Women Prefer Taken Men

Ah women… saintly creatures. The fairer sex. Daddies’ little princesses. And also more likely than men to be homewreckers.

Do women prefer men who are attached?

“Everything was the same across all participants, except whether their ideal mate was already attached or not,” says Burkley.

The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.

Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren’t bothered whether their target was already attached or not.

This shouldn’t be news to veteran readers of CH. We of the illuminati already knew, from years toiling in the field, getting our dicks dirty, that women:

1. love to CHASE CHASE CHASE aloof men who aren’t readily available

2. love preselected men other women love, and

3. love the drama that necessarily accompanies stealing a validated man from his girlfriend or wife.

Really, if feminists were smart (asking a lot, I know), they’d realize their worst enemies aren’t laser-guided ego-targeting truth bombers like yours truly, but other women who will claw, scratch and passive-aggressively sabotage their way over the messed tresses of their sexual market competitors. Politically, women may be a united front, but privately they are at each other’s throats. And they attack with their knives sheathed, plausible deniability and rationalizing hamsters their greatest allies in this total war of gene delivery vessels, which makes them all the more potent adversaries.

Read Full Post »

No One Is Entitled To Commitment

No One is Entitled to Commitment: Why We Should Mock the Great Girls of OkCupid

“I don’t really have a lot of sincere girl friends, nor boyfriends. Most men say I am great, but then don’t call back.”

Those are the words of a solemn, Skrillex-sporting young chick in her dating profile, a profile that recently became the first post of 2013 on Great Girls of OkCupid. GGOKC, Kerry Id-Baker wrote, serves up “a roster of self-proclaimed ‘great girls’ who are actually total sluts;” in quotes culled from each woman’s profile there are familiar laments about being “too intimidating,” getting stuck in the “fuckbuddyzone.” There are also expressions of sheer rage and man-hating threats of violence: “all I want you to do is Lorena Bobbitt yourself, so you know what it’s like to live without penis privilege.”

Great Girls of OkCupid is a “dispiriting catalogue of desperation and man-hating entitlement,” writes Larry Penii for the New Statesman. Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and manly chortles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young women, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of committed romantic success?

“This is the ugly bullying of those who already feel like losers,” says Arnie Fagg, a columnist for the Guardian who writes frequently about femininity. “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.” In an email, Fagg suggested that GGOKC could be “potentially dangerous,” driving those who are at a “low ebb emotionally” over an edge, from where mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Shyster have already leapt.

Without entirely dismissing Fagg’s concern that some young women’s rage or despair could be worsened as a result of GGOKC, there’s a lot more to the site than mockery. What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the lovelorn malcontent; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of female romantic entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young women who were told that if they were great, then, as Larry Penii puts it, they feel that men “must be obliged to commit to them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young women feel cheated and used. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to men’s resources and long-term commitment in exchange for rote expressions of sexuality, these girls have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Romance Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Great Girls sabotage their chances of ever getting a husband with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Great Girls of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to romantic commitment. (Except, of course, with one’s own self.) Generations of children have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson’s line that we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. I was one such kid; when I learned those words in fourth grade (in 1976, the bicentennial year), I marched home and told my mother that I was owed joy. Mama firmly set me straight on the distinction between the right to want and the right to be given, and I have taken this lesson in rehashing cliches to heart ever since. Great Girls need a similar sort of come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, charming, reliable penis ought to be distributed equally to every Tara, Haley, and Deb who demonstrates a minimal level of sexiness. (And then I need a come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse myself of the notion that switching the places of Dick and Harry in the well-worn Tom, Dick, and Harry phrase is the height of creative writing.)

Romance with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional relationships provided for them by others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent aging and cranky women on trips to LA to see romance workers, aka gigolos, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. GGOKC reminds us just how many young women are outraged at this reality that pretty faces, femininity, and commitment-worthiness are not and never can be equally distributed.

