Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

In a complete inversion of conventional wisdom, it’s men who should be playing hard to get if they want to attract the opposite sex.

Women are more attracted to men whose feelings are unclear.

A study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds that a woman is more attracted to a man when she is uncertain about how much he likes her.

“Numerous popular books advise people not to display their affections too openly to a potential romantic partner and to instead appear choosy and selective,” the authors write. Women in this study made their decisions based on very little information on the men — but in a situation not unlike meeting someone on aninternet dating site, which is common these days. “When people first meet, it may be that popular dating advice is correct: Keeping people in the dark about how much we like them will increase how much they think about us and will pique their interest.”

The subject matter of this study has been discussed at the Chateau before, in this post. It perfectly validates much of what is written here, particularly the posts dealing with instilling dread in your lover to build a healthy relationship. The fact is that women, much more so than men, get turned on by inscrutable suitors. Women love love love men who keep them guessing. That hamster isn’t gonna spin by itself, you know. Inscrutable men are likely hitting women’s “pre-selection” and “sexy son” limbic buttons.

Suck-up credentialist therapists and marriage counselors hate these kinds of studies (and, by extension, real-world truth tellers such as yer ‘umble narrator) because it puts the lie to everything they know and believe. How would you feel if the meaning of your very existence was revealed for the shabby mountain of platitudinal shit it is?

I suspect some readers get the impression that the science guides my behavior. But that is not the case. I’ve spent my life experiencing women, observing women, learning about women and loving women. That is how I came to understand them. The science merely serves as a confirmation of what I can see with my eyes. But I like to post these studies because I know it gets under the skin of the haters. I can practically see their blood boiling and steam coming out of their ears.

It is an exquisite pleasure to reflect upon your enemies’ torment.

Read Full Post »

A Generation Hexed chick bemoans the loss of chivalry, and claims modern day chivalry and feminism can coexist:

Living in Manhattan during college and after college would make even the most chivalry-loving women have to get her hands dirty. Unless you’re wealthy and can afford to take cabs everywhere (or do FreshDirect all the time), you carry your groceries home and up your stairs. And you probably live in a sixth-floor walkup! You jump over your own puddles and hail your own cabs. When some weirdo on the subway whips out his penis in front of you, you have to be the one to raise a holy hell. Hulk Hogan is not going to lug your new couch up the stairs, nor is Superman going to show up and defend your honor. Sometimes I would make a joke to my friends that “New York City is where chivalry goes to die.” […]

I cherished the day-to-day feeling that [my boyfriend] cared about me and that he was putting an effort into treating me nicely, beyond just having the basic manners of not chewing with his mouth open or interrupting someone when they were speaking. Just like I have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my desire to be with a more dominant, alpha male, I also have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my enjoyment of chivalry. I am now figuring out that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Chivalry and feminism are in fact mutually exclusive. Chivalry involves a tacit quid pro quo; men are chivalrous to women they deem are worthy of the chivalrous sacrifice. Throughout Western history, (Western only, as chivalry was a knighthood concept invented by Europeans during the Middle Ages), men have considered worthy women to be those who are relatively chaste, pure of reputation, monogamously loyal and delicate of manners. Does that describe the typical modern American feminist? Of course not. To ask the question is to laugh at the absurdity of asking it.

When a man holds open a door for a woman, or carries her heavy bags, he is doing so under the guise of an implicit pact between himself and all of womenkind. He assumes her relative weakness, modesty and submissiveness, and she assumes his strength and leadership. There is an unspoken agreement that both sides will hold up their end of the bargain. Implicit, too, in chivalry is a subconscious awareness that women are reproductively more valuable than men. Without a man’s confidence in these assumptions, the rationale for chivalry, and the desire to grant it, dissipate like the memories of so many one night stands.

Feminism is, at its core, an ideology of will to power scaffolded by lies. It has little to do with equality. It’s goal is the power aggrandizement of women at the expense of men (as it has to be since power is zero sum), and by whatever means necessary. That’s it. As long as feminism remains a force in modern society, and sabotages the minds of significant numbers of yummies (Young urban minxes), chivalry is DOA. The two ideologies not only have nothing in common, they are conspicuously antagonistic.

The free flow of information has also helped to kill off chivalry. Thanks to subversive retreats like this blog, women’s true nature is revealed in all its grit and gristle. No man in his right mind would open doors for women he now knows will divorce a beta and strip him of his dignity for a fling with an asshole who gives her Skittles as a birthday gift. Nor would he carry bags for women he now suspects, justifiably, are regular riders of the quasi-anonymous cock carousel. He’ll think twice about holding a cab for a random girl who might be one of those chicks who divulges personal details about her love life on a website called The Frisky. The simple, galling fact that women are sexually enticed by negs is enough to convince normally kind and generous men that pulling out chairs for them is a fool’s errand.

