instinct to control an out of control situation impels him to lean on the one defensive maneuver that worked in the past and which rises naturally from the contours of his male brain: his showstopper physical will to power. Of course, the solution is always temporary, and the cycle repeats. Which is exactly how she wants it. And she gets it.

I love a good pile-on as much as the next sadist, so here’s an ego shredding, soul killing, demonic diagnosis worthy of a Chateau Hall of Fame nomination, from a naughty little bastard called The Last Psychiatrist.

Penelope Trunk has a history of sexual abuse by her father.  She has a pattern of intense, unstable relationships; a history of self-cutting, bulimia; is emotionally labile and reactive; and her primary defense mechanism is pretty obviously splitting, i.e. things are all good or they are all bad.

Trunk says she has Asperger’s, and maybe she does, but what I’ve described is “borderline personality disorder.”  BPD is not a description of behavior exactly, it is a description of an adaptive coping strategy.  In other words, people persist with BPD because it works. […]

Knock down fights and great make up sex is psychologically more fulfilling than a normal, calm, low-affect marriage.  Mind numbing jealousy is preferable to being 100% sure of their fidelity, to the point that it will actually be invented.  “Are you just looking for things to be upset about?”  The answer is yes. […]

Nothing is to be gained by saying her husband abuses her, which he does, but nothing is to be gained from saying that unless he’s listening.   She is abusing herself.  I’m not judging her, I’m not saying she is bad or that I don’t understand it, but she’s setting up, well, a pattern of intense, unstable relationships because she needs the intensity and will thus tolerate the unstability.  A relationship isn’t one sided, or bi-directional, it’s a dialectic.  They are very much in it together.

A worthy flaying. Borderline personality disorder is the scientific term for attention whoring, although not all attention whores are BPD victims. Every woman has the seed of an attention whore in her, as it is the caprice of their sex, but some women, women like Trunk, through a combination of genetic enhanced femaleness and environmental instability during the formative years, become raging monsters of insatiable egos with no self-awareness or cultivated sense of modesty.

And here’s the catch. What the Last Psychiatrist describes as a deranged personality imperfection is just the normal female psychology amped up to unsustainable levels of estrogenic insanity. Women really do like a little — or a lot, for some women — uncertainty in their relationships. This is a scientifically as well as observationally settled fact. It is the natural female inclination to swoon and tingle for men who offer doses of delightful discomfort. This inclination, it should be noted, is stronger in younger, prettier girls for whom the option to act out in this way without consequence is readily available.

The Last Psychiatrist has to know that this predilection for drama, affect and uncertainty is primarily a female affliction, and, in small manageable doses, is actually the normal state of emotional functioning for the majority of women. Hamster spinning wackos with advanced cases of BPD like Trunk are extreme manifestations of this innate female condition, much like power hungry sociopaths are the extreme manifestation of the innate male predisposition to maximize status. TLP is right to highlight Trunk’s disease of the id, but he should not be tempted to think that Trunk is a wholly alien representative of the female sex.

Trunk is, to put it mildly, a hyperfemale.

But, alas, the wall looms for hyperfemales as surely as it does for emotionally grounded women. The attention whoring that provoked so much reaction from men when she was younger elicits nothing but indifference at best and contemptuous pity at worst from men when she is older and uglier. TLP:

The thing is, BPD “works” when you are young, there are always people around to tolerate it.  Parents, boyfriend/girlfriend, employers, etc– and being pretty, which Trunk obviously is, helps a lot.  This doesn’t mean people are necessarily nice to her, or that she’s happy; only that  “crazy” behavior is more tolerable to other people when you are young.

The problem for her is she’s not getting any younger, and like it or not the only one who will put up with a 60 year old borderline is no one.  Except maybe the kids, which we will get back to.