Arnie Fagg and others suggest that it’s “immoral” to make fun of young women whose greatest crime seems to be that they’re stuck at the sad intersection of Not Hot and Dimwit. The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “slut,” because women find it shaming. But in the case of Great Girls of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these girls may be prone to imminent psychosis, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that men owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Great Girls’ sense of entitlement to both relationship commitment and sympathy.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Great Girls is their contempt for men’s sexual interest. They rage about being “pump and dumped,” and complain about the hours spent fucking men without being given so much as a candlelit dinner in return for their investment. Sexuality, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to men’s economic and emotional resources. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask (?) to expect men to be gentle with the egos of women who only feigned noncommittal sexuality in order to get commitment.

So how should we respond, when, as Penii writes, “sexist twatwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved long time?” The short answer is that a lonely twatwad is still a twatwad; the fact that these girls are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the men they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make women’s pain into men’s problem to solve.

Do these women need dating profile makeovers? Yes, obviously; making an effort to have both good grooming and good manners is seldom a waste. What the Great Girls of OkCupid need far more than feminist braggadocio, tramp stamp removals and binge drinking rehab, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed committed love. And no one who uses sex as a strategy for romance has the right to complain if she ends up with neither.

This Chateau Heartiste article reprinted from its original publication outlet.

Read Full Post »

Hotter Women Equals Better Sex: Science Weighs In

Nestled warmly in the Chateau archives, a House Lord wrote that hotter women means better sex for men. A chart was included to drive home the point:

In the interest of science, I’ve put my beauty-to-cumload comparison in a handy chart:

hotness of woman               size of load               squirt distance
0                                            *                                *
1                                            *                                *
2                                            *                                *
3                                            pre-cum only         needed squeezing out
4                                            droplet                      dribble
5                                            <5 grams                  2 cm
6                                            fills bellybutton        3 inches
7                                            1 tbsp                         8 inches
8                                            2 tbsps                       1.5 feet
9                                            1/4 cup                       3 feet
10                                          gallon**                      5 yards**

*insufficient data
**extrapolation

Oh, did the feminists and their hairyrimlickers howl with pained indignation upon reading such a brutally honest account of the mechanics of male sexual desire! The satisfaction of beholding the raw, bleeding ids on display must have been, in a word, delicious.

Still, there were those who lived in cellar permahovels who could argue that, despite a mountainous accumulation of real world anecdotal evidence, science hadn’t (yet) come around to proving one way or the other that men experienced improved sexual pleasure from banging hotter women. Socially calibrated readers were forced to take their own personal experiences at face value.

Until now. In what is sure to slice clean the last dangly sinew of the reject brigade’s frayed ego, a recent scientific study has appeared which proves, AGAIN, another CH truth.

Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age.

Previous research has indicated that men generally rate slimmer women as more sexually attractive, consistent with the increased morbidity risks associated with even mild abdominal adiposity. To assess the association of women’s waist size with a more tangible measure of perceived sexual attractiveness (as well as reward value for both sexes), we examined the association of women’s age and waist circumference with an index of men’s erectile function (IIEF-5 scores), frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), and sexual satisfaction in a representative sample of Czechs (699 men and 715 women) aged 35-65 years. Multivariate analyses indicated that better erectile function scores were independently associated with younger age of self and partner and women’s slimmer waist. PVI frequency was independently associated with women’s younger age and women’s slimmer waist. Sexual satisfaction was independently associated with men’s younger age and slimmer waist for both sexes. Better erectile function, greater PVI frequency, and greater sexual satisfaction were associated with women’s slimmer waist, independently of both sexes’ ages. Possible reasons for the waist effects were discussed, including women’s abdominal body fat decreasing their own desire through neurohormonal mechanisms and decreasing their partner’s desire through evolutionarily-related decreased sexual attractiveness.

I think the abstract speaks for itself. However, for the benefit of the short bussers: The men in the study got harder, stronger, bigger boners with the physically better-looking women. The men also had more frequent sex when they were having it with younger, hotter, tighter women. And finally, the men reported more sexual satisfaction when their sexual partners were hotter, thinner women with sexy hourglass shapes.

Young, slender, hot babes are nature’s Viagra, capable of inflating even an old man’s wrinkled wurst to heights of former glory.