That’s another thing men have learned — when chivalry isn’t buying you a rude lack of acknowledgement from some ravaged city slut, it’s actively making you seem more beta. Men are asking “What’s in it for me?”, and increasingly the answer is “Not much”. And if you think a dearth of chivalrous behavior will open the door for shit-lapping white knighters to swoop chicks like Sir Lancelot, you’ve got the wrong idea. Modern women don’t instinctually reward chivalrous men with their sex, let alone a phony expression of asexual gratitude. The last chivalrous man on earth is still going home alone to pull his pud. But he’ll pull it ever so politely.

Women, if you lament the loss of chivalry, look in the mirror. You have only yourselves to blame.

PS: The fembot of the article linked to above had a suspiciously drama-filled breakup with her supposedly chivalrous boyfriend. Scientists are baffled.

Read Full Post »

I have contended that married women slowly come to find their husbands less sexually desirable because marriage tames men. Now a study shows that I have the cause and effect at least partially correct:

Researchers have long argued that marriage generally reduces illegal and aggressive behaviors in men. It remained unclear, however, if that association was a function of matrimony itself or whether less “antisocial” men were simply more likely to get married.

The answer, according to a new study led by a Michigan State University behavior geneticist, appears to be both.

In the December issue of the , online today, S. Alexandra Burt and colleagues found that less antisocial men were more likely to get married. Once they were wed, however, the marriage itself appeared to further inhibit antisocial behavior.

If you want to keep your marriage hot and heavy, maintain a dark triad edge: think highly of yourself, break the rules, and occasionally lie for the hell of it. She’ll swoon all over again.

******

Adding another piece to the ovulatory cycle puzzle, researchers have found that women with beta partners fantasize about masculine men when they’re fertile, but women with alpha partners do not.

When their romantic partners are not quintessentially masculine, women in their fertile phase are more likely to fantasize about masculine-looking men than are women paired with George Clooney types.

But women with masculine-looking partners do not necessarily become more attracted to their partners, a recent study co-authored by a University of Colorado at Boulder researcher concludes.

This supports the theory that alpha males can afford to slip up and act beta once in a while without suffering the same consequences that a diehard betaboy would. The infrequent beta backslide won’t help the alpha, but it won’t hurt him either. So if you are a beta, you had better ramp up your asshole game during your lover’s fertility window.

The same study shows that idiocracy is in full effect:

Meanwhile, a man’s intelligence has no effect on the extent to which fertile, female partners fantasize about others, the researchers found. They say the lack of an observed “fertility effect” related to intelligence is puzzling.

It should be no surprise to anyone who’s lived a day that a disconcertingly high number of naturals are also some of the dumbest men. Living outside your head like an animal running on instinct does wonders for your game.

******

As if feminism needed to be discredited even further:

Here, we present the first evidence of sex differences in use of play objects in a wild primate, in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We find that juveniles tend to carry sticks in a manner suggestive of rudimentary doll play and, as in children and captive monkeys, this behavior is more common in females than in males.

To be a self-proclaimed feminist today is akin to proudly announcing your membership in the Flat Earth Society. The rancid, dimwitted ideology fuels itself strictly on feel-good emotions.

******

Remember all that brouhaha about marriage being good for a man’s health? It’s bullshit.

Long relationships – not necessarily marriage – key to good health.

Men and women who are in relationships for longer than five years are less likely to be depressed, to consider or attempt suicide, or to be dependent on alcohol or drugs, it was found.

It is well known that people who are married lead healthier lives and live longer but it was not known if the effect was the same for those cohabiting.

The study in the British Journal of Psychiatry examined 1,000 people living in New Zealand by a team at University of Otago.

It was found that longer relationships were associated with lower rates of mental health problems.

Haters often stumble onto the Chateau grounds and run around in circles like headless chickens accusing the proprietors of advocating a pump and dump lifestyle. Their lack of reading comprehension, combined with their compulsion to wish the worst motives of their enemies, leads them into a patchwork of lies and self-deceit. Even a cursory reading of the posts here should tell them that no host at the Chateau denigrates LTRs. We save the denigration for marriage. While pump and dumps are excellent appetizers, the love and intimacy of a relationship is a pleasure unto itself.

******

Social constructivists and cultural hegemonists often engage in the logical fallacy of “where’s the gene?” missing link-ism. That is, they like to claim that since no one gene has yet been found to affect, say, intelligence, it must be the case that intelligence is not primarily genetically influenced. But evidence shows that multiple genes act in concert to produce single human traits.