Once women start experiencing the consequences of their flighty behavior from getting older and invisible to men, the smart ones among them adjust their expectations, emotional indulgences and demands accordingly. Penelope Trunk, thanks to the sycophantic chorus of her careerist fembot and scrap-begging mangina readers, will likely continue her coyote ugly act on into perpetuity, winding up alone and unloved by anyone but her imagination and bug-eyed omega commenter nerds desperate for human contact. If she hasn’t burned too many bridges and was effective at concealing her complicity in her personal calamities, then she may retain the love of her kids into dotage. That’s a big if. More likely, the kids will slowly realize what a loon she is, and will withdraw their love until they feel safe from entanglement in her manufactured crises.

There is an easy, convenient way to deal with BPD attention whores that won’t get you socially ostracized or locked up. If I had the ear of Trunk’s husband, I’d tell him this. Instilling a dab of dread — a phone call, say, from a location where she can hear the voices of laughing women in the background — would go a long way to satisfying the drama-feeding maw of Trunk’s vagina-shaped id. No blog-fodder bruises required. At the very least, such knowledge can give him more options in women, freeing him from his desperate, fearful clinging to a visually stimulating BPD headcase.

I’ve said it before. Game can save lives. This is not hyperbole. This is goddamned truth.

Read Full Post »

Why, And When, Women Cheat

Alternate title for this post:

Game and science: Deeply in love!

Once more, from one of my favorite blogs, a study which catalogs the reasons women (and men) cheat, and confirms a few core Chateau concepts as well. None of the study results will be a surprise to regular readers.

We’ll compare the study’s conclusions to claims previously made on this blog. The first one is a doozy, as it validates the very foundation of game and male-female sexual dynamics as elucidated by yours truly.

1) Women who wear the pants in the relationship are more likely to cheat:

The imbalance of power in the primary relationship has been associated with infidelity. Edwards and Booth (1976) found that wives who reported that they “get their way” more often during disagreements were also more likely to have extramarital sexual involvements.

There ya go, fellas. If you’re a beta with your girlfriend or wife, you’re increasing your odds that your “better half” will surreptitiously spread her legs for the veiny cocks of strange men. And she will orgasm with them. Oh yes, she will orgasm. Hard, powerfully and pleasurably.

There are only two paths you can take to avoid that nightmare — the path of celibacy or the path of alpha. Which one sounds more fun?

Beta males cede disagreements with women all the time. It’s their knee-jerk response anytime a vagina talks to them. But women HATE HATE HATE that mincing sycophancy. A woman CRAVES the dominance of the alpha male who won’t take her shit and who will get HIS way more often than not. Beta males, slaves to their fear of loss, cringe at the thought of sticking up for themselves against women who hold the power of pussy over them, but that is exactly what the women in their lives want them to do.

As with all infinite truths, this one was nailed Luther-like to the Chateau doors a long time ago:

This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting – wholly, completely – to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.

All healthy primary relationships have an imbalance of power. But that imbalance needs to go one-way only — in the direction of the man wielding most of the power. The further the relationship veers from that ideal — that is, the closer it gets to equality and beyond into the horrid realm of the woman being more powerful — the greater the likelihood the woman will cheat, her heart filling with incoherent, growing contempt for her pussified lover.

The feminist battle cry for women to take up paychecks and “bring home the bacon” has been nothing short of a genitalcidal campaign against the sexual and romantic desires of beta males. Women who follow the feminist agenda of empowerment are consigning themselves to a smaller dating pool, and broken marriages, because they have turned their backs on their true natures — their will to submit.

2) An imbalance in education increases the chance of cheating:

…in a large U.S. national study of dating, cohabiting, and married women, Forste and Tanfer (1996) found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity; but if the husband was more educated than the wife, she was less likely to philander. Level of education relative to that of the partner appears to be more important than absolute level of education.

Education is a form of power. Women who have more education — i.e. more power — than their male lovers are more likely to cheat on them. Conversely, when the man is more educated than the woman, she does not feel the stirrings of infidelity as strongly. Male power is a female fidelity guarantee. Men would be wise to focus on somewhat less educated women than themselves for marriage prospects. Women who have marriage in mind would be wise to avoid lengthy educational commitments. Again, the Chateau was on top of this a while ago.

