Chubby Chaser Olympics: The Most Special

A reader, whom I will assume for purposes of this post is not a troll, wrote:

I wanted to run a theory by you and get your thoughts, since a lot of what is said on your blog resonates with me. Awhile back you posted in “Do Fat Girls Get More Sex?” that 99 out of 100 men would choose a non-fatty over a fatty any day of the week. Now, don’t get me wrong – hogbeasts are a huge bonerkill for me – but (and I know this is anecdotal) I’ve known a LOT of men who profusely claim left and right that they prefer fatties. Your argument was that these guys are losers – and in the general case, I’d agree. But some of these guys have appeared, at least to me, to have a lot of game – they’ll flirt around with skinnier girls and the women will seem very interested. They’ll proceed to leave the hot girl and go home with some chubster.

First, I’d have a problem accepting your premise. I have not known a few men, let alone a lot of men, who claimed to prefer fatties. This sounds like feminist fantasy-speak, which is like Newspeak, except more implausible. Now, of the tiny number of men who I’ve come across who did claim they preferred fatties, all of them were nerdy, fat or possessed some other charmless personality flaw that would sufficiently account for their claimed preference. A classic case of inverted sour grapes as ever existed.

(Sour grapes is when a loser pretends that an unattainable hot chick is undesirable in some ridiculously unbelievable way to salve his ego. Inverted sour grapes is when a loser pretends that the ugly, fat chicks he can realistically get are the bees’ knees of beauty.)

As for these chubby chasers you “know” who supposedly “have game”, taking your word at face value, I have a few explanations:

1. They’re black men.

I don’t care who’s bothered by me mentioning this, if you’ve spent any time in mixed company or at da clubs, you can’t help but notice that black men, especially during end-of-night garbage hour, are the least discriminating race and will hump a fucking dirigible farting explosive helium gas if it meant getting their rocks off. For whatever reason — name your bogeyman: culture, genes, hormones — black dudes can seemingly get it up for the nastiest land whales a white or asian guy wouldn’t shake his flaccid dick at from ten meters. Does this mean black men *prefer* fat chicks? No. The mate choices of elite black men like actors and athletes attest to the fact that they will choose hot slender (dusky-white) babes when they can. But it does mean that, absent the choice, black men are more willing to spelunk belly folds and then rationalize it as a love for BBW, excuse me, curvy women.

(I do think, btw, that black men prefer a somewhat rounder, heftier rump on women. Baby got back, and all that. This is not the same as preferring a grotesque cottage cheese rippled fat rump roast.)

2. They’re men who missed out on the hottie and still have a leftover boner.

Let’s say these guys you know have game, and spent the night delighting slim girls with their charms. Sometimes, they aren’t going to close the deal. But their interactions with all those cute, thin chicks have left them with half-mast bonies, and now they are horny *and* halfway to ejaculating. In that state of groin, some men will be tempted to relieve themselves in chubsters who are 20 pounds overweight with egos which are 20 pounds underweight, and, more relevantly, who are easier to seduce. The men are already on an emotional high, so it’s a hop skip and jump away from positive nonsexual rapport with slender babes to negative sexual rapport with chubby chalupas. Younger men who have no state control are usually the worst perpetrators of the backup biggun bang.

3. They’re insecure men who lack the inner game to believe they really deserve the hotties.

This is my favorite explanation, because I have known men like this, and witnessed them in action. These are the guys who have great outer game, who can jive with the cute girls, get them pumped and laughing, and then….

booop booooop boooooooop

fizzle.

They lack the one necessary ingredient that separates the players from the poseurs: a rock solid belief in their value. They can’t close the deal when it matters. They know the tricks, and are socially savvy, and are probably pretty funny too, but when push comes to shove they balk and retreat to the demilitarized zone where they can practice their target shooting on 4s, 5s and 6s with no fear of territory loss. Why fat chicks? Think about this: One ONE-HUNDREDTH of the outer AND inner game you use on a hard 10 would be overkill on a chubby 4. The path of least resistance is an evil that some men will abide, and in doing so contribute to the plague of fat chicks thinking they will suffer no SMV consequences for their gluttony and sloth.

So my theory is that, evolutionarily, there might be something else going on here. What if this is an evolved response to cuckoldry? Fat women are, I’d wager, less likely to stray because they are inherently aware that they are sitting smack at the bottom of the SMV scale – and, of course, they get approached less. So, while it isn’t ideal to throw your seed into a fatty receptacle, it might be more likely to result in a child that is the product of your own genes. Perhaps some men have evolved to take advantage of this “benefit” in lieu of a different strategy?

Thoughts?

Your theory is interesting but I think my psychological (and biological) diagnoses above are more directly applicable. For your theory to have traction in the real world, we would have to presume the men who chubby chase are not, in fact, winners with game. Because winners with game would not be afraid of their women cuckolding them. Nor would they resort to fucking fat chicks when they have the goods to fuck hot thin chicks.