I mean, does it get any more devastating than this for the lying liars who freebase pretty lies? The boner doesn’t lie. The boner cannot be fooled. The boner will not suffer sophists gladly. The boner is the irrefutable, unavoidable, irreconcilable, incontestable, ecumenical truth that jabs insouciantly into the clouded eyes of the pitiable self-deceivers. It is the warrior’s pole that rises over the horizon holding aloft the banner of savage, steel-forged reality.

The sheer volume of scientific studies confirming or otherwise presenting substantial evidence for Chateau Heartiste tenets and assertions about female sexual nature, game, and the functioning of the modern dating market is what could be called an “embarrassment of riches”. But I carry my burden with stoic resolve, to preen another day.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Have Been Digging Jerks For A Long Time

Reader Zombie Shane (ha!) writes:

IN THE COMMENTS, leave samples and excerpts from the GREAT BOOKZ which teach game!!

From the Cads -vs- Dads point of view, Jane Austen tried to warn her womynz about jerks like John Willoughby and George Wickham.

Yes, the classics are filled with examples of chicklove for badboys, and warnings to avoid falling under their spells. What’s interesting about this is that wiser women wouldn’t have to warn the sisterhood about jerks if women weren’t already naturally attracted to jerks. I mean, you don’t see women warning other women to avoid exhilarating romantic entanglements with boringly reliable beta males. Women do that all on their own. This is elementary logic that escapes the walnut-sized brains of feminists and manboobs.

On the flip side, in contrast to the jerk avoidance warnings, what you see are older women advising younger women to seriously consider the invisible charms of stable betaboys. Apparently, women have to be coaxed and cajoled to understand and appreciate the intangible benefits of dating betas who will treat them with respect and kindness.

Read Full Post »

What Kind Of Woman Cuckolds A Man?

Following hot on the crooked heels of yesterday’s BOTM nomination, a new study is out which gives support to the conventional wisdom that skanks, fugs and other assorted low value women are the ones most likely to employ the cuckold strategy (or, looking at it from a different angle, the ones least likely to be concerned with the consequences of impulsively cuckolding their boyfriends or husbands).

Menstrual Cycle Changes in Mate Preferences for Cues Associated with Genetic Quality: The Moderating Role of Mate Value

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of mate value and fertility status on women’s implicit and explicit preferences for male traits associated with genetic quality. It was hypothesized that a woman low in mate value would experience greater fluctuation across her menstrual cycle in her preferences for characteristics associated with genetic quality than a woman high in mate value. Specifically, a low mate value woman during the non-fertile part of the cycle would experience a reduction in a desire for traits associated with health and reproductive success. To test the hypothesis, the college age female participants completed two measures of mate value and a self-report measure designed to gauge fertility status. Then the participants performed an Implicit Associations Test (IAT) designed to measure implicit associations with a male trait related to genetic quality and a questionnaire designed to measure their explicit responses to the same trait. As predicted, mate value moderated the relationship between fertility status and implicit preferences. […]

Inherent in Gangestad and his colleague’s reasoning about cyclic changes in [female] mate preferences is the proposition that the mixed mating [cuckold] strategy would be most adaptive for women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources. Women who can attract both high genetic quality and resource rich males for long-term relationship have less need to acquire high quality genetic material through short-term mating. For this type of woman, the costs incurred from infidelity are less likely to outweigh the genetic benefits. An individual difference that is likely to play a pivotal role in woman’s ability to attract high quality mates is mate value (Fisher, Cox, Bennett, and Garvik, 2008). Although there are a variety of different definitions of mate value, most conceptualizations suggest that mate value is determined by observable characteristics that indicate the persons quality as a sexual partner (Kirsner, Figueredo, and Jacobs, 2003) and ability to increase the reproductive success of mates (Sugiyama, 2005; Waynforth, 2001). Not surprisingly, research has already demonstrated that a woman’s mate value influences many male behaviors and emotions, e.g., mate retention behaviors (Jones, Figueredo, Dickey, and Jacobs, 2007; Miner, Starratt, and Shackelford, 2009) and jealousy (Phillips, 2010). Further, numerous studies have found a woman’s perceived attractiveness influences her mate preferences (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2012; Little and Mannion, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2003; Vokovic et al., 2008).