3) Jobs have a lot to do with whether people have an affair:

Individuals who work outside the home while their partners remain in the home also express higher rates of extramarital sexual involvement (Atkins et al., 2001), perhaps because the work environment provides the opportunity and time to get to know coworkers (Treas & Giesen, 2000). In clinical samples, 46% to 62% of individuals reported that they met their extramarital sexual partner at work (Glass, 2003; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). The likelihood of extramarital involvement is also related to the degree to which an individual’s job involves touching clients, discussing personal concerns with colleagues or clients, or working alone with co-workers (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

If you are a stay-at-home dad and your wife works outside the home as a personal trainer for rich businessmen, you may as well start ordering the paternity testing kits now and practice your nighttime cheek swabbing technique.

4) The timing of infidelity is predictable:

Among married women, the likelihood of extramarital involvement peaks in the seventh year of marriage, then declines; but among married men, the likelihood of extramarital involvement decreases over time until the eighteenth year of matrimony, after which the likelihood of extramarital involvement increases (Liu, 2000). Similarly, in a sample of couples in therapy for infidelity, sexual infidelity first occurred after an average of seven years of marriage (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). Lawson and Samson (1988) reported, however, that the length of marriage prior to initial sexual infidelity is decreasing with younger cohorts. Certain developmental stages in a marriage, including pregnancy and the months following the birth of a child, are also high risk times for infidelity among males (Allen & Baucom, 2001; Brown, 1991; Whisman et al., 2007).

Don’t forget that women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating. So if you just celebrated your seven-year wedding anniversary, and it’s two weeks past your wife’s menstruation, you need to hire a private detective as a gift to yourself.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, younger marriages experience initial infidelity sooner than older marriages. The explanation is simple: younger wives are hotter than older wives, so they have more options in the sexual market. And since marriage is no escape from the sexual market, it makes perfect sense that infidelity is a more urgent risk with a younger wife.

The study also confirms some age-old wisdom that men are less trustworthy when their wives are pregnant or nursing. It’s the old “cold feet” syndrome that pushes men into the arms of mistresses who aren’t burdened with child, aka duties and responsibilities.

5) Most men that cheat claim to have a happy marriage:

…regardless of the many correlations between relationship dissatisfaction and adultery, Glass and Wright (1985) reported that among individuals engaging in infidelity, 56% of men and 34% of women rate their marriage as “happy” or “very happy.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with women cheating, but I thought it worthwhile to mention because it confirms yet another Chateau assertion: that men are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man. As the study shows, more cheating husbands than cheating wives are still in love with their spouses and thus sincere when they say that their marriages are happy.

There is a big sex difference at work behind this statistic. Men cheat because they desire a variety of pussy. Women cheat because they are unhappy with their primary partner. So for a woman, a necessary ingredient has to be that her current lover is not fulfilling her in some important way. But for a man, dissatisfaction with his current lover is not necessary as a springboard to cheat. Men are prone to cheat if the opportunity, and the guarantee of secrecy, are strong enough enticements, regardless of their love for their wives or girlfriends. That is why an unfaithful alpha husband is less likely to disrupt a marriage, while an unfaithful wife is more likely to end it all in divorce.

So, to recap, here is what you need to know to prevent your woman from cheating on you:

1. Learn game and become the alpha male that women need.

2. Do not allow your woman to wear the pants, unless it is in relation to some trivial point of contention that you let her win to demonstrate your big-heartedness.

3. Be more educated than your woman.

4. Do not, under any circumstances, spend time as a stay-at-home dad.

5. If your wife works, make sure it is in an occupation requiring little travel, where she will be confined to a sterile office surrounded by women and beta males. Any job where a massage table is involved is an example of a job you don’t want her to have.

6. Act a little more asshole-ish and unpredictable when your marriage approaches the seven year mark. Or when she’s approaching her monthly ovulation.

7. Failing all of the above, cheat first. She will smell it on you, and her love will grow in proportion to her fear of losing you.