Losers, otoh, would be afraid of cuckoldry, at least subconsciously. So for your theory to hold water, chubby chasers would need to be low value men who correctly identify fat chicks as “sure things” from their gene’s-eye view. If anything, the greater likelihood of fat chicks to “accidentally” forget to use contraceptives (because they might not get the chance at sex again for a long while) mitigates against high value men risking a night of sloppy, ham-smashing passion with them.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Cruelty

Blogfly Whiskey has taken his fair share of lumps from the alt-sphere commentariat for his view that white women universally swoon for black cock and for his… ahem… Scots-Irish sensibilities. But this comment he left over at Sailer’s contains more than a grain of truth.

Here’s the mechanism. Guys being funny get chicks. Girls being funny get … well maybe just maybe fame. But say an ugly girl who is a stand-up comedian won’t pull as many hot guys as an ugly guy who has the same level of success. Because men value looks while women value fame and social dominance more.

Russell Brand is (to my male eyes) one ugly dude who looks like an ape and is not in particularly good shape; nevertheless women go nuts for him, because he’s famous and considered funny and socially dominant (by abusing social taboos and being cruel to old guys — women generally find cruelty arousing in a socially dominant way).

The “funny-to-fuck” theory is likely true, and we don’t really need to read a study to determine that. Just go outside and socialize in mixed groups for a few times each month. Funny chicks get as much male attention as their looks command (which is to say, their humor generation capability is irrelevant to their mating success). But funny dudes will, if their humor isn’t overly-deprecating, often clean up with the ladies, regardless of their own looks. The reason for this illustrates another core game concept: chicks dig male status, dominance and personality as much as, or more than, they dig male looks. Men, on the other hand, dig beauty first and foremost, and a woman’s comedic timing, however it might make a man laugh, won’t stir his schnitzel if she’s a dog.

Since women don’t see a benefit from humor in the competition to attract men, their sex, on average when compared to men, has not evolved a strong cortical humor module. Women are better equipped to appreciate humor than they are to produce humor.

(As usual for the feminist-impaired, I will note here that the fact of male humor superiority does not mean no funny women exist. I have known a few funny chicks in my life. There are just a lot fewer funny girls than there are funny boys, and within that select group, the funniest funny men are a LOT funnier than the funniest funny women.)

The more insightful and scandalizing assertion made by Whiskey is the connection he draws between male humor and male cruelty, the two of which often travel hand in hand. Anyone who goes to stand-up shows a lot knows that the best male comics are sometimes relentlessly cruel, either to the invisible characters populating their anecdotes, or to hecklers in the crowd. And when they are cruel, merciless sadists, the women in the audience are laughing their pedestaled asses off.

The darkest truths of female nature are so dark that they are rarely broached in free-thinking underground subcultures, let alone polite, straitjacketed society. And one of those darkest of truths is the dispiriting observation that women become sexually aroused by men who expertly wield the soulkilling shiv of sadism.

Of course, style matters. You can’t just go around pointing and laughing at bums and expect dates to jump your bones. (Although, if I were pressed to judge competing strategies, I would say that your chances of banging a hottie after a date are better if she’s watched you mock a bum than if you gave her a bouquet of flowers when you picked her up.)

Cruelty that is delivered with supreme confidence, bemused detachment, and eviscerating precision is catnip to women’s kitties. Glib male cruelty says “I have so much power and self-assurance that I can freely shit in the faces of losers and foes without appearing insecure”. It is the mischievous cruelty of the Joker that makes women swoon. Despite themselves, women will get turned on by the masterful application of cruelty toward lesser men (and women!), because cruelty, almost in a league of its own, flaunts dominance. Male dominance is to women as female beauty is to men: it’s irresistible.

I say “despite themselves”, because women will hardly ever admit to such crass cravings. In the face of your cruelty to others, she’ll pout and feign a morally indignant pose and wag a finger and beg you to show mercy and pretend to be put off but in the final calculation the seismic ripples of her pussy will speak louder than any words coming from her mouth.

You think I jest?

Me: Sweetcheeks, look. That bum just winked at you. He wants to take you back to his cardboard box. [waving at bum] Hi, bum!
Her: [struggling to conceal a grin] Shh, stop that. Stop waving. You’re horrible.

Me: You want to take a bus? Forget it. [nodding in direction of obese woman] She ate it.
Her: [looking heavenward] Oh my god, I can’t believe you just said that.
Me: I hope it wasn’t a school bus. Think of the children.
Her: [smiling] Why are you being so mean?

Me: You ever date a really fat man and compare boob sizes?
Her: Jesus. [laughing] You’re not winning any points.
Me: Would you be with a man who could fill out your bra if he had a million dollars?
Her: I sometimes wonder why I’m with you.
Me: The huge prehensile cock.
Her: Oh yeah. [kiss]

Me: [looking over at girl in wheelchair] Would it be rape if she can’t feel anyting down there?
Her: [facepalm] Are you SERIOUSLY going to be like this tonight?
Me: You mean, like the bastard you love?
Her: No, like the immature boy I definitely do not love.
Me: Don’t make me pull your ponytail.
Her: I can’t stay mad at you, can I?

