Proof Of The Modern American Harem

Back in this post I tantalizingly wrote that the female predilection for having sex with a small cohort of alpha males was proven by the rates of venereal disease transmission.

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

Some commenters, though, remained unconvinced. Well, there’s more proof of the universal law of female hypergamy, the sexual cornucopia of alpha males, and the near-celibate aridity of beta males. Did you think I was finished after busting one nut?

Exhibit A: 80% of women and only 40% of men reproduced in human history.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

If you were a man living 4,000 years ago and you knew that you only had a 40% shot at sweet sexual release with the women of your tribe, would you tend toward short-sightedness or have the temperament of someone with a well-developed future time orientation? Would you put more emphasis on learning how to swing a club or mastering the multiplication tables? Compare and contrast with today’s geographic distribution of sociosexual norms.

But maybe things have changed?, some of you will argue. Yes, I believe these ratios have changed with the advent of Christianity, the nuclear family, and Western civilization in general. How much the 80-40 ratio was altered by the preeminence of the rising West is subject to debate, but there’s no doubt that strong patriarchal norms and a social and religious proscription against infidelity and hoarding of women contributed to the increased sexual access of beta males. If I had to guess, I’d say at the high water mark of the kingdom of beta (1950s America? Victorian England?) 90+% of men had nominally exclusive low risk sexual access to unmarried, childless women during the women’s prime fertile years.

But that was then. As this blog has claimed for the past three years, there is change in the wind. The future is the past. The constraints on female, and to a lesser extent male, sexual choice are lifting and the hindbrain is reasserting itself, waving its banner of bloody tooth and claw as it crests over the hilltop. The pendulum is swinging back. The 80-40 ratio may yet return to claim its rightful throne.

That is, unless the reconstructed monogamous Mormoms and Orthodox outbreed the seculars and morlocks. It’ll be a demographic cage match between zealots and orcs as SWPLs haughtily congratulate themselves until there is no one left to admire their virtuous posturing. Fun for the whole family! Kinda makes the latest iPod release seem trivial by comparison.

******

Exhibit B: The rise of the “hook-up” culture among teen and college-age women may be a leading indicator of a forceful female hypergamy reshaping the sexual market, (or responding to it).

Abstract: “Hooking-up” – engaging in no-strings-attached sexual behaviors with uncommitted partners – has become a norm on college campuses, and raises the potential for disease, unintended pregnancy, and physical and psychological trauma. The primacy of sex in the evolutionary process suggests that predictions derived from evolutionary theory may be a useful first step toward understanding these contemporary behaviors. This study assessed the hook-up behaviors and attitudes of 507 college students. As predicted by behavioral-evolutionary theory: men were more comfortable than women with all types of sexual behaviors; women correctly attributed higher comfort levels to men, but overestimated men’s actual comfort levels; and men correctly attributed lower comfort levels to women, but still overestimated women’s actual comfort levels. Both genders attributed higher comfort levels to same-gendered others, reinforcing a pluralistic ignorance effect that might contribute to the high frequency of hook-up behaviors in spite of the low comfort levels reported and suggesting that hooking up may be a modern form of intrasexual competition between females for potential mates. […]

Popular media coverage may be sensationalistic, and undoubtedly influences attitudes and sexual behavior in adolescents and young adults. However, the hook-up phenomenon is not merely a creation of the media; rather, the media seems to be reflecting an actual shift in behavior. Such casual sexual experiences among college students are by no means a product of the 21st century; “one-night stands” and “casual sex” have been studied without the current “hook-up” context (Boswell and Spade, 1996; Cates, 1991; Maticka-Tyndale, 1991). However, the high prevalence of these behaviors, coupled with an openness to display and discuss them, appears to be recent, particularly with respect to women (see Reitman, 2006).

Now why would women be quick to believe that other women are more comfortable with hooking up than they actually are (pluralistic ignorance)? The study authors suggest evolution has primed humans to embrace pluralistic ignorance when the sexual marketplace changes and it is in the interest of the individual to do so.

We expect that because human psychological processes are the product of evolution, the capacity and tendency to exhibit pluralistic ignorance – particularly with respect to sexual/reproductive behavior – must reflect the evolved best interest of individuals, and thus be predictable on the basis of evolutionary theory and sexual selection. […]

Several predictions follow from these evolutionary sex differences. First, men are predicted to be more comfortable than women with all hook-up behaviors. Second, each gender is predicted to know the gender-specific strategy of the opposite gender. […] Third, individuals of each gender are predicted to know the gender-specific strategy of their own gender. […]

[M]odern Western women live in cultures in which there are simultaneously large differentials in male resources and status, and imposed marital monogamy, the combination of which is expected to provoke intrasexual competition among females for potential mates (Gaulin and Boster, 1990). Engaging in uncommitted sex may be one form of female-female competition. If this is so, we would predict that women attribute to other women comfort levels that are higher than they, themselves, feel; this would generate PI that would heighten women’s awareness of potential threats from female competitors and may motivate women to engage in competition.

Fascinating. Women are slutting it up because they fear competition from other women taking their men. This is another confirmation of my analysis of modern society: as the sexual revolution freed women and men to act on their desires outside of a marital framework, women’s sexuality became their primary, in fact their only, bargaining chip to secure attention and commitment from attractive (read: alpha) men.