Read Full Post »

Newsflash! Sexually Obsolete Jilted Wife Reconsiders Divorcing Unfaithful Alpha Male Husband

This is what happens when a woman who has passed into sexual worthlessness has to contemplate the stark reality of divorce from a cheating alpha male husband who fathered a child with his mistress, but who still tingles his wife’s tangle.

Is Maria Shriver having second thoughts about divorcing Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That’s what we heard.

Tipsters cite the Kennedy princess’ strong Catholic faith as one of the main reasons she might be reconsidering tossing the husband who cheated on her.

The religion excuse is squid ink. Maria has lost her looks and is facing the merciless indifference of the zero sum, free-for-all dating market as an aged divorcée. She knows, on some deep primitive level, that as a newly single woman she could very well wind up living out her years unloved by any man. Or at the least unloved by any man even close to Arnold’s level of alphaness.

A woman in this position, and swirling with these feelings, can forgive a lot. I mean, A LOT.

Arnold, for his part, is reported to be treating her nicely. What’s that sound… cha ching.

It’s almost as if there is a powerful sexual market guiding people’s decisions. Weird.

Read Full Post »

Caring Vs Uncaring Assholery

A reader ponders:

First off I’d like to say you’re really doing the world a public service. I came across your blog by googling ” how to spot a slut,” (trying to figure out if my girlfriend at the time was…she met your criteria and she was a huge slut). Anyhow in one of your much earlier posts you point out that there are two types of assholes. The uncaring and caring. The latter coming from a place of hate and insulting women and not really forming any sort of attraction. That is where I am right now how would i make the shift into the uncaring asshole category?

Think about the most inconsiderate person you know. Then, act like him. That’s how you make the shift.

If you don’t know anyone like that, then you’ll have to make the shift by adjusting your inner game, which means forcing yourself by sheer strength of will to become less outcome-dependent. Uncaring assholes are truly the masters of outcome-independence. They hardly feel a twinge to their egos when any one girl falls through as a prospect. That attitude is catnip to women.

The reader is referring to this old post which dissected the difference between assholes that women love and assholes that women suspect are really spiteful betas in alpha clothing. Quoting:

There are genuine assholes who are loved, and there are spiteful assholes who get nowhere. The difference is crucial.

Uncaring asshole = success with women.

Caring asshole = failure with women.

When women say they don’t fall for assholes, they are thinking of the second kind. A caring asshole comes from a place of bitterness and spite. His assholery is reactive rather than proactive. He is poor at calibrating which women will be responsive to his dick attitude. Caring assholes are crassly insulting and transparently invested in the outcome of their game.

Uncaring assholes are assholes as a consequence of their indifference. It is the aloofness of the man she loves that drives women crazy with obsession*, and that aloofness is manifest as asshole behavior. An uncaring asshole demonstrates clearly in his body language and tone of voice, not to mention his dearth of words, that he could take her or leave her.

A good rule of thumb to detmerine if you are leaning more toward the caring side of assholery:

Do you feel emotionally invested in the reaction you’re trying to get from girls you want to have sex with? When you asshole it up, does your blood pressure rise? Does anger festoon your words? Do you imagine vengeance, hoping to land a solid metaphorical blow to a girl’s ego?

If so, you are trying too hard. Your caring asshole behavior, while better than acting like a sheepish beta if pickup is your goal, will more often than not turn a potential lay away.

I’m not saying there’s never a time for anger. There is. There is a time for red hot passion and white hot rage. But your operational mode should be one of… say it with me… AMUSED MASTERY. Cool-as-fuckness. Imperturbability.

Nor am I saying you should be inconsiderate all the time. If an LTR is your goal, you can’t expect to be inconsiderate with your girlfriend or wife and not eventually string her out so badly that she jettisons you to fill the emotional void in her needy, feminine soul. Many a movie plotline has centered on the ignored wife of a distant alpha husband and the emotionally available sneaky fucker who ingratiates himself to her for the damning tryst.