Me: The perfect lover: black cock, white looks, asian flexibility. Waddaya think?
Her: I think you’re being racist.
Me: You know what black girls call me? Colonist.
Her: More like COLON-ist.
Me: Wow. That was. So. Funny.
Her: Shut up.
TRIUMPHAL SEX

***

Sugar and spice and everything nice?

NO.

Tingles and wetness and everything alpha.

The above snippets are far from the cruelest a man can be, but you get the idea. And, generally, the crueler you are, as long as you are confidently cruel and don’t back away from it when she huffs and puffs, the sexier you will be to her. Sure, women are generally the overtly nicer sex and won’t make a habit of ridiculing the weak and degenerate, but WOW JUST WOW can they appreciate the sadistic streak in men.

The way it will usually go down is like this: You revel in your cruelty. She reacts with manufactured disapproval, often stifling laughter. Her vagina moistens. A wave of hidden shame releases a continuous flow of blood to her vaginal walls, maintaining her in a semi-aroused state all day long. Later that night, the floodgates open and you slip in like a lubed eel.

And a thousand ancient dictums are proved right once again.

Read Full Post »

Men Aren’t Attracted to High-Earning Women

The feminist and equalist gatekeepers of discourse are getting nervous that their house of lies is about to crumble in on them, thanks to the yeoman efforts of the alt-sphere. You can tell the heat is on them by the fevered pitch with which they churn out their copy, rife more than ever with sloppy logic, appeals to emotion and propaganda masquerading as fact.

An exemplar of this indisciplined genre is this Time article asserting that men are attracted to high-earning women, authored by Liza Mundy. The basis of her claim is the Hamilton Project which, she says, shows that men are more attracted to high-earning women.

Mundy makes the classic category errors of her type:

1. She conflates the marriage market with the sexual/dating market.

While there is overlap between the two markets, men bring to bear an adjusted set of criteria upon potential marriage partners. For instance, men will value chasteness and a low partner count history in marriage material women more than they will value those things in a sexual fling. (More tellingly, men tend to value looseness in short-term sexual prospects.) Men may also make cold, unemotional calculations that a woman of means can give their layabout asses a better life. For these reasons, plus more, the hottest woman a man meets is not necessarily the one he will wind up marrying. Often, men will marry out of expediency or a growing sense of weariness with the dating grind (it is a grind for a lot of men who don’t have the game to handle the particular challenges of dealing with lots of women on a regular basis).

2. She assumes men have unlimited options are are therefore marrying exactly the women they most desire.

If the highest income women are marrying at higher rates than the “bottom” 90% of women (and that’s a pretty big bottom), it does not necessarily follow from that statistic that the men those high-earning women marry are attracted to their marital choices. Or that the women are attracted, either. It could just as well be the case that those men are settling for aging, high SES women who are themselves letting up the gas on their hypergamy and relenting to the internal pressure to marry before they hit their physical expiry, a pressure which will be much more acute for women after a decade of higher education and career building.

3. She thinks that marriage is proof of physical attraction for men.

Again, there is nothing special about signing on the dotted nuptial line that reveals men’s raw desire better than their incorruptible boner reflexes. If (and that’a big “if”) men are marrying high-earning women at higher rates than they are marrying low income women, it could mean that one or both parties are settling to avoid loneliness, that lower income women are spurning men who want to marry them, that high income women are relaxing their standards for marriage, or that men are coerced by social conditions into marrying for reasons other than physical attraction or even love. It could be all of the above. If Mundy were truly interested to know which women high value men are attracted to, which women those in-demand men most DESIRE, she would strap a plethysmograph on a sample of men and measure their dick turgidity as they eat dinner with, talk to, and make out with hot poor babes and plain wealthy women.

Any guesses what that data would show? Mundy? *crickets*

4. She misrepresents the data.

The best I saved for last. Go to the link to that Hamilton Project study and read it for yourself. You’ll notice something peculiar; specifically, the graphs don’t mesh with her interpretation.

First, the marriage rates for men ages 30-50 in the top 10% of earnings are down to 83% today, from 95% in 1970. Fewer men of all income groups are getting married. If men are attracted to high-earning women, why aren’t more men getting married to the larger pool of these high earning women, a pool that has grown substantially since 1970? One theory: Educated, high earning women are the upgraded trophy second wives of divorced men. A smaller group of older, high status men are churning through a larger group of careerist women. Say hello to our brand new, serial monogamy, r-selection society.

Second, the graph for “Change in share of women married, by earnings, 1970-2011” shows that every income group of women, except for the top 1% of earners, experienced a decrease in marriage rates. Even the top 5% saw a decrease, albeit a smaller decrease than that experienced by women in the bottom 85% of earners. If men are attracted to high-earning women, then why are women in the upper quintile of earnings — real catches to men, according to Mundy’s theory — seeing a decrease in their odds of getting married?