As much as 90 percent of variation in adult height may be caused by genetic inheritance, but a multitude of genes are involved. Most of these have yet to be discovered.

Now a new meta-analysis of data from more than 100,000 people has identified variants in over two dozen genes that were not previously associated with height. The study also confirmed genetic associations in more than 30 previously known height genes.

If multiple synchronizing genes are needed to affect a relatively simple trait like height, it stands to reason that a veritable smorgasbord of genes influence brain architecture in ways we have barely begun to unravel. David Brooks wept.

******

Married women lose interest in sex because their husbands become — to put it succinctly — emasculated.

In this study, the authors conducted open-ended interviews with 19 married women who had lost desire in their marriage and asked what causal attributions they made for their loss of sexual desire and what barriers they perceived to be blocking its reinstatement. Three core themes emerged from the data, all of which represented forces dragging down on sexual desire in the present sample: (a) institutionalization of the relationship, (b) over-familiarity, and (c) the de-sexualization of roles in these relationships. Interpersonal and intrapersonal sexual dynamics featured more prominently than did relationship problems in women’s attributions.

Reread this study for the full implication. Decades of milquetoasty marriage counselor and couples therapist advice exposed for the feminist orthodoxy sham it is in a single blow! Luckily, since you are a reader of this esteemed blog dedicated to the pursuit of truth no matter how unsavory, you already know that the way to rescue a failing marriage is to learn and apply game the same as you would to girls if you were a single man on the prowl.

Chicks, married or not, dig gender polarity. They want you to be unpredictable, unavailable and untamed. Marriage by its nature works against those three alpha male traits, eventually robbing the wife of her id-oiled desire to consume her husband’s cock. Much like a wife who gets fat, a husband who does not actively push back against the emasculating tide of married life is increasing the odds she will pull a Cindy and lose all her love for him.

******

If being an alpha male is so great, why aren’t all men alpha? Probably because it shortens your life.

A study of chimpanzees has revealed that dominant animals with higher testosterone levels tend to suffer from an increased burden of parasites. Researchers writing in BioMed Central’s open access journal BioPsychoSocial Medicine observed the primates’ behavior and studied their droppings to draw the link between dominance and infection status.

Michael Muehlenbein from Indiana University and David Watts from Yale University, USA, carried out the study in 22 male animals at Kibale National Park, Uganda. According to Muehlenbein, “Acquisition and maintenance of high dominance rank often involves frequent aggression, and testosterone has been considered the quintessential physiological moderator of such behavior. However, testosterone also causes suppression of the immune system”.

If you had to choose between living a 50 year lifespan as an alpha male who beds hundreds of beautiful women and living a 200 year lifespan as a beta male who has one ten year LTR with a plain jane, which would you choose?

Same question to the ladies. 50 year lifespan hopping in and out of bed with hundreds of alpha males versus 200 year lifespan with one devoted beta in a, say, 20 year LTR. Reaction time is a factor.

******

Contra Robin Hanson, were foragers more or less violent than farmers? A tenet of the forager thesis is that foragers (read: cosmopolitan liberals) are less violent than their farmer (read: family values conservatives) counterparts. Evidence shows that our forager cousins were a very violent bunch of killers, indeed.

In a cave in Northern Spain, researchers have discovered clues to the identity of the victims of a mass murder committed 49,000 years ago. The butchered bones of 12 men, women, and children protruding from the floor may be the remains of an extended Neandertal family that were killed and eaten by their fellow Neandertals.

Today the liberal manifests his violent tendencies verbally, and in papier maché effigies. Strident advocacy for open borders is a form of soft genocide, so you could chalk that up to leftie violence as well.

******

Via Audacious E, women who get around before marriage continue getting around once married. From the General Social Survey:

Not surprisingly, women with high sex drives who got around a lot before they married are more likely to continue getting around after taking their vows. The same applies in non-marital relationships. If your girl has a lot of sexual history (and likes to talk about it), don’t go in desiring any kind of serious or long-term relationship. You’re in pump and dump territory.

If you were limited to reading only five posts from the Chateau blog, this post would have to be one of them. It may save you a costly divorce someday. Or it may show you the path to easier lays.