Within the context of an LTR, consideration should be seasoned with inconsiderate aloofness, like a sprinkle of pepper on a nourishing bowl of soup. That is the zen way of poon.

But when dating and seeking the hookup, (to lead possibly to deepening love), aloof and sometimes even callous disregard will intrigue far more hot and high value women than not. And this is especially true for women living in the salad days of their fertility.

You have to recite the following as part of a self-motivational technique for imbuing yourself with the right (i.e., sexy) attitude:

I must not obsess. Obsession is the mind-killer. Obsession is the little-death that brings total betaness. I will face my obsession. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when my obsession is gone I will turn and face its path, and only my alpha self will remain.

Once you can confidently proclaim that oneitis no longer stalks you like a leech on your masculinity, that there will never again be “that one girl” you must have, that no girl’s inconsequential caprice can rattle your self-possession, and that you have let go of your spite and your anxiety, will you have arrived in a place that permits the blooming of uncaring assholery. And the parting of labial petals.

Few men achieve this level of state control, and with good reason: it’s hard. Great beauty can disturb the stillest mind. But try you must. You’ll have to bear the torment of self-awareness to make your attempt count, but it beats the alternative of sleepwalking through life in ignorant betatude.

Read Full Post »

The Handsome Man-Ugly Woman Couple Syndrome

I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.

What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.

Speaker: Any questions?

Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…

Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…

Speaker: Yes?

Handsome Husbandry: [his question-asking hand lingering in mid-air, other hand stuffed in pocket] What did [X] bring to the event that caused [Y] to happen? It seems like.. it seems as if…

As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.

The wife, meanwhile, assumed the posture and countenance of the alpha male. (Never trust a power vacuum to be left unfilled by man or woman.) She looked straight ahead when her husband was simultaneously asking his question of the group leader and craning his neck to her for approval, and she never once softened her expression into a sympathetic, let alone loving, smile at him. (Some men go through life never knowing the exquisite pleasure of a woman’s appreciative gaze of admiration.) There was no unspoken, feminine job well done crease of the eyes on her porcine face. Just stone cold indifference, spiced with a hint of contempt.

Yep, like I said… CRYSTAL CLEAR.

It’s illuminating to compare our reactions to different mismatched couples. Think about what you say to yourself when you see the following pairings (remember that you have nothing to go on except what they look like):

Handsome man with beautiful woman

All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. You would be surprised, were you to talk to him, if he wasn’t charming and a bit arrogant. You do not doubt the woman’s judgment.

Ugly man with ugly woman

All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.

Ugly man with beautiful woman

Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.

Handsome man with ugly woman

Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.

***

The last mismatched pairing is the subject of this post because it so powerfully illustrates a fundamental tenet of game: a man’s looks are of limited utility as a measure of his alphaness and, hence, his attractiveness to women.

When we see couples out and about we usually resort to sizing them up based on immediately discernible criteria like looks and style. This judgmental shorthand works well on women for whom looks are their most salient sexual currency, but shows its limitations as a method of discerning a man’s dating market value, as exemplified by the couple in the story above.

This is why most people have a tendency to assume the best about ugly men who pair up with beautiful women, and assume the worst about handsome men with ugly women. There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.

Contrast that instant appraisal we all have of the men in mismatched pairings with how we think about the women in such relationships. A beautiful woman with an ugly man does not have beta characteristics; she is simply drawn to other attractive attributes in him which we are not as privy to as his looks. (E.g., He must be a rich/famous/funny/charming dude!) An ugly woman with a handsome man does not have positive compensating alpha female attributes; she is simply settling for a beta who happens to look good. (E.g., What’s wrong with him?)

In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.

And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.

Maxim #59: We tend to defer to looks as a judgment of a man’s sexual market value because that is what is most easily observable given situational and time constraints, but a man’s looks are only one male attractiveness trait among many that account for his desirability to women.

Corollary to Maxim #59: A woman’s sexual market value is more accurately judged solely by instant appraisal of her looks.