The bottom line is that women’s earnings have only an indirect effect on men’s mate choices; namely, the higher a woman’s income, (and this goes just as much for women who went from zero income to minimum wage), the smaller her psychologically acceptable pool of prospective mates. And we see this reflected in the actual data, (as opposed to the data Mundy perceives). The top 1% of female earners are the only group of women who have seen a rise in marriage rates, and the explanation for this lies less in men’s physical attraction for them than in cultural forces, governed by underlying biological rhythms, altering the landscape of the marriage partner hunt.

The evidence for a direct effect of women’s earnings on men’s attraction is scant, and where such evidence exists, it tends to show that men are TURNED OFF by women who make more than themselves. At best, the direct effect on men of women’s high income is like lingerie on a dog — funny to think about, but completely neutral as a penis stimulant. At worst, a high income can actually hurt a woman’s chances with men, especially men who don’t make as much as her, and she will be exposed to men who use her for the lifestyle while saving their true animal lusts for the hot, poor ass on the side.

A comment by a high-earning woman to that Time article strikes me as an accurate portrayal of the reality on the ground for her kind:

scoutmom

Sorry Time, but as a single woman who makes well over 150k, I don’t buy this story for a second. In my personal experience, yes, I could easily go out there and get married. But, not to anyone I would consider a truly equal partner. In this recession, I’ve seen many men see me just as a meal ticket. It’s not that they are intimidated (well there’s a few of the insecure ones out there), but mostly they see me as someone who can solve all their financial problems. Here’s a profile of the last few guys who either asked me out or I went on a date with:

1. Stock boy at an office supply store – Um, at 42, don’t you think you should be doing something else with your life? And no, he didn’t lose his successful job elsewhere and had to take this. He considered this his career and marijana his hobby.

2. Father of 4 kids (that was OK with me) and had over 78k of credit card debt. He made it clear he was looking for a “financially stable woman to help him out.” Sorry sweetie, I’m no one’s sugar mama.

3. Elementary school PE teacher who never wanted to be more than that. I was actually really into him and we dated for a while, but in the end, when he found out how much I made, he couldn’t handle it and broke up with me.

4. A man who paid 42% of all his earnings to child support and alimony and was about to lose his job. I actually thought he was a cool guy and was OK to date him until he said, “well, I was really worried about losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage and alimony, but now that you and I are together, I know I’ll be safe.” And FYI – he said this while downing 14 drinks in a bar on our second date. Nuff said.

These are just some of the situations that a successful woman who lives in Southern California is dealing with. And for those of you out there who think me not viable to date for other reasons, I am considered attractive by most people, and I used to do some modelling in my younger days. I am now 37, own my own 550k house, a car, portfolio, great relationships with friends and family and have an active social life. I just refuse to take on a partner who isn’t my equal in some way. I really don’t care how much money you make, but don’t expect me to pay for your financial mistakes or have to take care of a man who is mentally a little boy.

So, like the article says, I hide my career and income from men and dating profiles. It just makes me a target. I do not see this trend changing any time soon. Maybe I’ll try dating again when the economy gets better?

A target. That, Mzzzz Mundy, is a better descriptor of the kind of attraction some men have for high-earning women. Rich women aren’t lust objects; they’re prey objects. And the likelihood of being preyed upon is directly proportional to the rich woman’s ugliness.

Read Full Post »

Results From An Online Dating Experiment

A reader telegraphed the Chateau a link to a very interesting experiment that an intrepid blogger ran on OKCupid. He created ten fake profiles, five men and five women of increasing physical attractiveness, and measured the response rate he received over a four-month period. The results should be little surprise to regular guests of this mysterious sanctum sanctorum, but are worth examining in detail for the clarity they provide to men who are considering making online dating the fulcrum of their mate selection strategy.

The experiment: How many unsolicited messages do men get compared to women? And what difference does their physical attractiveness make to each man and woman’s success? [ed: all ten dummy accounts had the same written profile. you can read about his experimental set-up at his blog, which i recommend. we’ll focus on his results here.]

Here are the photos he used, ugliest to hottest, left to right:

The results after 24 hours showed that the two hottest women were instantly barraged with suitors, while the men, even the good-looking ones, struggled to get a nibble.

• Each woman received at least one message, but the two best looking women received 581% more messages than the other three combined.

• Only one man received any messages.

For the second-hottest chick, 1 in 3 men who viewed her profile sent her a message. For the second-hottest man, 1 in 10 women who viewed his profile sent him a message. (Strangely, the putative hottest man got no messages.) Conclusion: Looks matter a lot more for women’s mating success. Or: looks matter a lot less for men’s mating success (relative to all the other criteria they must meet to satisfy women’s 463 bullet-point checklist).

What about the results after 7 days?

As we can see, the two hottest girls are cleaning up in the attention whore sweepstakes. The two hottest men get a few bites, but because they are men and have no personal concept of the sheer volume of sexual attention that hot women experience during their brief window of prime fertility, they think they are Kings of Maine.

Handsome Joe: “Hey, Emma, I got eight messages this week! I’m in demand!”

Exquisite Emma: “Oh, uh, hee hee… that’s great Joe!”

Handsome Joe: “How many did you get?”

Exquisite Emma: “128.”