It seems very probable that women who are low in mate value will have more difficulty in attracting long-term mates that possess both genetic quality and resources than women high in mate value. Hence, for low mate value females it may be adaptive to pursue a mixed strategy forming long-term relationships with lower genetic quality males and pursuing high genetic quality males for extra pair couplings. For these women, this is the best way to obtain the benefits of a long-term relationship and obtain high quality genetic material.

This is yet another study which validates scores of maxims propounded over the years by the Chateau for your reading pleasure. It’s almost as if being a layman simply observing how the world works with open eyes is as precise a method for discovering universal and lasting truths as being a credentialed scientist with a lab full of hardware drily measuring every jot and tittle of human interaction!

The study is very interesting in the details, both for what it reveals and for the inherent limitations it must work around, and I suggest you read all of it. Using a combination of explicit self-reporting and implicit association measures of attractiveness of stimuli (how desirable the men were to the women) and self-attractiveness (how desirable the women consciously and subconsciously thought themselves), the researchers confirmed their hypothesis that low mate value women — ugly, fat, crass, skanky hobags, or 3/4ths of American womanhood, in other words — are more likely to feel a desire to cheat on their beta male partners during their window of ovulation to acquire higher value male seed on the sly. Higher quality women — the cute babes PUAs target — are less likely to cheat or to feel a desire to cheat on their partners because they are the kinds of women who get what they want in a man, and are therefore more fulfilled with their romantic relationships.

(If you’re the type of person who enjoys aesthetic ornamentation on your dose of ugly truths, it helps to read this stuff while imagining a bulbous, half cyborg Cacodemon God of Biomechanics enthroned in the void firmament belching lube and smoke from his clanking flesh gears, cruelly laughing from his cosmic perch at his insignificant experimental human subjects toiling on earth below.)

As mentioned above, the study had to deal with some limitations present in the subject matter; specifically, the reliability of (explicit) self-reporting for measuring self-attractiveness, and the general reliability of implicit association tests. (Note that implicit association tests have been used to claim that white people are innately racist, conveniently forgetting the social context within which whites form their implicit associations, and the mitigating variables which influence them.)

On the first limitation, although women may be prone to overestimate their own attractiveness, it seems safe to conclude that such overestimation, because it presumably occurs in all test subjects, would still provide useful information on the relative rankings of all the women in the study. But that is of course open to debate. For instance, hotter women may be less apt to over-rate their looks, and may even downgrade them a bit to make uglier women feel better about themselves. (There are those people, too, who would assert that female beauty is subjective and thus unable to be accurately assessed, by either an observer or the subject. But those people are stupid.)

On the second limitation, although Implicit Association Tests are regarded as being less susceptible to “social desirability distortion” (i.e., peer pressure and social expectation to answer correctly), a problem arises that implicit feelings can vary based on hormonally-influenced or otherwise-influenced fluctuations in self-perception. Nonetheless, implicit association appears to be more trustworthy than explicit self-reporting, at least as regards the measuring of sexual desirability and sexual preference. As stated in the paper:

Contrary to the expectations, the study did not find the moderating effect of mate value when explicit responses were measured. Both high and low mate-value women expressed an explicit preference for muscular arms.

Why did mate value act as a moderator with implicit preferences but not with explicit preferences? One possibility is that the processes involved were operating without conscious awareness, limiting the participants’ ability to explicitly state preferences. Remember that an explicit preference is a positive or negative evaluation that is retrievable from memory and directs behavior. Whereas an implicit attitude is the product of positive or negative associations with an object (muscles) that can no longer actively be retrieved from memory. This explanation is consistent with the notion that many evolved processes operate passively without deliberate thought (Cosmides and Tooby, 1995; Tooby and Cosmides, 1989). Yet it is puzzling why participants would be able to explicitly state preferences influenced by the menstrual cycle but not by mate value. Another possibility for the divergence between implicit and explicit responses is that the participants’ were giving socially desirable explicit responses. The women may have believed that expressing positive attitudes towards the muscles was the expected or correct response, i.e., normal women should like muscles. Consequently, both the low and high mate value women gave positive explicit ratings of the muscular arms. On the other hand, the Implicit Association Test used to measure the women’s implicit preferences was able to detect the moderating role of mate value because the Implicit Association Test is less susceptible to this type of social desirability distortion (see Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Snowden, and Gray [2010] and Steffens [2004] for a discussion of Implicit Association Test’s resistance to response distortion).