And what about the male side of the equation? Well, it’s not betas this hookup culture is benefiting. At least, not while the women are young and at their hottest. Women don’t fight intrasexually for the gift of tepid beta spooge. They’re fighting for the choice cuts of meat. If the structurally numerous betas were getting pursued by women, then the market would reach saturation and there would be few unhitched women to compete against each other; but because women prefer dating up into the arms of de facto harem leaders, the female-to-female competition rages at a heated pitch.

Now it should be noted that a few upper betas may ride the hookup wave to more sex than they would’ve gotten in a less licentious culture, but for the most part it’s alphas that are enjoying the bounty of free pussy. This is why game has come at JUST THE RIGHT TIME in our culture’s hedonistic careen — it’s allowed men to fully capitalize on an already emergent trend toward hooking up with dominant, flashy alphas. In another time, game would’ve served the function of strengthening relationships instead of fostering hookups.

******

Exhibit C: Our currently operational sexual market is influencing women to prefer short term hookups favoring alpha male harem builders over long term commitments favoring beta male nest builders.

Short-term sexual appeal largely rested on targets’ attractiveness, particularly among women with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation. Dating appeal was dependent on attractiveness, particularly among unrestricted women, and on ambition. Ambition and attractiveness synergistically influenced targets’ long-term desirability, and these preferences were not moderated by women’s sociosexual orientation.

The take home point: as cultural and biological constraints have lifted, women are giving more weight to their preference for short term hookups with bold, dominant alpha males. (The women would probably prefer long term relationships with these alphas, but if they are given free rein to choose between a flighty alpha and a commited beta, the alpha wins more often than not. That is, until the woman is past her peak and losing sexual leverage by the day.)

You’ll note a common theme in all the above studies: women’s sexuality is wilder and more dangerous than men’s, and absent social shaming and other similarly restricting mechanisms designed to encourage “acceptable” (i.e. civilization enhancing) sexual behavior, women will quickly revert to their more primitive 80-40 norm.

The $4.7 trillion dollar debt question: Is a reversion to the 80-40 norm inevitable? And, even more discomfiting, does the modern welfare state guarantee a return of the 80-40 norm as a sort of “cleaning house” that will purge the overpopulating dregs and filth and help continue human evolutionary progress as our one true god, the Lord DNA, intended?

We lament the betas, but we wouldn’t be the humans we are today if those 60% of bygone male rejects tossed to the icy wastelands in unrelenting pain and misery had instead gone on to enjoy sex and love in the bosoms of wonderful women who bore them children. Had our sympathies been retroactively indulged, we might still today be digging in the dirt for tubers and termites instead of arguing about the oppressive patriarchy.

******

Commenters sometimes complain I don’t bring the science to back up my personal observations, honed as they are by a very keen eye, a finger on the pulse of cultural trends, and an empathic understanding of human psychology. If you want a steady stream of backing science, feel free to open an institute in the Chateau’s name and hack away. Meantime, I’ll be skipping the lab work and enjoying myself with the best pleasures of life. You can sleep easy that about 80% of my observations are eventually corroborated by scientific evidence.

Read Full Post »

Women Are Most Deluded At 31

A survey of older women and their husbands who were being watched while filling in the survey questions “””concluded””” that women were most attractive at age 31.

The poll of 2,000 men and women, commissioned by the shopping channel QVC to celebrate its Beauty Month, found that females in their early thirties are seen as more attractive than younger girls as they are more confident and stylish.

Shopping channel QVC — where unbiased science calls home!

[Beauty] was defined as being confident by 70 per cent, having good looks by 67 per cent and being stylish by 47 per cent.

Helen Thomas is undoubtedly a confident woman.

This confidence deluding device is one of thinnest reeds women hang onto as they age. It’s a classic case of gender projection. Women are attracted to confidence in men, so surely men must be attracted to confidence in women. Obvi! Unfortunately, it doesn’t work out that way in the real breathing world. Above a very minimal level of functioning self-esteem (i.e. not so depressed that she shuts herself indoors and whimpers in a corner in the fetal position), a woman’s attractiveness has little to do with her confidence, however amorphously defined. A confident beast is still a beast, albeit more insufferable than a beast who knows her place.

A lot of women also confuse sexual openness for confidence. Raging tankgrrl sluts are especially prone to believing that their sexual aggressiveness is the hallmark of feminist confidence. In reality, it is the hallmark of sluttiness, nothing more. It doesn’t take much confidence in one’s self-worth as a woman to spread one’s legs for horny men who will gladly dump a serviceable fuck in any halfway decent and readily available pussy.

Almost two thirds of women surveyed – 63 per cent – agreed that “with age, comes beauty”.

Too easy.

The same number said that as they get older, they care less about what others think of the way they look.

We tend to openly care more about things we have control over. When you’re ugly and getting uglier by the day, it assuages the ego to imagine that you are above such trivial matters as impressing the opposite sex with your looks. And yet, even ancient grandmas will smear lipstick and rouge on themselves before heading out the door for dinner. It’s sad. So the compulsion to care what people think of us never disappears completely; it just fades away as reality continually reconfirms the uselessness of caring very much for something that long ago escaped our scope of influence.

And 51 per cent said as they age they shed their insecurities and feel prettier.

Only 51% in full denial mode? I figured mirrors would be in more homes than that. Interestingly, this survey result contradicts the survey result directly above it.