Handsome Joe: 😯

Even more depressing for those above average-looking men who think they can bank on their decent looks to score pussy, the ugliest girl (that cow all the way over on the left) got one more message than the three men, from left to right, got in total. The plain jane got almost as many messages as the two hottest men combined.

• Three of the men had no messages, despite their profiles being viewed about 25 times between them.

• The women’s messages outnumbered the men’s 17 to 1 (mostly thanks to the two best looking women).

Behold female hypergamy and male potency.

Finally, the results after four months:

Holy mackerel! Check your female privilege. The next time you hear a feminist whine about the patriarchy, show her this graph and tell her where the real power resides.

A couple things to note. The ugliest man got nothing after four months of desperation. The three men with looks ranging from ugly to above-average received a grand total of three messages over four months. If you are the average man, don’t plan on letting your generic beta profile and photo do your work for you. Hell, even if you are a good-looking man, you won’t have many messages to work with after four months. Conclusion: Men, you NEED game in order to excel in the thunderbone that is online dating. Otherwise, you’ll have better odds picking up women just talking to any of them that you meet walking down the street.

Worse, the ugliest woman got nearly as many messages as the best-looking man! (Or second-best-looking man, depending on your judgment of the rank order of male photos.) The second-ugliest woman — a piddling 3 or 4 by most men’s standards — received as many messages as the two hottest men received.

• The two most attractive women probably would have received several thousand more if their inboxes hadn’t have reached maximum capacity.

• It took 2 months, 13 days for the most popular woman’s inbox to fill up. At the current rate it would take the most popular man 2.3 years to fill up his.

This is why men, unlike women in their primes, cannot wait around for lovers to fall in their laps. They have to bust a move. This also explains why men, in general, have a firmer grip on the reality of the sexual market than do women: when you’re a hot babe, you can afford ignorance and platitudes because the tidal wave of messages will come regardless. But a man who wallows in pretty lies will soon find himself banished to Pudpullia, where boners go to chafe.

The blogger who performed the experiment also analyzed the content of the messages that the OKCupid customers were leaving the fake profiles.

My impression, after reading several hundred in the women’s inboxes, is that most men compliment the attractive women a lot, they make reference to something in the woman’s profile (you would not believe how many times men mentioned the party tricks and ‘Arrow’ the cheetah from the generic profile I wrote), or they ask a general question about travel or something equally boring.

They are rarely, if ever, imaginative…

Game will never become overexposed. Boring beta chumps who are truly nice outnumber charming aloof jerks who are truly cocky by about 1 million to 1. This is good news for the player with game who plays the online charade: online, you can decimate, because your competition is so weak and so ludicrously market saturated.

So what is the experimenter’s recommendation for men? His recipe for success will sound familiar to practitioners of the art of seduction.

• Demonstrate creativity, intelligence and a great sense of humour
• Be totally different to anything she may have received before
• Be obviously unique and not a cut-and-paste job
• Show that I’ve read her profile and absorbed facts about her
• Not be needy!

Unpredictability, ignoring her beauty (negs), non-neediness, listening ability, and wit. All core game concepts.

Note, too, that the guy running that blog sounds like a well-meaning liberal who probably thinks feminism is a-ok, so the fact that he’s coming to these conclusions about the sexes and the steps men need to take to attract women — steps which fly in the face of feminist and beta male bromides — suggests that his self-enlightenment is genuine, and not an affectation.

He includes in his post the “perfect message” that he sent to a cute chick, which you should go there to read. It’s a bit long and try-hard for my taste, but he mostly abides the standard game rules and does a good job avoiding horrible anti-game. Notice that at the end of his message he ASSUMED THE SALE. She replied positively.

He ends with thoughts about the obstacles that men and women face in the hyperconcentrated online meat market.

The fact that the first stage of online dating is so heavily stacked in women’s favour doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s any easier for them, compared to men, to reach the end goal of pure love or perfect sex. They may have the pick of the bunch to begin with, especially if they happen to be really attractive, but they can still only date one man at a time—they must still filter the largely undifferentiated onslaught of male attention into yes and no piles. Then the yes pile has to be sorted through in much the same way as anyone else does it—by talking, bonding, finding common interests, realising there’s been a big mistake, or a wonderful discovery.

An overabundance of sexual attention is a problem most men would like to have. So I don’t buy his feminist-glazed assertion that women have it just as tough as men. First, he’s simply wrong to think women can only date one man at a time. Women, especially the hot ones, can and do date multiple men concurrently. Usually, they do this before they have committed to any one man with the broken seal of their vaginas, but before then women have no ethical or psychological roadblocks stopping them from dating three or five or ten men per week. In fact, I’ve known cute chicks who BRAGGED about how many men were treating them to nights out on the town.

It’s different, of course, once women enter a sexual relationship. Then, they find it hard, and soul-crushing, to give themselves over to more than one man at a time. Men, in contrast, will happily screw many babes concurrently if they could get away with it. Most men can’t, so they pretend they have morals to explain their heavenly monogamy.