Read Full Post »

Mingus comments:

The drummer in a band I was in when I was younger thought it would be a good idea to buy his hot girlfriend a bass so they could “jam” and spend more time together, since he was always with us 4 nights a week. After a few months in the garage she got “okay” and decided to start her own band with some other hot chicks. They were terrible, but they were hot and dressed slutty – imagine a bad punk rock version of the bangles, but unlike the bangles they were all equally as hot as susanna hoffs (drummers GF kinda looked like her). Like an idiot he tried to help them out by starting to book shows with the “new hot chic band” opening up for us. We had a pretty good local draw, but after a few gigs the new hot chic band started to get more and more attention (duh) from the bookers because they could pack the joint….big surprise. Next thing you know hot chic band are headlining weekends and getting the calls to open for the bigger touring acts and he eventually becomes the over protective BF/roadie loading her ampeg 8×10 bass cab at each show and making sure no one tries to fuck her. Of course over time she dumps his sorry ass because of her new found rockstardom and his diminished higher value even though he was pretty much the reason she got there. Common hobbies=bad idea.

Hilarious. And I have similar horror stories I could tell about men I’ve known who bent over backwards to help their girlfriends realize their own dreams a little too successfully.

Helping to raise your girlfriend’s social status above your own is akin to a fat chick helping her equally fat boyfriend lose weight and learn game while she stays fat. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Every time you encounter one of these sanctimonious beta bitchboy turds crowing about the love and support he gives to his girlfriend or wife to, say, get through medical school, laugh in his face because he is in for a rude awakening when she starts boffing a doc during her late night residency shifts.

The crux of the matter is that women do not desire men of equal status. They desire men of higher status than themselves. It’s academic from where your status accrues; it could come from game, money, looks, wit, humor, artistic talent, popularity, social savviness or stone cold aloofness. As long as you are higher status than her on some important evolutionarily circumscribed metric, her veins will course with lust for your animal magnetism.

Maxim #1a: Women desire men of better quality than themselves.

When you think you are doing good by your woman to help her achieve career success or to lift up her social standing, you are in reality clumsily playing with the hellfires of the Underlord of Biomechanics. You do not fuck with the primal forces of female hypergamy without paying a steep price in consequences.

There are a few caveats.

If the realization of her goal won’t raise her status above yours, *and* it won’t put her in the company of a lot of high status men for long stretches of time, then feel free to support her. If she wants to be a day care operator, and you are a high flying salesman, earn brownie points by encouraging her to pursue her dream.

If her goals and dreams are precious little musings that you know she won’t see through to achieving, then feel free to support her.

If her goal is a threesome with you and a lithe young chick, support the shit out of her. But make it seem like you’re being dragged into participating.

Read Full Post »

Jared Lee Loughner wrote in an online gamer forum:

On May 5, he started a thread titled “Talk, Talk, Talking about Rejection.” He solicited stories of rejection by the opposite sex. The next day he wrote, “Its funny…when..they say lets go on a date about 3 times..and they dont….go…” Three days later, he wrote, “Its funny when your 60 wondering……what happen at 21.”

Color me shocked that another mass murdering male shooter has a history of sexual rejection. Obviously, being mentally deranged can hurt your chances with women, but constant sexual failure tends to reinforce the mental instability. It’s a vicious celibacy feedback loop.

Give some of these guys with mental issues the tools of game to successfully meet and date women, and the improvement in the unrelenting loneliness and sexual frustration they feel will help tame the beast. Loughner may not have been a candidate for Total Game Intervention, as his mental state — he likely pulled a genetic bad hand of paranoid schizophrenia — was too far gone from all accounts, but for society’s underbelly of men who still have some of their marbles a knowledge of game may go a ways to reducing the number of these horrific random mass shootings.

By the way, Filthy Lying Shitsack of the Month Award should go to Sheriff Dupnik, the craven cur who tried to deflect any potential media attention from evidence that he ignored death threats made by Loughner as a token of favoritism to Loughner’s mother, a county employee, by blaming conservative politicians and talk radio hosts.

Dupnik has blood on his hands, and he knows it. That is why he lies so recklessly and obstinately. When cornered, a stuck pig will lash out with a fury.

Read Full Post »

The shooting of a Congresswoman by an unhinged schizophrenic anarcho-left winger with mental stability issues, and the predictable opportunistic reaction by the leftist MSM gleefully jumping the gun in assuming the shooter was a high ranking spokesman for the Tea Party, has got me thinking about big ideas. Specifically, the psychological motivations that drive the ruling class leftists to advocate for the strange things they do.

In between tacitly approving the repeal of the First Amendment in the wake of the shooting, leftists have been blaming the “climate of hate” (to which they no doubt contribute not one iota of hatefulness) on the inability of those “wrong” kinds of white people to get along with others not like them. This has been, in fact, the leftist chant for some forty odd years now, and their answer to this ever-growing problem of intolerance from those other whites-who-are-not-like-them-not-at-all-nosirree-these-aren’t-the-lily-white-gated-communities-with-monoracial-schools-you’re-looking-for has been to ramp up the antagonisms that provoke the bigotry they decry.