“Shedding insecurities” is another female empowerment trope. It’s easy to “shed” insecurities when there’s no hope of benefiting from acknowledging insecurities and working to improve the underlying conditions creating them. The rationalization hamster was strong in these survey results. Which brings us to another maxim…

Maxim #85: As women’s bodies age and weaken, their rationalization hamsters grow bigger and stronger. Eventually, the hamster is powerful enough to take control of all higher order consciousness.

Read Full Post »

Is It Time To Rethink Democracy?

An article over at Zero Hedge argues that democracy is self-cannibalizing, and that an attack on first principles is needed to stop it from consuming itself.

The Editor-in-Chief of the otherwise quiet and non-descript Global Custodian magazine has written what can pass for an extremely controversial if not outright revolutionary essay on the topic of democracy, and specifically how our current regime has cannibalized itself, and is in dire need of a “revolution.” Dominic Hobson says: “In a market, the cumulative expenditure of the modestly endowed easily trumps the expenditure of the rich. And even the rich are ultimately answerable to the market: They became rich by satisfying customers, and will remain rich only so long as they (or their investments) continue to satisfy consumers. Consumer sovereignty is far more powerful a constraint on the rich than political sovereignty. Indeed, even the erosion of the rich by democracy is ultimately self-defeating, for it eliminates that class of men and women in public life who are under no financial pressure to remain at their posts, pursuing policies in which they no longer believe. It is no coincidence that the democratization of politics has been accompanied by a decline in resignations on points of principle or of honor. The vast majority of modern politicians simply needs the money. But even the restoration of a rentier political class would not be enough to restore the blessings of good government. As long as politicians must compete for votes, they cannot govern honestly, or even disinterestedly. They cannot reverse decisions or policies that have proved unworkable. They must persist, even in intellectual error, and cannot escape a certain narrowness of vision. To release politicians from this predicament, a revolution is required. That revolution must be one not of blood, but of constitutional and political ideas. It must put an end to democracy without limits, before the prosperity of the species is destroyed and liberty extinguished…The only lasting solution to the plague of unlimited democracy is to attack democracy at its moral foundation: the political equality of the citizen.” Well, the Greeks seem to have been wrong about a whole lot of other things. Is it so alien to ponder whether they also screwed up the most taken for granted concept of modern society as well?

The dishonesty of politicians competing for votes in an unlimited democratic system is exacerbated by an ethnically and racially diverse populace. This is because diversity is the crucible of hate; it breeds short-sightedness and antagonism, as human groups unequal in status demand of their representatives policies that continue and strengthen parasitic relationships even when the long term consequence of such vengeful and envious voting behavior is national diminution.

Does the Declaration of Independence rest on a falsehood? The rapidly rising flood of computational genetic research is providing evidence for everything from innate differences in intelligence to criminal inclination to altruistic impulse. The conclusion slowly being forged by (re)familiarity with reality is that all men are not created equal. Born equal under the law? Perhaps, yes. Though that too might change with a broader understanding of human brain architecture and the associated debasement of free will. But created equal? No. Some men are worth more than others, and maybe from the moment of birth. The ugliest truth of all. We all know this deep down in the pit of our souls; it is why jockeying for position in the sexual market — and ultimately for progeny with a genetic leg up over the competition — is fought with such a vicious and primitive compulsion. Fear of failure in the one market to rule them all is the inspiration of nightmares.

As I have said before, for big picture realists to win the last battle against the sickeningly malevolent forces of equalism and utopianism, they must attack and defeat the first principles of the enemy. Playing by the enemy’s rules won’t work. That is the road to a superficial stalemate shifting inexorably away from truth and deeper into lies. The realists can attack in a number of ways, perhaps by triangulating with bold and sadistic truthbomb throwers like your humble narrator, thereby affording themselves an immunity to instant transmutation by the borg collective of our ruling class. The equalists know that if their cherished Original Meme is exposed and discredited they lose their power to shameswarm infidels into silence. Thus, this is why they act as if their assumptions are infallible, inarguable, and why they ferociously fight along distant borderlands, well away from central command.

Look what democracy has gotten us to date: mounds of debt, ponzi scheme entitlements, blood spilt in wars for ingrates, injustices committed in service of outcome-based equality, nation-abnegating open borders, historical whitewashing, loss of national pride, and a relentless fusillade of lies to prop it all up. The system is rotten to the core.

Solutions:

• Restrict voting to net taxpayers. Net tax recipients wail forlornly on the sidelines. Downsides: Impractical. How would we measure who is a net taxpayer before each election? Fosters revolt among the parasites. Every so often the productive will have to put down rebellions by the disenfranchised. Risk that the productive will direct all government largesse to themselves. Highly eugenic in practice. Parasites die in the streets once largesse spigot is turned off. Can the productive tolerate the tooth and claw nature of true progress? Upside: Encourages return to traditional notion of nation-state as territory for a relatively homogeneous population.
• Repeal the 17th Amendment. Return to state legislatures appointing Senators, as the Founders intended. Decentralization helps reduce corruption; state legislators are more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are 100 Senators in DC.
• Repeal the 26th Amendment. As lifespans and, consequently, educational years, adolescence, and time spent on parents’ dole, increase, it makes less sense for 18 year olds to have the right to vote their callow consciences into law.
• Institute a national referendum for big decisions involving war, taxation, and immigration. The ruling class hates this idea because they know it will mean an end to their beloved utopian transnationalism. Anti-American open borders traitors would get the comeuppance they so richly deserve.
• Benign monarchy. Could it be any worse than what we have now?
• Secession. A breakup of the USA into manageable territories of people with similar morals, outlooks, tastes, abilities and temperaments.