Second, the online sorting process is not as hard for women as this guy is making it out to be. Women have finely honed beta male filter mechanisms that can quickly and efficiently sort the bores from the bosses. Sorting through 500 email messages becomes a lot less daunting when you can immediately delete the 495 of them that start with “You’re very pretty…” or “Hi, my name is…” or “Do you like living in…?”.

Granted, women have to put more time into their message sorting chores than men do (who base their judgments almost completely on a quick millisecond glance at a photo), but most women would secretly agree that the ego boost of an overflowing email inbox is worth the extra time picking through all the losers. For proof of this, just listen to any aging cougar who laments the loss of her youth when unwanted attention from men was a hassle. Being sexually invisible (like most men) is a change in life status most women don’t accommodate very well.

Beyond the scope of sorting, meeting and dating, there is a good point to be made that the difficulty level for women navigating the sexual market begins to rise and even surpass the difficulty level for men once relationships are within reach. Men can glide more easily in and out of failed dating adventures, and even failed LTRs, for they have more time on their side than do women. Plus, they have no risk of a disabling nine month burden. A couple years here and there with different women doesn’t much affect the overall dating outlook for men. Women, otoh, risk a lot more with the time and energy they invest in each man they date. An LTR that fails after two years can be fatal to a woman’s dating window of opportunity.

Two final notes.

1. It’s easy to be misled by this data from online dating sites that ugly women are just as in-demand as handsome men. No. First, the men contacting the ugly women are likely the dregs of malehood. Second, a low-effort copypaste email to an ugly chick is worth it from a loser man’s perspective if it results in a quick, sloppy lay. The trick for these ugly women, which they find is much harder to manage, is getting these losers to stick around and commit to them for more than the one-off perfunctory fuck. In other words, you can’t accurately judge a woman’s sexual market value by how much sex has, or how easily she can have sex, with losers.

Third, female choosiness means that the rate of online female messaging is not as indicative of men’s SMV as online male messaging is indicative of women’s SMV. An online profile is simply NOT ENOUGH for a woman to judge a man’s sexiness and compatibility. She needs to smell him, be touched by him, watch him move, listen to him speak, and furtively eye the way his crotch bulges. But an online profile IS ENOUGH for a man to judge a woman’s sexiness and, yes, sometimes even compatibility, because men seek to build connections primarily as a function of their visually-based lust, unlike women who seek to find reasons to dismiss budding connections as a function of their critical hypergamous impulses.

2. Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. But women need a LOT MORE from their men than just a nice-looking face. Women need a whole plethora of signals of high value mate quality, and that includes to a great degree men’s personality traits, vibe and attitude.

This is not to say that women don’t care about looks; only that women compartmentalize looks along with other, less physically tangible male characteristics that they are subconsciously attracted to in men. Less facially gifted men with game should be heartened by these online results: they show that a tight email message that exhibits the qualities of the preselected alpha male can draw the interest of cute girls who might otherwise dismiss these men based solely on their photos.

In short, women have a tool. Men have a toolbox. If a woman’s tool, however powerful it is, is broken, she’s shit out of luck. If a man’s wrench is broken, he reaches in and grabs the pliers.

Don’t wait for a woman to slip her tool in your toolbox. If you do that, you are looking at long dry spells. Reach in, grab your tools, and hot wire her circuitry.

Read Full Post »

Kevin Smith Game

Reader James has a game-related question:

Hey Heartiste I’ve got a question. What do you make of this:

On a couple of occasions I had college age girls strike up conversation with me by telling me I looked like someone they knew. In a third occasion I just recalled while writing this, another college girl struck up a conversation with me while waiting in line at the grocery store by claiming I looked like Kevin Smith of Silent Bob fame (in all three scenarios I was overweight and in all likelihood sporting a homeless person style beard since I was too lazy to shave. I’m also pretty tall, a bit over 6′, but physically that was likely my only positive trait.) whom she was a huge fan of. In one of the bus cases, the girl was telling her fat friend she needed a boyfriend because she was stressed and wanted to “blow off some steam”, and she must know I heard the conversation since they were only a meter or two away from me. Grocery store chick was standard issue swpl, 6-7 by most men’s standards I would estimate. Blow some steam girl was pretty hot, probably an 8. Second bus girl looked similar to grocery store girl, only she had short hair (huge turn-off) so I can’t give her more than a 5.

I figure they were all lame pick-up attempts, but who the fuck tries to pick up a guy who looks like a hobo? so I’m gonna ask some of the experts for a second opinion.

Fame is such a powerful aphrodisiac for women that even the flimsiest simulacrum of it can redound beneficially to a man. Yes, if you look like a famous dude, no matter how physically repulsive that famous dude is in real life, you can score pussy off of your gift. Sometimes this works despite the girl knowing you’re a lookalike.

Kevin Smith may look like a hobo, but he’s famous, and chicks will spread for all sorts of famous men, no matter how dirty, ugly or smelly they are. (The same is not true for men, as demonstrated by the professed romantic travails of ugly Hollywood actresses who don’t get anywhere near the lustful attentions that ugly Hollywood actors get.)