Chateau Heartiste has been at the forefront inculcating the masses with some very valuable knowledge, primary among the oeuvre that men should never listen to what women say; instead they should watch what women do in order to learn what women really want in men. And this study, with its findings that there exists a discrepancy between what women explicitly self-report and what they implicitly feel, is another vindication of that hallowed CH principle. Recall that a woman’s brain has no fucking clue what her vagina is up to. Or, more precisely, women’s frontal lobes are not consciously aware of what their vaginas are feeling. For that, you must peer into their ids.

The sexual market works this way: on a subconscious level. In fact, it MUST work this way. It must, because it is the medium for the barter and trade of genetic material, the tiny, invisible Chief of Operations which is the ultimate beneficiary of all human motivation and goal-directed behavior. Dispiriting, sadistic, conscious awareness of the workings of the sexual market adds a level of unnecessary complexity that would not have been favored by natural or sexual selection.

So now you know… the rest of the story.

Moral of the study: Don’t marry a low value woman!

Better yet, don’t even bang a low value woman. If she gets pregnant and is unable to dupe her beta provider to stay with her and raise your illegitimate hellion, she may hit you with a paternity claim. But why would you bang low value women in the first place? If you’re that desperate or lacking in taste, porn is a more satisfying pressure release valve.

PS The study results show that high value women — aka hotter women — are not as subconsciously attracted as uglier women are, during the ovulation stage of their cycles, to bigger muscles in men. So if you are a womanizer who prefers the company of truly exquisite ladies, you don’t have to swole out to achieve your dreams. But if you like your broads a little slutty and road-worn, hit the gym hard. Probably explains why I see so many meatheads dating harsh-looking gym rats on the fast track to cougarville.

PPS This doesn’t mean muscularity, all else equal, won’t help you with the ladies. It just means that it’s one input among many which trigger female attraction modules, and it’s not as vital an input for attracting better looking, more feminine women as it is for banging out the substandard whores of pathetic cuckolds on the make for a fly-by-night injection of cad cream. Personally, I love the post-lift feeling I get, so I take some pleasure in knowing that I can exploit the flirty attentions of skanks to inspire jealousy, and improved sexual performance, in my sweeter lovers.

PPPS One other thing I would point out is that low mate value and IQ likely correlate. A beautiful woman is likelier to be smarter, and hence more conscientious and less impulsive (all these positive, K-selected personality traits correlate with IQ) than an ugly woman. So perhaps another unidentified operational factor that this study has uncovered is the notion that smarter girls grasp the negative consequences of cuckoldry better than do dumber girls, and are therefore better at resisting their temptations.

PPPPS You might also title this study “Ugly Chicks Must Settle for Beta Males, and That Makes Them Sad and Unfaithful”. Isn’t love grand!

Read Full Post »

Beta Of The Month: When You Can’t Hide It

You’ve got to have a strong stomach to make it through this edition of BOTM. This segment will hit a lot of buttons, as well it should. In a Slate “Dear Prudence” mailbag, a woman writes for advice from Prudie (Emily Yoffe) on how to break the news of her cheating whoreishness to her kids and neighbors.

Q. Where Do I Tell My Son His Sister Came From?: A few years ago I cheated on my husband, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. Because my husband and I had a 2-year-old son together we decided that we could keep our marriage together for his sake. The thing that really complicates things is that my husband, son, and I are white, while my lover was black, and so my daughter is mixed race. Naturally my son has begun questioning why his sister looks so different from the rest of us, and my mother-in-law took it upon herself to tell him she was adopted. I’m at a loss for what to do. For now my husband has told MIL that the topic is verboten, but we haven’t decided if we should correct her error. Until now I’ve been happy to just let people assume what they want about where my children’s origins are, but now that a story is getting around, I’m not sure what to say or how to handle it.

We’re a long ways from Normal Rockwell’s America.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the husband surrendered to his wife’s crazy-eyed demands shrunk from risking the certainty of a divorce industrial complex ass-ramming politely discussed and agreed with his wife to keep the marriage going “for the sake of the children”.