The era of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and sentimental equalist ideology is about to meet an ignominious end. The era of vigilant realism dawns. May the light of the truth guide our way. Ah-fucking-men.

Read Full Post »

Feminists Still Not Getting It, Never Will

McArdle has a follow-up post to her contention that the men women love are girly.

Incidentally, I’m being accused in the comments of engaging in some sort of conspiracy to keep the Beta Man down.

These things are never conspiracies. They’re more like hindbrain blurts.

More on primate theory later, but for now let me point out that as a married woman in her thirties, I have very little possible interest in the behavior of the PUAs; I’m not their target, and they’re sure not mine.

Marriage is no plenury indulgence from the soul ripping cenobite chains of the sexual market. You are being judged always and forevermore, and you are always wishing to be judged in the best light possible, even though you may not have practical reasons for feeling so. Lest you think I’m kidding, tell me what happens to the glowing love your hubby lavishes on you if you bloat up 70 pounds in the next year. Similarly, let’s see how much love — sexually and otherwise — you feel for your husband should he find himself unemployed for years on end and devoting himself to herb gardening. The attentions of the PUA (or, as I like to call them, the freelance seducer) is just a single infidelity away. Don’t tempt disaster by thinking that dropping out of the fuck market is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

To a person with a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, and to a person with a sociobiology theory, everything starts to look like some primeval competition for resources on the veldt.

The dismissiveness of the anti-reductionist (complicationist? squid inkist?) never ceases to amuse. All your extravagant and high-minded appeals to human rationality, individualism, and exceptionalism are but a coat of desperately hopeful rhetoric concealing the animal motives below. To those with the eyes to see, the veldt is everywhere. Indeed, the veldt is written into the machine code of your brain. The average American woman has a hippo grazing in her brain.

But it’s misleading to claim theory as a sole teacher. Years of messy real world experience and observation endorse sociobiological theory, while the theory offers guidelines to men looking for answers and a plan of attack. Game is, if nothing else, field tested and motherfucker approved. And that’s what gives it credibility, as opposed to the lofty academic discussions that waft like a stale fart across women’s studies departments. Once a tactic stops working, it is jettisoned in favor of something that does work. If a tactic is proven ineffective, it hardly lasts more than a few approaches before being discarded. And with the zoom zoom of the internet, proven tactics are uncovered and disseminated very quickly.

This tendency should be strenuously resisted; not everything fits into a neat primate model, whether your Preferred Primates are bonobos or silverback gorillas.

Human nature can be observed and analyzed to form a working generalizable sociosexual theory without resort to knowledge of the habits of our ape cousins. The fact that there exist those precious special snowflake exceptions that hearten rationalists and equalists alike does not disprove the rules.

My off the cuff observation was a genuine one; this whole thing sounds like what girls used to do.

Yeah, because we all know how much girls try to figure out how to pick up women. And “used to do” — what, have girls suddenly changed their nature in the last few years?

McArdle is conflating the learning process with the execution. For example, a PUA teaches himself how to walk and stand and motion such that he signals nonverbal alpha dominance which is universally attractive to women, and this process may sound odd to women accustomed to imaging courtship as something magical that “just happens”. But once the PUA is “in set” and executing his game plan it will all seem natural and unforced to the woman if he is doing it right. She won’t be thinking “oh how girly he is”; instead, she’ll be thinking “wow, this guy is kinda cute and really cool”. (“Cute” being the internationally accepted girl code for describing any man — cute or otherwise — they are attracted to but unable to verbalize exactly why they are attracted.)

And in fact, at some level the PUAs have to know that it’s not really particularly manly.

Men use many tactics to attract women. It’s just the socially approved ones that transfer wealth from men to women, like slaving away in a corporate hellhole and buying dinner at expensive restaurants, that don’t raise the shaming hackles of banal, unreconstructed feminists like McArdle. It happens to be the fact that game is successful because it co-opts a woman’s tools of the seduction trade to use against her. Qualifying? Negging? Teasing? Takeaways? Push-pull? Aloofness? All are tactics that women use naturally in their dealings with male suitors. That perhaps is why game strikes older women as girly; there are indeed elements of femininity in seduction, and it is well known that this is highly attractive to women. The classics of literature abound with examples. The best seducer must get into the mind of his quarry, and to do this requires a level of empathy that is almost transmutative.

In the final analysis, though, I doubt many men getting their dicks wet are gonna fret that they might be perceived as girly by a scornful married feminist.

Why do I think this?

Because you’re a masculine woman? nttawwt.

Because if your girlfriend (however temporary) caught you mimicking Tom Cruise in front of the mirror, or spending your spare time trolling message boards for magic tricks to impress women with . . . well, would she be more enamored, or would she slither out of bed in disgust and start looking for her clothes?