You’ve never seen a woman’s rationalization hamster spin its wheel so fast than when the roided-up rodent is giving a presentation to the Figurehead Ego in the corner cortex trying to convince him that the vehicular meat unit ensconcing both of them needs this ugly, unhygienic, drug-addicted famous guy’s seed pronto.

Figurehead Ego: He’s only interested in a one night stand.

Hamster: We can win him over. And it’ll feel better than that five year grind we had with Bob from accounting.

Figurehead Ego: We’re just a groupie to him, like all the others.

Hamster: We’re not like all the others. Look at how he smiles at us.

Figurehead Ego: He’s going to forget us before the morning is over.

Hamster: We can beat the morning odds with a well-timed home-cooked breakfast. We’ll be unforgettable.

Figurehead Ego: Did you read in the tabloids how he had a different girl on his arm last week?

Hamster: You can’t believe everything the tabloids say.

Figurehead: And how he was in a group orgy with Victoria’s Secret supermodels on his birthday?

Hamster: Mere rumors. Anyhow, those girls are sluts.

Figurehead: And how he got married in a private ceremony last month?

Hamster: He doesn’t love her.

Figurehead Ego: And how he cheated on his wife?

Hamster: Open relationship. Don’t you just love honest men?

Figurehead Ego: And he punched a homeless guy in the nose?

Hamster: He was probably asking for it. Those bums can get pushy.

Figurehead: Ok, but what about his drug addictions?

Hamster: He’s a tortured soul.

Figurehead Ego: His run-ins with the law?

Hamster: His passion sometimes gets the better of him.

Figurehead Ego: The facial contusions he gave to his ex-girlfriend?

Hamster: Oh god.

Figurehead Ego: What?

Hamster: I just tingled.

Figurehead Ego: Yeah, I could feel that seismic shift all the way up here. What about the shit smell emanating from the seat of his pants?

Hamster: I don’t smell anything. But if I do smell something wafting delightfully under my nose, it must be his musky cologne. More men should be so confident to wear such unapologetically masculine scents.

Figurehead Ego: And the flies buzzing around his head? It looks like he hasn’t bathed in a month.

Hamster: He’s in touch with nature.

Figurehead Ego: And the yellow stains in the pits of his t-shirt?

Hamster: He doesn’t care what people think of him. So sexy!

Figurehead Ego: He just farted in front of you.

Hamster: Authenticity.

Figurehead Ego: And I suppose you’re Ok with the log he left in the toilet.

Hamster: It looks like Jesus.

Figurehead Ego: Or that he’s a D-lister who hasn’t had a profitable hit in ten years.

Hamster: He’s FAMOUS. Didn’t you see the TMZ photo of him pissing on the front steps of that rape crisis center?

Figurehead Ego: Or that he’s going absolutely nowhere in life.

Hamster: But I love him.

Figurehead Ego: And his dick is rumored to be small…

Hamster: It’s all I need.

Figurehead Ego: …and he’ll come in two seconds.

Hamster: I’ll come in one second.

Figurehead: And you can forget about post-coital cuddling.

Hamster: Not when he sees what a catch I am. He’ll hold me forever and ever and never let go.

Figurehead Ego: You tired yet?

Hamster: NOPE.

Figurehead Ego: Look, let me put this to you straight. He’s going to use you as a convenient hole to get his rocks off. He will demand ass privileges (something, need I remind you, you haven’t given to any man before, even your ex-husband) and you will get nothing you want in return. He will, if the drugs don’t first kill his erection, face fuck you until you’re gagging and tasting hot tears. He will then kick you out of his hotel room, with perhaps an autographed pillow mint as a consolation prize. He’s not going to call you back. He’s not going to take your calls. He will pretend he never knew you when people ask. He doesn’t love you, he never will love you, and he will never marry you, buy you a house, or (knowingly) have children with you. In fact, it’s very likely he will despise you approximately fifteen seconds after he has unceremoniously deposited his demon seed in your ululating vagina. Afterwards, men you actually have a decent shot at winning commitment from will hear of your slutty reputation and avoid you like the plague. There is nothing in the world you can do to alter this guaranteed outcome. Second thoughts?

Hamster: Aren’t these garden flowers pretty?

Figurehead Ego: I give up.

Hamster: OMG, he’s pointing at me. And now he’s pointing at his crotch. *SWOON*

***

So here’s my suggestion to you, reader, the next time a girl mistakes you for Kevin Smith. Run with it. What’s that, you say? You’re ethical? Tough shit. Go home and play with your Epictetus.

Read Full Post »

More Scientific Evidence That Chicks Dig Jerks

A reader writes, “We’re getting close to definitive proof that (most) chicks dig jerks.” Yes, we are.

Single women had their brains scanned as they looked at photos of men. The pictures had been subtlely altered to make the men’s faces more or less masculine.

The more masculine faces won out in terms of attraction — but the areas of the brain that were activated indicated these faces were also ones the women found most threatening. [ed: :shock:]

The group found a few interesting results. First, compared with the feminized faces, masculinized faces led to more activity in five specific brain areas: the left superior temporal gyrus, bilateral precentral gyrus, right posterior cingulate cortex, bilateral inferior parietal lobule, and bilateral anterior cingulate cortex. These areas have been implicated in face processing as well as the assessment of risk, suggesting that, consciously or not, masculinized faces are perceived as not only more attractive but also more dangerous. The effect was quite robust considering just how slightly the faces had been morphed.