The next time you see a handsome man with an ugly woman, before you scratch your head in confusion remind yourself that you are not seeing the whole picture. A beta male’s soul is not always judged by his cover.

Then parade your hot girlfriend in front of him and his pigwoman. Hopefully, it will ignite a spark of manly fortitude, and his sack will grow three sizes that day.

Read Full Post »

The IQ War Smears

Via GLPiggy, there’s a big dust-up over IQ and ethnicity again (these things seem to come in cycles, about once every two years), with Andrew “really, it’s not a stereotype that I own a beagle” Sullivan on the side of common sense and hard facts this time, and the denialist tools over at Gawker and, well, just about every other mainstream internet outlet smearing him and guys like Charles Murray as white supremacists.

You can’t make this shit up. Oh wait, yes, you can, because this debate is a fucking broken record at this point. The Left has their creationism, and even if they live their lives as if they don’t believe in it, you will never get them to admit they worship a false idol. Best just to mock and taunt them.

I give this topic little attention because, one, it doesn’t interest me as much as pussy does and, two, the bad faith arguments of the denialists are so egregious and their smear tactics so transparent it’s like trying to reason with a psychopath. You’re wasting your breath and giving him more chances to stick a knife in your back when you’re not looking. The way to handle psychopaths is to isolate and ostracize them, not try to engage them.

Some of them are reachable through triangulation, but why bother? For every one denialist who comes around to a distilled and palatable version of the truth, twenty more verbal prestidigitators pop up like crazed prairie dogs to fill the emoting vacuum left behind by the convert’s exit.

Lest we forget, there’s a reason why emotions run so hot on this issue. Not only does it cut straight to the beating heart of equalist ideology — the predominant ideology, arguably, of the last 150 years in the West — but the ramifications of the subject under debate are huge. The tepid bleatings of putatively diplomatic commentators like this one on Ta-Nehisi’s forum serve as a prime example of what I’m talking about:

Andrew never said that blacks are “inferior” to whites or that whites are “inferior” to Asians. He simply pointed out the fact that Asians, on average, perform better than whites on a certain kind of test, and whites perform better, on average, than blacks on a certain kind of test.

This dismissive hand-waving about “a certain kind of test” reveals more than it conceals. It is meant to assuage egos and smooth the airwaves for sensible, rational discussion on the topic. But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.

The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.

Their reasons are obvious, and understandable. But they are still lords of lies. And their time is almost up.

Read Full Post »

Women Are Less Principled Than Men

Do women have an underdeveloped sense of justice? Is the adherence to principles primarily the domain of men?

Anecdotal evidence would suggest both the above propositions are true. Certainly, Chateau field marshals have previously turned their awesome powers of observation to the task of illuminating the wide gulf between the sexes in how they understand and apply the notion of fairness. For instance, in this Chateau post from long ago it was noted that women’s sense of justice flows from a refined but wholly self-interested pragmatism.

Women as a whole are more coldly calculating than men, and the worst of them can challenge the top 1% of sociopathic alpha males for deceitfulness and cavalier betrayal. It is the prerogative of women that practical concerns, and how to achieve them, dominate their thinking and catalyze their emotions. They are the ones stuck with nine month pregnancies. Morality was codified by men; amorality perfected by women. And no one is more versed in justifying and rationalizing their own shitty behavior than a woman.

And in this Chateau post, it was boldy stated that women’s morality is geared toward the welfare of the social collective regardless of first principles, and that the beliefs of the most popular in status and numbers often become the beliefs of women who, as is the whim of their historically vulnerable sex, fear exclusion from the group more than anything else, except carrying the seed of a beta male.

[W]omen by nature are followers, and where the pack goes, so go they. Women self-govern by a simple (simplistic) motto: “It’s all in the numbers.” Once a tipping popularity point is reached, women will abandon their old principles for the new principles with a speed that will prove the shallowness and expediency with which they hold their beliefs.

But to date, little science has been done to examine the evidence for the Chateau and common man wisdom that men and women hold different moral values. Until recently.