The mirror thing is a red herring. No freelance seducer spends his waking hours posing in front of a mirror to get his stance right. That’s the domain of bodybuilders. Dominant body language can be learned by observing alpha males in the field. As for reading online seduction material, I was once discovered by a girlfriend to be reading one of those forums. Looking over my shoulder, she asked me what it was about, and I explained it exactly as it was, describing the science of human social dynamics and male female psychological differences. I didn’t cringe in embarrassment or apology like some weaker betaboys would have. I was matter of fact. She became intrigued and read along with me. The only slithering that night was her receiving my meaty intrusion.

I am not against people attempting to upgrade their social skills, nor am I horrified at the thought that “beta” males will somehow sneak into the gene pool; after all, I live in the city often called “Hollywood for Nerds”.

Beta is a state of mind that can be found anywhere. It is anhedonic. Game is the cure.

But the combination of artificiality, superficiality, and manipulation in the PUA manifestos makes it really hard not to snicker.

Ok. So her beef with game can be best summed up in this:

Artificiality — makeup, zit medicine, pushup bras, high heels, wrinkle creams, nail polish, botox, bikini wax.

Superficiality — Lavish adherence to fashion and culture trends, consumption of celebrity gossip, fascination with the supernatural and occult, upholders of PC shibboleths, ingrained sexual preference for tall men, lantern jawed men, and high social status men.

Manipulation — Making a guy wait for sex, wearing sexy clothes and pretending to be offended when he notices, flaking on dates, coyness, not picking up the phone on the first or second ring, expecting paid-for drinks on dates, shit testing.

I wonder if McArdle is aware she has indicted her own gender?

By the way, the manipulation criticism is one I hear all the time from detractors of the crimson arts. It’s a tawdry conceit. All goal-oriented communication — verbal or nonverbal — is a form of manipulation. When a woman advertises her cleavage she is manipulating men to do her favors or otherwise impress her. When a man works hard at his job to buy a nice car and house he is manipulating women’s attraction mechanisms. When both refrain from picking their noses or farting in public they are manipulating people’s impressions of them. McArdle and her ilk need to get over this manipulation mental roadblock they construct to assuage their feelings of lost power. If seduction is manipulation, then women don’t want guileless entreaties. The spread pussy speaks louder than the snickering blog post.

A reframe: if soccer is the beautiful sport, seduction is the beautiful manipulation. The herculean efforts required of the vast majority of men to seduce women that strike McArdle as unseemly and calculating when compared to the relatively easy go of it women in their prime years have when setting about to seduce men is just a reflection of the biological inequality between the sexes in their value on the sexual market. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, and all that. McArdle is mistaken to assume this disparity in degree of mating effort caused by intrinsic sex differences is proof of men’s venality or women’s nobility.

(We will return to our regularly scheduled programming of learning about actual game, rather than jawboning about its cultural significance, tomorrow.)

Read Full Post »

Aging Urban Broads: The Manliest Of Women

Yet another churlish, resentful SWPL broad is on the warpath against game, armed with the same primitive stone tools all the other anti-game broads wield.

Reading the half-baked hate, I can’t help but get the impression of a very nervous woman. A woman apprehensive that men are gaining power in the sexual market and perhaps appalled that she is not any longer the primary target of that invigorated male sexual power. I can imagine her speaking truth to her indignation by assuming the role of the wise SWPL lady to a generation of younger women, admonishing them to never settle and scolding men to grow up.

But, you know, the times they change. The cock has no interest in your feeble hate. It doesn’t believe in synthesis, or syllogism, or in any absolute. What does it believe in? Pussy. And whatever it takes to get it. It’s self-evident.

The hater, McArdle, read an article by S.G. Belknap in The Point Magazine about pickup artists and seduction technology. McArdle sneers that men who learn game to attract women are “girly”.

I find it hilarious that the pick-up artists think of themselves as especially manly.  When I read this piece, what they sound like to me is girls–specifically, girls in the 14-17 age group.

The “learning seduction is girly” sneer is one of the most tedious repressed neoVictorian sniffs at game. It’s almost as if McArdle reads the comments here and sent a private shout out (and a pizza) to a bunch of my haters (hi, spoogen!) to agree on what they thought would be the most cutting sort of jab with which to poke the PUAs.

Spending all of your time thinking about how to attract the opposite sex?  Check.  Practicing poses in the mirror to figure out which ones are most attractive?  Check. Talking about it endlessly with your friends who only seem to care about the same, one, thing?  Check. Increasingly elaborate strategems for getting attention?  check.  Eventual evolution of said strategems into rituals as mechanical as playing the opening levels of an old-style video game?  Check.  If I close my eyes, I can still smell the bubble-gum scented lip gloss . . .

Worried that all that strategizing works? Check. Worried that all that strategizing will help men date younger, hotter, tighter women? Check. Doubly worried her lip gloss not be poppin’ anymore? Check.

For a supposedly rational liberdroid, McArdle seems oddly afflicted by the effervescent romantic idealism of the “just be yourself” and the “it should happen naturally” schools of nonthought. I’ve got news for her: courtship, attraction, and seduction ARE biomechanical processes that can be extracted from the misty ether and reduced to their core components. From such knowledge, generalizations can be made about the sexes. Does this fact bother many women? Sure it does. And I explained why in this post:

Generalizations offend women in a way they do not offend men because they breach the perimeter ego defense and strike right at a woman’s core self-conception — her belief in herself as Princess On A Cloud Carried Aloft By Admiring Suitors. If it’s true that her genes account for nearly all her success or failure with the men she wants, then there isn’t much she can do to improve her chances to fulfill her deepest desires. If it’s true (and it is) that men value beauty above all else, then it is logically inescapable that she is, to an unsettling degree, interchangeable with any women who are at or above her level of physical attractiveness.