Gotta love those children — the perfect leverage for whores and the state to use against wronged men.

Femcunt: “How can you POSSIBLY think of leaving your wife and hurting your children just because she had an unfortunate and fleeting five-year dalliance with an underprivileged but incredibly confident and masculine black man who also happens to be a doctor?”

Beta Herb: “But, I thought single moms are a light unto the world, and their children are successful in every way?”

Femcunt: “Oh, that’s rich. Using white male logic on me. Check your privilege, herbling!”

Beta Herb: “I’m so sorry. Please don’t yell at me. I’m a nice guy.”

Femcunt: “Nice guys are really jerks! You would know that if you weren’t such a jerk.”

Beta Herb: “Should I just off myself?”

Femcunt: “There’s an idea.”

Please, did you expect a feminist to comprehend dual mate strategy? Or to dabble in rationality?

Is this hubby a beta for staying with his wife when it’s so obvious to anyone with eyes that the mocha child in tow is living proof the whore wife cuckolded him in the arms of a five-point buck? Yes, he is. There’s simply no way a man can retain the heft of his balls — whatever he’s carrying — or any shred of honor, sticking by the side of an unfaithful wife who so ostentatiously gelded him, a mixed-race living reminder of his emasculation total yapping at his heels. There are just some indignities a man should not ever tolerate, especially when alternatives exist, such as beating a middle-of-the-night escape to another country to avoid punitive extractive alimony and child-support payments.

But the ideal course of action for the grievously insulted beta provider hubby presumes a somewhat sane world envelops him, and will consider his case fairly. Unfortunately, thanks to the relentless moronic march of feminists and equalist filth, and their lethal infection of the media/entertainment/academia/bureacracy complexes which constitute the juggernaut known as the Western Cathedral, we are far from living in a sane world. Instead of receiving recompense from his ex-wife for cuckolding him, and full custody of his one biological child, plus the sympathy and support of his community and the state, he would likely receive for his trouble of separating himself from the bitch who metaphorically shit in his face an extorted, back-breaking retirement plan paid in full to her, plus two days per month visitation rights. And prison rape for any failure to comply with his dispossession.

Given this morbid reality, how fitting is it for us to label such a man a hopeless beta? Isn’t he just as much a victim of his circumstance and the world which is cruelly indifferent to him as he is of his own weak character? I’m loathe to come down too hard on this guy, who probably decided it was better to minimize the fallout from a really shitty situation than to seek the justice that was rightfully his from the insult of his wife’s awesome betrayal.

However, in the final analysis, he earns his BOTM nomination. The reason why is found in the wife’s decision to keep the bastard. She would not have entertained keeping the mixed-race issue if she had a modicum of respect for her husband. Instead, it is likely he is a beta male in his heart whom she despised, and that made the decision easy for her. What use is appeasing a husband you hardly respect, let alone desire or admire? Why care for the soul-ripping consequences your detestable actions will have on a husband who no longer, if he ever did, inspires your adherence to a moral calculus via the encouragement of wonderful twat tingles? She wanted this kid born, wanted this gaudy tri-hued mockery of her marriage to shoot out of her festering womb, because it was the kid of another man. A better man.

The hubby chump doesn’t even have the luxury of hiding his shame behind ego sparing lies. A white kid could plausibly be passed off as his. But a pint-sized frappuccino is a glossy mag ad situating his disgrace front and center for the entertainment of the studio audience of his life.

And every day, every goddamned minute of every day, this pitiful lackey, chained by law and habit and feebleness to the golem of his wife’s black soul, will suffer his humiliation anew. There will be no escape from the breaking wheel that cracks the bones and tears the sinew of his self-worth. No refuge from the material proof of his wife’s love for another man. No competing nightmare visceral enough to block out the constantly birthing image of his wife’s cunt stretching and ululating for another man’s dick, and her womb happily germinating the prize of another man’s seed. A prize made all the more demeaning by the context of the times, where an abortion clinic to solve untidy problems like this one exist on every street corner, and condoms are handed out like candy. This woman made her choice WHEN SO MANY OTHER CHOICES WERE READILY AVAILABLE that would have partly bandaged the immortal wound she knifed into her husband’s pride.