The scientific literature is accumulating that points to fundamental sex differences in morality.

• Some studies show that women are more empathetic then men, and that this difference increases over child development (for example, there’s a nice study showing this trend in Spain by María Mestre and collaborators).

This is evidence that group cohesion informs women’s morality more than it does men’s morality. If someone is distressed in the group, it will be more empathetic women who tend to that person’s gripes. This is a good thing when the group is the nuclear family; you want a wife and mother who will defend your family, right or wrong. It’s a bad thing when the group — such as the society in which women live — is exploited by bad people who can convincingly project a victim mentality and, thus, hijack women’s empathy compulsions.

• When looking at pictures of immoral acts, women’s judgments of severity correlate with higher levels of activation in emotion centers of the brain, suggesting concern for victims, whereas men show higher activation in areas that might involve the deployment of principles(Carla Harenski and collaborators).

Women are less principled than men. A woman’s sense of fairness and moral disgust can be manipulated by emotional pleas. This is why you often see women defending hardcore killers when they are bombarded with sob stories about those killers’ sad upbringings. The upside is that women’s gravitation to the travails of victims can insulate true victims from egregious applications of principled but misguided retribution.

• When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).

Again, more evidence that women’s morality rests on feelings rather than on abstract devotion to principles. This is why you will often see women (and this includes nuns) sympathizing with death row scum of the earth. Their empathy modules have trouble distinguishing between real victims (the dead at the hands of killers) and sentimental victims (the condemned about to die).

• Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).

Women are unprincipled pragmatists. They must be, because, evolutionarily speaking, they have been the more vulnerable, weaker sex. As evolutionary psychology would predict, women simply can’t afford high-minded adherence to principles the way men can.

• Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

Female generosity with strangers is likely an evolved trait that furthers group cohesion, or prevents the outbreak of intra-, or inter-, group violence. Male selfishness with random strangers likely evolved because men’s mating value rests to a greater degree on their acquisition of resources. (So if women complain about men being selfish, well, they should remember who it is exactly that motivates men to horde their winnings.)

• Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

Another example of female predilection to see to the collective good in order to strengthen group cohesion.

• Women tend to be more egalitarian then men, and men are more likely to be either completely selfless or selfish (James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund).

I should hope it’s pretty well known by now that women have been voting for more liberal policies and candidates than men since suffrage. In other words, women will discard principles when voting in favor of the expedience of spreading around harmonious tranquility with other people’s money.

• Women are more likely than men to think it is okay to imprison a person on trumped up charges in order to stop violent rioting in the streets (Fiery Cushman and Liane Young). But women are also less likely to endorse diverting a runaway trolley down an alternate track where it will kill one person instead of five (John Mikhail).

AKA: Where the desire for group cohesion bumps up against overcharged empathy.

• Women are more likely than men to blame a shipwreck survivor for pushing another survivor off a small plank of driftwood in order to survive (Stephen Stich and Wesley Buckwalter).

“Someone, somewhere, is hurting.”

• Women are less likely than men to be politically conservative (Karen Kaufman; Terri Givens), though the reverse pattern was true in the 1950s (Felicia Pratto).

I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted. Alternate explanation: political conservatism was of a lot different complexion in the 1950s than it is now.

This range of findings resists an easy summary, but, on the whole, women seem to be more empathetic and more focused on the collective good. This is broadly consistent with Gilligan’s suggestion that women are more likely than men to base moral decisions on a care orientation, whereas men gravitate more towards principles.

Once again, the science confirms horribly evil and politically incorrect Chateau observations. I don’t post these studies because I like to have my balls gently caressed by reams of scientific papers proving the rightness of my worldview. Though that is a nice side effect, my primary purpose in highlighting these scientific explorations is the warm glow I get thinking about the eyeball-popping rage that reading these posts must bring to my haters. Their pain fills me with good cheer!

What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration). Male principle-oriented morality, in contrast, is a much better guard rail for steering a nation along the right path (see: fiscal restraint).

Read Full Post »