Game, by stripping the seduction process into a flowchart for ease of learning and applying in the field, offends women’s sense of mystery and prerogative to act on intuition. Things better left shrouded in the unknown is the working preference of most women, not because they are more romantic than men (just the opposite is true), but because women are constitutionally wired to abhor the thought that men can exert calculated influence on women’s sexual desires and choices. Women want total and untrammeled choice in the dating market, and they want to prohibit men from enjoying the same extraordinary power. Game brings balance to the force, and that is highly threatening to women, particularly aging women for whom options are rapidly running out. (Reminder: Maxim #98: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.)

Ultimately, women hate the thought of game, (not game itself; that they love), because they want their alpha male – beta male distinctions predigested and unsullied by interference from proactive men intent on bringing chaos to the male hierarchy. This is why women love royalty and kings and princes so much; in that world, the alphas are identified and known. There is little churn. The women have only to concern themselves with competing with other women for the cocka of the top dog. But in a world of game, where the status of men is in a constant state of flux, ever-shifting and spoiling the tidiness of the women’s preferred caste systemed zero sum sexual market, there are additional stresses and concerns. Now the women have to figure out who among the millions of men trundling through their gleaming anonymous urban jungles tingling ginas left and right are the alpha males of their dreams and expectations. By muddying the waters, game makes this filtering process more difficult for women. More exhilarating, too.

McArdle imitates a snarky lip curl:

Do they send out for pizza while they talk, or would that just make Erik cry because he looks so fat in his new jeans?

Projection, it’s what’s for dinner!

She continues:

Who–over the age of 25–believes that investing most of your time and energy in attracting another person means that you’re gaining power over them?  At least the little girls eventually learn that sex and flirting are supposed to be fun.  And very few full time jobs are fun.

First, a man invests time and energy in attracting women in almost anything he does. Directly, he does this through courtship and game. Indirectly, he does this through status increasing activities which his genes have programmed him to do because it is an effective way to attract a lot of fertile age women. How does that Chris Rock joke go? If a man could get blowjobs with no effort, he’d be satisfied living in a cardboard box. That one method is considered less noble than the other and frowned upon by polite PC company is not a man’s moral crisis.

Second, in what warped fembot universe is successfully attracting women so that they have sex with you a sign of powerlessness? Is McArdle unaware of men’s ultimate goal? Hint: insert penis into vagina.

I’ve previously responded to the hackneyed hate from the likes of McArdle and her sisterhood of the traveling prigs. See this classic post. It’s nothing new. On the subject of “girly” male seducers:

12. Fallacy of Misdirected Obsession Hate

Hater: A guy who spends his life obsessing over how to get women is a loser.

A guy who spends his life obsessing over climbing the corporate ladder to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who spends his life obsessing over mastering guitar and playing in a rock band to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who spends his life obsessing over pursuing financial rewards and acquiring resources to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who….. ah, you get the point.

[…]

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

According to McArdle’s impeccable logic, I suppose the billions of women who studiously do their hair, dress in the latest fashions, wear makeup, tone their glutes, play hard to get, and consume everything from herbal elixirs to plastic surgery in order to turn back the hands of time are acting manly. Yes, I find it hilarious that all these women think of themselves as feminine.

There is also something to be said for the power of contrast. A man who displays dominant body language (learned or inherited) can strengthen and speed the seduction of women by handicapping himself with feminine flash. This flash can be expressed either through peacocking (exaggerated male fashion) or by running vulnerability game. Women are very attuned to male status, and a man can signal high status by refusing to play by the rules or fall in line with the norm. Defying a woman’s expectations is an effective seduction strategy.

Allow me to get personal for a moment. (double heh) This “men who learn the science of seduction are girly” meme has been spreading like a dumpy middle-aged ass among the cackling witch crowd lately. Perhaps a little of the old remote psychological diagnosis is in order. I wonder if these yuppie broads are projecting their deepest unmet desire for a sexy man who can properly seduce them after they daydream their way through another tepid rutting session with their pasty, doting, domestic chore-splitting beta provider husbands and boyfriends. Ya know, too much relationship exactness and complementarity is sand in the gears of the female soul.

(Note: Regular commenter Thursday has a number of insightful comments over at McArdle’s blog. Go check them out.)

Read Full Post »

Science Continues Proving Me Right

Chicks dig dominant men (at least for hot sex). Men with low voices are perceived as more dominant. Hence, you should take up smoking to give your voice that rich, deep, gravelly timbre that make chicks swoon. Isn’t a shortened lifespan worth the extra poon?

Men with a deep, masculine voices are seen as more dominant by other men but a man’s own dominance – perceived or actual – does not affect how attentive he is to his rivals’ voices. His own dominance does however influence how he rates his competitors’ dominance: the more dominant he thinks he is, the less dominant he rates his rival’s voice.

Paging G Manifesto… (women should avoid smoking for the same reason.)

******

If you are a white man with brown eyes, chances are you have a more dominant looking face (and, thus, more access to pussy!).

Faces of brown-eyed men were rated more dominant than those of blue-eyed men, even when their eyes weren’t brown.

The effect, which didn’t hold for female faces, may have something to do with the shape of brown-eyed men’s faces, said study researcher Karel Kleisner of Charles University in Prague. On average, brown-eyed men had broader chins and mouths, larger noses, more closely spaced eyes and larger eyebrows than blue-eyed men.

Ever notice how closely spaced the eyes are on criminal thugs and stupid people? It’s a telltale sign that a person is probably not very trustworthy. And, yes, ugly people really are more criminally inclined than better looking people. You CAN judge a book by its cover, Virginia!

Naturally, one wonders why blue eyes — and thus less masculine faces — evolved in men. Perhaps in northern climes, where blue eyes predominate, there was selection for more cooperative males who could put aside strutting displays for the sake of reliably providing for the community and the family during long, cold winters. Or maybe it’s just a vestige of the sexual selection for very fair women with blue eyes.

******

Make her swoon with a love tune:

If you’re having trouble getting a date, French researchers suggest that picking the right soundtrack could improve the odds. Women were more prepared to give their number to an ‘average’ young man after listening to romantic background music, according to research that appears today in the journal Psychology of Music.

I slap on some Metallica — from the Kill Em All album — to get girls to leave my place after sex.

******

People discriminate based on beauty:

In her provocative new book,The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. […]

Volumes of psychological research have shown that unattractive people are assumed to be less intelligent, less capable and less trustworthy. Almost from birth, infants stare longer at faces that adults rate as attractive.

No doubt Deborah Rhode is a raving lunatic equalist femicunt. But she’s right that people treat the ugly worse than they treat the pretty. Where she goes off the rails is in her solution to the “problem”. Does anyone think this isn’t the endgame when “anti-discrimination” became the religion of the USA in the mid-20th century? It was only a matter of time before those who argued against discriminating based on race — an immutable human characteristic — realized that it was the next logical step to justifiably argue against discrimination based on looks — a mostly immutable human characteristic. (Fatties are exempt from playing the immutability card.)

In fact, most facially ugly people really can’t do a thing about their unfortunate condition. In a “fair” world, anti-ugly discrimination would be outlawed, and the ugly would receive some recompense for their suffering.

This is why I am a true believer in the freedom of association. I knew that the eternal egalitarian quest for “fairness” would inevitably lead to the absurd totalitarian state we see unfolding all around us today. The only way it could be stopped was by rejecting its first principles — namely, by insisting that people have a right to associate with whomever they please. Equalists need to come to grips with the fact that life is not fair, that some human beings really are worth more than others, and that the constant pounding of square pegs into round holes is, in the long run, neither good for the peg nor the hole.

******

From the No Duh! files: fat chicks have trouble getting laid.

Scientists say being fat can be bad for the bedroom, especially if you’re a woman.

In a new study, European researchers found obese women had more trouble finding a sexual partner than their normal-weight counterparts, though the same wasn’t true for obese men, and were four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy. Fat men reported a higher rate of erectile dysfunction. […]

Obese women were 30 percent less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. In comparison, there was little difference among obese men and normal-weight men as to whether they found a sexual partner.

This should disprove the notion (propounded most often by Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today) that women do all the choosing in the dating market. In fact, they don’t. Men actively choose against dating and fucking fat chicks, old chicks, and, in some cases, single moms.

Not only are fat chicks sexually denied, they also skew the dating market to the detriment of men. What good are fat chicks? Just air drop ’em on an island somewhere, preferably all on one side so that the island might tip over and capsize.

Previous studies have found similar trends, but researchers were surprised by the discrepancy they found between the genders as to how excess weight affects peoples’ sex lives.

“Maybe women are more tolerant of tubby husbands than men are of tubby wives,” said Kaye Wellings, a professor of sexual and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and one of the BMJ study authors.

Women don’t care as much about looks as men do. Cue the Drudge red siren.

The researchers found that obese women were less likely to ask for birth control services, and thus, four times more likely to accidentally get pregnant. Pregnant fat women and their babies also faced a higher risk of complications and death than normal-weight women.

“Accidentally” my ass. Fat chicks know that they have fewer chances than slim chicks to bed a man, so when the opportunity arises, they take full advantage to fill their slovenly, bloated wombs with a reason for existence. My advice to low self esteem men with dumpster diving issues: don that schlong before you impale a whale.

******

More proof for female preselection and the game techniques that spoof it:

“The idea is if you walk into a room and there are 50 people there, you can’t talk to everyone. So whom do you choose to talk to first? You could talk to the most attractive person or you could see whom others are already interacting with. If you’re a female and all the other women are just talking to 10 men, the other 40 aren’t potentially good mates. It would seem it’s a cognitive short-cut.”

One of the best things a guy can do for his game is to go out with a female friend. Instruct her to smile a lot and laugh at your lame jokes.

******

Courtesy of Vox Day, proof that women prefer fucking alphas:

About 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases, U.S. health officials said on Tuesday… women were nearly twice likely as men to be infected, according to an analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  About 21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

******

It’s a myth that marriage is good for a man’s health.

But while it’s clear that marriage is profoundly connected to health and well-being, new research is increasingly presenting a more nuanced view of the so-called marriage advantage. Several new studies, for instance, show that the marriage advantage doesn’t extend to those in troubled relationships, which can leave a person far less healthy than if he or she had never married at all. One recent study suggests that a stressful marriage can be as bad for the heart as a regular smoking habit. And despite years of research suggesting that single people have poorer health than those who marry, a major study released last year concluded that single people who have never married have better health than those who married and then divorced.