Logically, this makes no sense at all. If the leftists sincerely believe the “other whites” are intolerant bigots who foster a climate of hate every time they engage in the political process, then it’s counterproductive to advocate for increasing diversity which will, inevitably according to liberal logic, lead to more bigoted violence from the other whites. This is like wailing about drunk driving fatalities, and then throwing car keys at drunks and encouraging them to take the scenic route home.

Of course, the leftists aren’t much different than those they berate. We can tell this by the fact that those among them with options hightail it away from the vibrancy of the 50% gay 50% white hipster SWPL gentrified urban hood and into leafy, 5% gay 95% white yuppie suburbs when their precious tots are old enough to go to school, and too old to be used as stroller buffer to discourage would-be predators from targeting them.

Leftists are merely running status games through appeals to self-delusion, AKA PC. They need a bad guy upon which to project their own super secret bigoted thoughts and actions, and that bad guy happens to be commonsensical people who aren’t clever enough to fool themselves, and thus others, into believing utter bullshit.

But back to the leftist’s sincerity or lack thereof. Given enough self-deception, it is possible to begin to sincerely believe in blatantly stupid stuff. Leftists do sincerely look down their noses at the masses. But then, many leftists also sincerely believe that no human being is immutable; the average Joe’s hate and intolerance – through the power of government intervention – can be metamorphosed into something better, a world music listening Six Million Dollar Diversity Man who learns how to sip soy latte and mentally torture himself to find the most non-obvious explanation for FBI crime stats.

The overhaul and salvation of the Neanderthal bigot’s mind thus involves an orthodoxy that can be termed Tolerance Immersion. This is the leftist policy of immersing the white bigots in a swirling sea of diversity and platitudinal PC agit-prop, with the hopes that the heavenly light of tolerance would imbue the bigot as a sort of default immune response once he realized resistance was futile and his fate sealed. (You’ll notice in the leftist worldview, there is no such thing as a non-white bigot.) Similar to language immersion, it is believed by the leftist that radical tolerance immersion which leaves no room for dissent is the most effective way to help the bigot free himself of the last vestiges of primitive emotions, such as prejudice, racism, xenophobia, jealousy, envy, desire, joy and love.

Tolerance Immersion has been tried before, usually unintentionally, and history shows the wreckage that resulted. But history is socially constructed anyway according to leftist thought, so its lessons should be no impediment to their grand, and conveniently never quite finished, project utopia.

Read Full Post »

Check out this video.

Bottom line: Ovulating women in loving relationships are the most likely to show a lot of skin and flirt with other men.

Every time I have a brief moment of weakness when I think God is possible and there is love for everyone in the world, studies like this one jolt me back to reality. Yep, those precious, perfect, beautiful women crave strange cock when they’re most likely to get pregnant. And they crave it the hardest — and do what is necessary to get it — when they are secure in loving relationships with chumps such as yourself.

This is yet more evidence on top of existing evidence for the Chateau prescription to instill dread in your relationship or marriage. Women who get too comfortable with their partners, get cocky. They take their beta boyfriends or husbands for granted and start to heed the call of their uncaged ids deep in their hindbrains, where even the hamster dares not tread. An emboldening sense of invulnerability overwhelms them, and they follow an age-old evolutionary script leading them to sample genetic pee pee platters when there is low risk it will cost them with their current beaus.

The solution for men to reign victorious over this female Darwinian impulse is simple, and one this blog has been writing about for some time: Never…

never

let her feel entitled to your love.

By this I mean you need to keep your girlfriend (or wife!) on her toes, always in a state of suspended certainty. She has to be thinking, at least some of the time, “Does he really love me?” “Does he love me as much as I do him?” “Is he completely committed to me?” “Is he seeing other women?” “What’s he thinking?”

And my personal favorite:

Why does he leave after sex?”

And, trust me, she will love you more for making her feel this way, despite her inability to ever admit as much.

So, men, if you want to minimize the odds your lover is an infidelity risk, keep tabs on her cycle and monitor the level of comfort and security you are offering her in your LTR. If she is approaching her ovulatory phase, and you have been smothering her with affection and compliments…

back the fuck off.

Turn off your phone for a day. Decline a scheduled date with her. Call her from a noisy bar where girls can be overheard laughing in the background. If you live with her, show up very late from work a couple of nights in a week. Notice some trivial flaw about her looks. Grunt more than usual. Be laconic. Ignore her.

Naturally, the hotter she is, the more you will have to back off. Options = instability.

In this new year, let’s all make a resolution to improve the quality of our sex and love lives. Let’s make her work for it.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: