The Types Of Men Who Befriend Girls Easily

Friendships across the sexes appeal to different kinds of men, and among those men who pursue them only a paucity are any good at it. Most men are bros; they don’t have close friendships with women they aren’t banging. They have, at best, acquaintances of the opposite sex, beyond their girlfriends or wives.

What kind of man has lots of real female friends? Usually, the kind of man who has trouble making real male friends, or who has little desire to hang out with men. A select group of men do have real friendships with women, but these men, by virtue (or vice) of their talents with the ladies have difficulty building solid friendships with other men.

Men who are good at befriending women and bad at (or otherwise uninterested in) befriending other men fall into three identifiable categories.

1. The Latent Lover

The classic sneaky fucker, minus the malevolence. This guy is charming, challenging, and a pro at making women feel sexually alive. His MO is to flirt with every woman who passes the threshold of bangability. He loves the company of women because he genuinely loves the peculiar qualities of femaleness. Married, single, feminist, feminine… he seduces them all, though he may not necessarily have sex as a goal in mind. He loves the lip-licking, hair-tossing, heel-dangling, cheek-blushing, pupil-dilating, mannerism-mirroring reactions of women who delight in his dispensations.

As you can guess, the Latent Lover engenders envy and defensiveness in other men, particularly men whose women happily partake of the LL’s deftness at handling their hamsters. He may mean no harm, (although he sometimes does), but women’s submission to his graces threatens their watchmen. This dislike between mate guarders and smooth charmers is a two-way street; the Latent Lover is indifferent and often bored by the company of men, especially after 5pm. He prefers a life of adventure, and what’s more adventurous than navigating the alien terrain of women’s minds?

2. The Fun Chum

This guy is funny, upbeat and expert at syncing with women’s predilection for unseriousness. When things get tense, he’s the man that blows it open with a well-timed quip. What the fun chum lacks in a sexy vibe, he makes up with a commitment to social levity. He won’t generate any tingles, but women love to be around him because he takes their minds off of the constant intrasex backbiting that characterizes most female friendship rings.

The flaw in the Fun Chum is how quickly he annoys the shit out of other men. They think he acts like a fool. Or, worse, like a dancing monkey. He’s not romantically threatening, but he is unmanly in his quickness to resort to histrionics. He’s a man who takes more pleasure is making women laugh than in making other men comfortable with his presence. In small doses, he’s liked by everyone and a welcome spice to any party. In doses large enough to vault him to the center of attention, his accumulation of male enemies rapidly multiplies.

3. The Beta Supplicator

We all know this archetype. He’s got a lot of female friends for one reason only: he has trained their egos to be dependent on his incessant flattery and awesome ability to sympathize, sometimes to the point of tears. Some women — really cool bitches, usually — see through his act, but most enjoy their own little lickspittle to lavish them with the “you go grrl!” nostrums that they need to survive the endless judgment of a ruthless sexual market. And the Beta Supplicator is happy to indulge, because without his facility at vomiting a steady stream of nauseating unctuousness he would get no female attention at all, asexual or otherwise.

Naturally, the BS man is despised by other men, including BSers. His worst sin is not that he sucks up to women, as bad as that is, but that his suck-uppery is so blatantly ineffective and his motivations so transparent to men, if not to women. He’s a eunuch in practice, an anhedonic lump of indeterminate doughiness. A worm. A lapdog. A nasally herbschling. He has few real male friends who can stand his schtick. So why is his kind so numerous? Why do other men tolerate him? One, he’s no romantic threat, so most men find the effort to dislodge him from their women’s lives a bother not worth tackling. Two, the Beta Supplicator can occasionally serve a useful purpose as an emotional sponge who absorbs all the boring relationship talk that those women would otherwise dump on their jerky boyfriends. The BS boy is like the harem guard, except instead of guarding them from sexual predators they guard the harem king from dealing with the bitching and moaning of his concubines.

***

As archetypes, it should go without saying that plenty of exceptions exist. For instance, the company of socially savvy, “leader of men” alpha males is sought and enjoyed in nearly equal measure by other men and by women. And plenty of Latent Lovers and Fun Chums are socially adept enough to know where the romantic line is drawn and to know how to speak the language of men. The above archetypes are simply examples of men who are unusually good at befriending women while being noticeably less good at befriending men.

Read Full Post »

A Hot Wife Means A Happier Marriage

A new study has apparently put the lie to that old song with the lyrics “If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife”.

In the study, which was recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, psychologist Andrea Meltzer tracked over 450 newlywed couples during the course of four years and posed the question: does a good-looking spouse lead to a more satisfying union?

What Meltzer and her team discovered was that spousal attractiveness does play a major role in marital satisfaction — but only for men. In other words, men care about looks more than women do.

The authors write, “The significant effect of wives’ attractiveness on husbands’ satisfaction was significantly stronger than the nonsignificant effect of husbands’ attractiveness on wives’ satisfaction, indicating that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting husbands’ marital satisfaction than it did in predicting wives’ marital satisfaction.”

Wow, my friends. Just wow.

Excuse me, I was channeling your typical feminist there for a moment. If you’re a CH acolyte, you probably are not a dumbfuck feminist, ankle-grabbing mangina, or lying leftoid, and therefore the results from this study won’t surprise you. Instead, you’ll amusingly wonder how anyone could have doubted that men are happier with attractive women and women don’t care as much about men’s looks. Stop the goddamned presses! You mean men and women are… *GASP*… different?

Interestingly, the attractive wives also reported higher levels of satisfaction, all because having a happy hubby made them happier too.

The natural state of woman is submission to a confident man. When woman’s nature is allowed to express itself, she is happy. When her nature is stifled — say, by being married to an unhappy or insecure beta male — she is contemplating an eatpraylove getaway. We can conclude that the ideal arrangement is a beautiful wife with a self-assured, dominant husband.

A study conducted in 2008 at the Relationship Institute at UCLA reached a similar finding. Researchers theorized that men who felt they “lucked out” by marrying attractive wives were happier and more likely to care about their wives’ needs — and in turn, the good-looking wives were happier in the relationship as well.

“The husbands seemed to be basically more committed, more invested in pleasing their wives when they felt that they were getting a pretty good deal,” study author Benjamin Karney explained.

Bodacious tit-for-tat. The sexual market is an immense bazaar of endless barter regulating the exchange of biomolecular entities with differing reproductive goals. Bad poets try to ignore this reality. Good poets try to transcend it. Great poets find beauty in it.

Karney said the opposite occurred when the husbands felt they were better looking than their wives, explaining, “They didn’t seem to be quite as motivated to help out their wives when they were more attractive than their wives.”

Options = instability.

What do you think, do you agree with the “hot wife, better life” theory? Sound off below.

Chateau Heartiste already answered this question, using a metric that frames the issue in a tangible way for men. Again, the CH worldview, however despised and resented by the patrons of the pretty lie megaplex, is vindicated by ♥science♥. And now we can add LOVE to the list of pleasures that attractive women inspire to epiphanic heights in men.

Read Full Post »

Lust Is Love

A shopworn shibboleth heard often in various permutations from people who fearfully shirk from reality is that lust is dirty and craven and superficial while love is divine and transcendent and meaningful. This pretty lie probably has its basis in early religious texts, which pegged (heh) lust as one of the seven deadly sins.

And yet, without lust there would be no love. Much philosophy, supernatural or secular, which reveres the concept of endearing, lifelong romantic love must necessarily also revere lust for bringing its only begotten son — love — into the world. Evidence for this cosmically bonded relationship between lust and love abounds in personal experience. (Who here ever fell deeply in romantic love with someone they didn’t also sexually lust for, at least at the beginning of the relationship?)

CH knew this intimate entanglement between lust and love, long ago, before the “manosphere” was a twinkle in the blogosphere’s eye:

We here at the Chateau have in the past written that it is just as easy — in fact, may even be easier — to fall in love and begin a healthy long term relationship with a woman after having sex with her on the first date as it is with a woman who has made you wait for weeks or months before having sex. […]

Pure, feral lust is a necessary prerequisite to romantic love. A love not undergirded by animal lust is not a romantic love at all. It is, at best, a companionate love, or an affectionate love, or a phony love that two losers convince themselves to feel when no other options are available. So why delay the inevitable? If you feel hot for each other, go ahead and consummate on the first date! You won’t poison any budding relationship that might follow.

Now there is evidence from ♥SCIENCE♥ that… HO HUM… once again vindicates another vantage point in the Heartiste worldview.

Lust: Sexual desire forges lasting relationships.

People often think of love and lust as polar opposites—love exalted as the binder of two souls, lust the transient devil on our shoulders, disturbing and disruptive. Now neuroscientists are discovering that lust and love work together more closely than we think. Indeed, the strongest relationships have elements of both. […]

Brain imaging is revealing the distinct but interlocking patterns of neural activation associated with lust and love.

Lust is most likely grounded in the concrete sensations of the given moment. Love is a more abstract gloss on our experiences with another person.

Powerful lust conceives enduring love. And when lust wanes, love — romantic love at any rate — follows in its dissipating wake.

This provides ample justification for the player’s intuition that the best relationships are the ones that begin passionately, and sooner rather than later. The bounder who collects his bounty on the first date is more likely to segue into a loving long-term relationship than is the idealistic betaboy supplicant who dutifully waits ten dates for a scrap of tepid snatch.

That three date rule is more than just a game strategy for avoiding the curious cruelty of a cockteaser; it’s also a litmus test for the presence of irrepressible lust, which in turn heralds the prophetess of love. If you, or she, can hold out longer than three dates, your future love, should it come, will more closely resemble a candle flicker than a blast furnace.

This CH-embracing study also lets the air out of feminist bromides that women have to sleep around in order to determine with whom they’re sexually and temperamentally compatible. Such hogwash. If love is kin with lust, then the first man who inspires a woman’s convulsive orgasms can be, and likely will be, the man she falls in love with, or dreams of falling in love with, or regrets having let his love slip away. Such a man needn’t be her twentieth lover any more than her first lover.

And temperamentally, lust has a way of enabling superlative post hoc rationalizations of compatibility.

No, women who assert a “need to sleep around to find the right man” are playing the age-old hamster game known as “I keep getting dumped because I’m a foul skank, but I can’t tell myself that or the razor blade will start to look very inviting.”

With love,

CH

Read Full Post »

The Beauty Ratio

Take a look at this series of photos. Which woman, left or right, is more beautiful?

How elusive is the concept of beauty? Apparently, not very. With a few microtweaks of geometric proportions, a woman’s face can turn from plain to pulchritudinous. The Marquardt Beauty Mask uses the pentagon and decagon as a foundation that, when a face is aligned to the mask, objectively proves that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder (beyond the trivial biological fact that a visual processing center in the brain must apprehend beauty), but rather is a definable and universal constant of formulaic precision that can be replicated and duplicated to achieve the identical hornytoad response in men the world over.

Nihilism and cynicism are perfectly justified when the timeless mysteries of human wonder yield to the investigative scalpel of cold numerical analysis.

Read Full Post »

Recommended Great Books For Aspiring Womanizers

Michael Blowhard once challenged CH and readers to look at what the great writers in the Western literary tradition had to say about courtship. Many responded.

Alas, it is not God’s plenty. A man who relies on literature for his models can easily get swept away by the glorious pedestalizing.

Ovid’s seduction manual, The Art of Love, is pretty uneven in its advice. Stendhal’s On Love is pretty good. Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier is a good manual for how to be an overall attractive man. (Both were used to good effect by Robert Greene in The Art of Seduction.) Moliere shows what not to do in The Misanthrope, as does Flaubert in Madame Bovary. Byron has some scattered good thoughts. Burke, from a more traditionalist perspective, has some profound thoughts on masculinity and femininity. I’ve never read Casanova’s memoirs so I cannot tell you how good they are as literature or as pickup advice. I haven’t read Laclos’ Dangerous Liasons either. It’s been a long, long time since I read Richardson’s Clarissa, with its famous seducer Lovelace. Freud expounds nicely on female narcissism.

I’d also throw in How to be the Jerk Women Love by F.J. Shark (truly a great classic in the annals of lit-ra-choor), Nine and a Half Weeks by Elizabeth McNeill, and Story of O by Pauline Reage. Even pulp romance novels, however hackish, can be helpful to your learned pursuit of utterly dominating a woman’s will and heart. As with the last two book recommendations, female authors will invariably reveal their pulsing erotic ids through their characters. The trick to reading romantic literature written by a woman is to pay attention to what TURNS ON the female character. Not what the character claims to want in a hypothetical boyfriend or husband, but what she specifically describes that got her tingling like a Van de Graaff generator. Editorial commentary can be ignored, because the prerequisite for becoming any woman’s ideal lover is to first become her actual lover.

Read Full Post »

Poolside In America

Would you call this man smart? I would.

He jams, drinks, surfs, lounges beachside all day, and eats lobster on the public dime. Oh sure, he doesn’t have a lot of material possessions (but how’d he get that car?) that define the accomplished SWPL life, but when you’re banging hot southern Cally girls, (and I bet you big bank he’s tapping more sweet ass than a hundred Apple employees turning six figures are buying dinners for), the urge to bust your balls hunched over a computer screen 50 hours a week so you can acquire the latest iteration of some useless gadget and pay taxes for your active dispossession kind of fades away. The Dude abides his new perspective.

Poolside in America is the nation’s 21st century battle cry. And why not? The country is sinking fast under mounds of debt, unemployment, and alienation. The government pushes propaganda and policies that undermine the very concept of a nation, so no wonder growing numbers of Americans are jettisoning any feeling of duty toward their homeland like so much gassy ballast. Social atomization and the sheer massive scale of a bloated 300+ million population of competing races, ethnicities, behaviors, and temperaments herded like cats under ever-tightening rules and regulations and surveillance drones doomed to fail are splintering hard-earned loyalty and severing bonhomie. Obscene inequality of wealth and the total abandonment of noblesse oblige by the ruling classes has emboldened the leeches and parasites and sociopaths and hedonists and nihilists and clear thinkers. In the land of the left-behind, the poolsider is king.

Toward the end of the video, the interviewer asks RattLife Surfer if he feels guilty for taking advantage of Obama’s removal of restrictions on qualifying for food stamps, and helping himself to $200 of “free” money every month. He says no, and I believe him. It would be strange to feel guilt for sucking a pittance of Danegeld from fat cats helping themselves to ungodly profits from arcane financial transactions abetted by a cognitive firewall between the masses and the gated 0.1%ers on the hunt for ever-cheaper labor imported from shitholes. RattLife has made a very rational decision regarding his well-being: He has looked at the world he inherited, at the immense chasm between the haves and (relative) have-nots, and has figured that slaving away in a cube farm or a grimy sweatshop on a stagnating wage to serve a smaller and smaller cadre of super wealthy and femcunt HR schoolmarms is no life at all. What is the point of busting your hump when the brass ring has moved from your fingertips to Alpha Centauri?

“My job is to make sure the sun’s up and the girls are out.”

Now that’s radical.

Read Full Post »

Are White Women The Gold Standard In Beauty?

Commenter FeministX, Indian woman (she would be offended if you called her “Indian-American”, as that would be too disparaging of her vibrancy privilege) says,

Based on media attention, it doesn’t seem like white women have been the gold standard for a long time. Doesn’t seem like blond women were ever the gold standard as neither Raquel Welch nor Sophia Loren were blond and they were beauties of yesteryear. Of fair women, it’s really difficult to see how nordic women were ever more attractive than slavic women.

It seems like all caucasoid groups can produce 10s though the average female attractiveness surely differs across groups. Salma Hayek is half lebanese half mexican. Monica Belluci is Italian and black haired. Aishwarya Rai is south Indian. Adriana Lima is a latina mix that includes black and native. Even Vanessa Williams looked like a 10 to me in the early 90s as her face is very caucasoid.

Personally, I’m not sure if Ive ever seen a 100% east asian or 100% sub saharan woman with a 10 face. But to me it looks like caucasoid groups can all produce beauties of the same grade A+ caliber. Across different caucasoid groups, 10s look sort of similar to each other despite the difference in skin tone. They seem to be the standard of beauty, not a particular race.

There are three methods for determining if a race’s women are the globalized gold standard in physical attractiveness:

1. Direct measurement

There is substantial evidence that beauty is quantifiable and measurable. Direct measurement of various facial ratios found in women from around the world would tell us which race’s women came closest to meeting the beauty ideal. This method would result in the most accurate results, but many religious believers in equalism would go to their graves denying in the face (heh) of all scientific evidence and common sense that beauty has an objective basis. It is likely this sort of scientific inquiry will not be done in our lifetimes.

2. Media exposure

The premise is simple: The most desirable women are the ones most represented in mass media as icons of beauty. If Unavision and Korean beauty pageants are any indication, white women (and facsimiles of white women) are beloved in large swaths of the non-white world. In fact, based on media presence, it seems the only areas of the world where the beauty of white women *isn’t* idealized are in the homelands of whites: the Anglosphere and Europe.

The downside to using this method to determine white women’s relative attractiveness is the result-skewing effects of propaganda. The media both reflects cultural taste, and molds it in the image that the gatekeepers of social discourse want it to go. So a media blitz to, say, elevate the desirability of Aboriginal women would not be fairly representative of their attractiveness to the world’s men.

3. Male preference

Outside of direct measurement, this is the method that will yield results closest to reality. Watch what men do, not what they say. Which women do men from around the world prefer to gaze at? Which women do men prefer to bang? Marry? Etc. For that, we can look at porn stats to see if white women are disproportionately represented. Another method is to examine the historical sex slavery data to find out, contra FeministX, if white women have or haven’t been the “gold standard” in attractiveness for a long time.

Peter Frost has a series of post looking into this very question, and the results are sure to stick another shiv into the black hearts of beauty relativists: White women (and whiter women) have historically been desired as concubines and sex slaves by non-white men.

***

Putting it all together — (limited) direct measurement data, total media exposure, and male preference (both current and historical) — the conclusion is hard to escape: White women are indeed the global gold standard in beauty. There are exceptions, of course, and not every white woman is beautiful (far from it, and less so today thanks to the obesity epidemic), but on a large scale analysis, white women appear to be the women that all the world’s men want, and the women that the world’s women want to be.

Read Full Post »