His world is the world of slaves. A spiked heel kicking in his nuts, forever.

What can be salvaged from this woeful cataclysm? Oh yes, there is something.

A word about the children. Sometimes, the children must suffer to right a horrible wrong. To rectify an impossible evil. And the world must make it known who, in actuality, is the cause of their suffering. Every day, the children must know it was Mommy, not Daddy, who royally fucked their lives.

For shits and giggles, I’ll post Emily Yoffe’s reply:

A: Despite continuing weekly evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that the vast majority of men who think they are the biological fathers of their children really did provide the sperm. If you get impregnated by a lover of another race, what you say to your children about this is something that needed to be discussed openly with your husband, preferably before the baby was born. Making the utterly obvious verboten is not a good strategy for anyone. I think what you need for your immediate family is a dose of the truth. But, for your children, it needs to be age appropriate. Since your daughter was born a few years ago, your son is old enough to know the basics of reproduction. He needs to be told that his sister has the same mother, but a different biological father. However, what’s really important is that both he and his sister are being raised by the same daddy. You can tell him families are made all sorts of ways, and yours is just a little bit special. If your son—and eventually your daughter—want to know why this is the case, it’s fair to tell them that it’s a complicated story, and they will probably understand it more when they’re older. Say they can talk about this subject any time, but if they can wait, you and their dad can fill in more details as they grow up. For outsiders, you don’t need to explain anything. You can just say you are blessed with two beautiful children. And your husband needs to tell his mother to stop telling the kids something that’s simply wrong.

She evinces a glimmer of sympathy for the husband, but of course her advice, such as it is, amounts to the usual pro forma feminist crap: suck it up, herbische kopf, for the good of the children.

(The only person who comes out seeming halfway decent is the mother-in-law — the husband’s mother — who wants to protect her son from shame by passing off his daughter as an adoptee. Can you blame her for this honorable lie? She acted with good intentions, even if her solution is unworkable in the long run.)

My advice to him would be: get the hell out of Dodge. And don’t look back, and never let her get her paws on one red cent of your bounty or one precious second of your time. Find yourself a better woman in another country. My alternate advice, if American law weren’t so egregiously stacked against men’s interests, would be to march into court, DNA paternity test results in hand, and punish her with the same everlasting torment she has bestowed him. Grab custody of the one kid that is yours, and send the ex-wife and her love child packing for the icy wastelands, where aging single moms with complicated spawnage have about as much success in the dating market as obese, neckbearded furries. If she winds up killing herself, or her kid graduates to juvie as a glue sniffer, all the better.

Too much? No. Cuckoldry — knowing cuckoldry, at that — is the greatest betrayal. The most horrible metadeath. It is the gleeful sham of a scheming Satan. The cosmic shiv driven deep into the chewy center of the soul. The ur-lie. The King Of All Lies. The one lie to rule them all.

There is only one other lie that comes close to the terrible power of the cuckold’s deception, and that is the fraternal betrayal of a solider against his buddy in the trenches. But that awful betrayal, bad as it is, at least does not rub salt in the wound for eighteen excruciating years.

Read Full Post »

Lots Of Feminists Are Getting Banged Out By PUAs

Ronin asks:

Just out of curiosity, have any of the real PUAs here ever used game to nail a Jizzabel-type feminazi?

As an aspiring womanizer, you don’t need to act with intent to nail an avowed feminist. If you scavenge snatch in the SWPL regions of any major American city (barring a few notable exceptions*), you WILL have collected more than a few feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting a feminist in the cooch if you live or operate within these zones of misandry.