Let that sink in. Brain scans prove that women are attracted to threatening men. The female hamster has just been CAT-scanned, x-rayed and magnetically resonanced, and the wicked truth behind all the feelgood claptrap and feminist boilerplate is revealed for the world to gaze upon with eyes half-shut at the gruesome sight, repulsed and yet fascinated:

Chicks dig jerks. Assholes. Douchebags. Dangerous motherfuckers.

Another clue Rihanna may be getting back together with Chris Brown … the two partied at the same club at the same time last night … AGAIN.

Chris and Rihanna were spotted at Avenue nightclub in NYC. Sources at the club tell us the two were in the club together for roughly 30 minutes … and Brown spent some time hanging out at Rihanna’s table.

I’m fond of saying the boner doesn’t lie. The same could be said of lit-up neurons; hard to fake that funk.

I predict there will be much gnashing and flapping of labia from the usual suspects (manboobs included) about this latest study to prove that chicks love the badboy. But the evidence is irrefutable and really beginning to pile up that women are hard-wired to tingle for a dark triad.

For those of you who insist — INSIST, damn you! — that they’ve never needed to be an asshole to get women, I’ve only this to ask:

When was the last time you successfully picked up a hot, young woman?

HOT

YOUNG

Get it?

If you’re married to a frump, a plain jane, a cow (and odds are, you are), a has-been… well, no wonder you don’t need to be a jerk to keep her around. She’s got no options. She’s just grateful a man is willing to stick with her.

But the chicks with options… the ones who can pick and choose from among many men… the IN-DEMAND ones… they love the dickish dick.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I’ve never gotten more radical, more INSTANT, positive results when hitting on cute babes than when I deliberately amped up my asshole vibe. I mean, to the point of nearly insulting them. Eyes brightened and sparkled, legs uncrossed, fingertips danced all over my arms. And these were the upper class smart chicks with multiple degrees.

If you *have* to choose between being a niceguy and a total dickwad when picking up high value women…

ALWAYS err on the side of dickwad.

Read Full Post »

Automation And Redundant Humans

There’s a lot of chatter from the internetsia and on various econ-centric and forward-looking culture blogs (i.e. mediums hosting most of the interesting ideas you won’t ever hear discussed in the increasingly self-discrediting MSM) that automation and computerization are leading to impressive productivity gains, mostly concentrated among the high IQ elite knowledge workers who feign disbelief in the relevance of IQ (and other inheritable personality traits that are useful in a high-tech, interwoven economy, like conscientiousness). The thinking goes, and trend line evidence supports the notion, that vast swaths of humans will be left unemployable by their inability to grasp the language of abstraction. Unemployment rates that dwarf Great Depression numbers could soon be the norm.

Pursuing this line of thought, these Cassandras theorize that the end result of a bifurcating economy into machine overseers and redundant humans meant only to consume the products produced by the machines and their management consultant handlers will be huge wealth residing in the hands of a few, while pittances will drop like bread crumbs from welfare-issuance offices upon the benighted masses.

I happen to believe, based on the growing dysfunction I see organically emerging in my estranged country, that the theory has merit.

So I have two questions for any economists reading:

1. How is the present automation and productivity conundrum qualitatively different than ones from the past (for example, the classic case of the auto replacing the horse and carriage)? If you do not believe it is qualitatively different, explain how we escape the “zero marginal productivity” worker trap, especially in an era when human capital is shrinking due to a combination of dysgenic birth rate differentials and mass migration of unskilled poor? Note: “Humans are fungible” is not an acceptable cop-out.

2. If, say, most of the profits go to the top 10% in society, while the bottom 90% are unemployed or marginally employed, how is it exactly that those top 10% will be able to extract profits from a customer base that doesn’t have the income stream to afford more than the basic necessities?

There must be some self-regulating rebalancing dynamic that comes into play past a certain egregious level of wealth and employment inequality. I figure this rebalancing will happen in one of two ways: One, the government will step up redistribution (virtually guaranteeing a livable “income” for the left side of the bell curve). This option, naturally, confronts a bit more difficulty in a multiethnic society. Two, the profit geyser will dry up as the world comes to be increasingly dominated by a few elite essentially bartering amongst themselves. What good are productivity gains if no one is left with the cash to buy your products?

There is a third, albeit unlikely, outcome: goods will be able to be manufactured and distributed so cheaply that no more than a meager income stream will be needed to adorn one’s lifestyle with a slew of creature comforts.

Of course, riot-quelling Danegeld or sufficiently inexpensive goods say nothing about the devastation to the human psyche that would occur in a world of relegated uselessness. Unlimited consuming has a way of eating itself to death.

Please, spare me the singularity crackpottery. That, or genetic reengineering, won’t happen in time, if it happens at all, to stave off mass calamity.

Read Full Post »