Of course, not all SWPLcity feminists are cut from the same unsanitary napkin. SWPL chicks generally fall into three main groups of feminist identification:

1. The Femcunts

These are your Jizzebomb fanatics, the devotees of feminism as a life-affirming ideology. They are the smallest in number, but the loudest in bitchery and kookery. This is the kind of manjawed girl — typically a lawyer, academic, organic farmer or diversity consultant — who reads and comments daily at sites like Feministing and Slate/Salon/SuckMyClit with furrowed brow, regurgitating what she learns therein at parties and in the middle of dates, exposing a vile expectation that all the world should agree with where her retarded logic takes her. As long as you don’t embroil yourself in her occasional tantrums at invisible enemies, and keep the pick-up light and breezy while steering her in different conversational directions whenever you sniff the approach of another feminist tirade carried along by the id winds, you will get the bang. She is, underneath her femcuntery, still a woman, and as such (however much you may need reminding) she will respond viscerally to ancient cues of your mate worthiness, and her vagina will flower in spectacular opposition to the wilting of her mind. You don’t want to stay with women like these beyond a few hate smashes, so for shits and giggles I suggest you regale her in the morning with your support of the Second Amendment and the ludicrousness of the equal pay myth. For bonus soul-shivving points, casually muse aloud, after you have sprayed her mug and she’s inserted her glazed face into your armpit nook, that 1 in 5 women who are being raped will orgasm during the act.

2. The Partisans

These are the girls who occasionally read feminist blogs (usually when a fat femcunt friend passes along a link) and parrot the benumbing Cathedral crap they hear on TV and read in approved MSM papers. But these soapbox episodes are blessedly infrequent and pass unremarked, unless they manage to corral some dipshit manboob into acting as a sounding board for their cockamamy nonsense on white male privilege and socially constructed beauty standards (Hugs Shyster, Scrotumless Scalzi, I’m looking at you two distilled estrogen pools.) They believe the feminist canon, but live and conduct their dating lives in a decidedly non-feminist fashion. You will rarely, for instance, find a fattie or a mustachioed Marcuntte wannabe amongst this group. At the end of the day, they like being girls, and are all too happy to ignore the inherent contradictions between feminism and their love of shopping for shoes and falling for assholes.

3. The Lemmings

You have to understand that the anti-feminist/pro-rationality message does not get out in America’s major cities. There simply isn’t an anti-Cathedral reporting or opinion outlet with enough heft to influence more than a tiny fraction of women away from the idiocy that is feminism. This being the case, MOST women in the cities will have spent the better part of their sexually adventurous single girl years steeped in the platitudes of feminism, and they will know nothing else. Combined with women’s natural aversion to abstract thinking beyond immediate, selfish concerns, what you wind up with is a population of lickspittle lemmings who mindlessly nod in agreement every time a talking head exploiting this deficiency in the mental circuitry of half the voting public sonorously intones something about “equal pay for equal work”, or “war on women”. The Lemmings, by far the largest group of women you will likely encounter unless you live in South Dakota, include all types of girls, from club sluts to self-important HR robots to daddy’s princesses to deliriously frantic scenesters. Luckily for your sanity, these girls do not take feminism seriously; not if we measure “seriousness” by the frequency and intensity with which a person holds a belief. They are far more interested in looking hot for you, and gossiping endlessly about relationship drama in their circle of friends. Sure, if you press them “What do you think of free birth control?”, they’ll eagerly approve and perhaps segue into a condemnation of those “rape-y Republicans” and Sandra Fluke’s godliness, but mostly they just go about their lives oblivious to feminism’s charms.

So there you have it. Given that 90% of your city’s women are feminist in name if not in execution, the odds that you will bang out, or currently are banging out, a feminist are pretty good. Most hardcore feminists, whether or not they know it, are fucking men who either pretend to give a shit about their precious ideology, or don’t even bother with the pretense of pretending to give a shit about it. In fact, the majority of men, and an even bigger majority of players, are like me: they find feminism absurd on its face and will dismissively change the subject anytime the girls they are seeing make the mistake of veering into feminist bromide territory. Most girls are sensible and will know when their feminist retardation is turning off the men they like, and will quickly fall in line with the change of subject.

There are exceptions. A few supercharged feminists will eventually wind up with sycophantic manboobs for lovers, and a more perfect pairing I couldn’t imagine.

*I currently live near one of those notable exceptions, and damn straight I’m keeping that info close to the vest.

**Many SWPL cities have geographically extensive ghetto areas, which I don’t consider part of the SWPL, or feminist, world. Ghettoes are like exotic locales that SWPLs like to brag they’ve lived in for six months, when in fact all they did was read about them in the crime section, or pass through them on a bus.

Read Full Post »