All of which suggests that while Farr’s exploration into the conjugal condition pointed us in the right direction, it exaggerated the importance of the institution of marriage and underestimated the quality and character of the marriage itself. The mere fact of being married, it seems, isn’t enough to protect your health. Even the Healthy Marriage Initiative makes the distinction between “healthy” and “unhealthy” relationships when discussing the benefits of marriage. “When we divide good marriages from bad ones,” says the marriage historian Stephanie Coontz, who is also the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, “we learn that it is the relationship, not the institution, that is key.”

What this says is that men can get all the benefits of a good marriage within an unmarried relationship. So what was the point of getting married again? Oh yeah, right… to keep the cogs firmly ensconced in the gears of the grinding globocorporate machine.

******

Giving women the right to vote really was a bad move:

Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws. We were also able to deal with questions of causality by taking advantage of the fact that while some states voluntarily adopted suffrage, others where compelled to do so by the Nineteenth Amendment. The conclusion was that suffrage dramatically changed government in both cases. Accordingly, the effects of suffrage we estimate are not reflecting some other factor present in only states that adopted suffrage. […]

More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to self-interest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.

Yes, women’s suffrage really did herald the end days of America. The result of giving women the vote has been an ever-increasing nanny state funded on the backs of increasingly sex-dispossessed betas (dispossessed from banging women during their prime years). The elevation of diversity as a moral value and the flooding of the country with incompatible third world immigrants has no doubt been a secondary consequence of suffrage for women, who naturally bring their feminine sensibilities, for better or (more usually) for worse, to the polls. This is why I have argued that the next step in this national devolution toward mindless compassion is the creation of armies of cads. Men want sex, and will do whatever it takes to get it, whether that be good or ill for society.

******

More American women choosing to not have children:

More American women are choosing not to have children than three decades ago, according to a new report.

Nearly 20 percent of older women do not have children, compared to 10 percent in the 1970s, the Pew Research Center said.

It’s possible the procreative pendulum will naturally swing back to replacement rates, but for now the economic and cultural empowerment of women has de facto rendered their wombs barren. The fulfillment of their demands has been the harbinger of their own annihilation. I think the hipsters would call that irony.

******

I’ve written before that for women, travel is just an excuse to bang a swarthy local. Now the proof arrives:

Study: For Israeli women, going on vacation means more sex.

For Israeli women, going on vacation means more sex and lots of touristy activities – whether they are with their partners or not. Even so, if the overseas trip involves intense physical activity, the women reported no significant improvement in their sex lives.

Such are the findings of a new study of the sexual behavior of vacationing Israeli women, conducted by the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

If you’ve got a girlfriend, and she’s going on vacation by herself, odds she will cheat rise 50%.

If she’s taking this vacation in a Latin country, odds rise 75%.

If she says you don’t have to drop her off at the airport, odds rise 90%.

If she bought a new bikini for the trip, odds rise 120%.

If she’s staying in a hostel for the duration of the trip, packed some spare rubbers, and routinely emails some guy named Jacque who runs a tour guide group, odds rise 1,000%.

Poria views this phenomenon as part of the ritual that accompanies the tourism experience: Just as tourists feel the need to tour the museums and famous sites in the cities they visit, even though they have no real inclination to do so, “having sex is sometimes also perceived as compulsory.”

Also known as the “ovulatory ritual”, the “hybrid vigor ritual”, the “anti-slut deniability ritual”, and the “expert from afar ritual”.

Business trips, on the other hand, were portrayed in the study as inappropriate for much sexual activity, since they are not perceived as free time that presents an opportunity for such activity in an anonymous environment.

The interviewees explained that sexual permissiveness is impossible when they are accompanied by their colleagues from work.

Opportunity + anonymity + beta back home = infidelity.

******

Speaking of cheating…

Two new studies find that women may be genetically predisposed to cheating on their partners.

One study published today by the University of California, Los Angeles Center on Behavior, Culture, and Evolution and the University of New Mexico says women have evolved to cheat on their mates during the most fertile part of their cycle, but only when those mates are less sexually attractive than other men.

The study in the Journal of Hormones and Behavior examined 38 coeds from one large, unidentified U.S. university.

“We found that women were most attracted to men other than their primary partner when they were in the high fertility phase of the menstrual cycle,” said Dr. Martie Haselton, a UCLA researcher. “That’s the day of ovulation and several days beforehand.”

Small sample size, but still. My advice to men who don’t want to risk a cuckolding:

Dread.

If she understands in no uncertain terms that cheating will guarantee she loses you, she will think less with her clit and more with her head.

The other precautionary measure you could take, besides being better looking than 99% of other men, is to make sure you are around and fucking her hard during the ovulation part of her cycle. If she denies you access during this part of her cycle, DUMP HER POST HASTE. You have just been served a huge, unfurled red flag.

Or you could skip marriage and kids, and just enjoy the ride of multiple, tacitly open relationships.

Read Full Post »

The Self-Delusion Cloak Of Invincibility

Women in their late 30s are freezing their eggs because they haven’t yet found the perfect badass alpha male willing to commit to them and love them for all eternity in between time spent ruling the galaxy.

A study of women at a Belgian clinic found half wanted to freeze their eggs to take the pressure off finding a partner, a fertility conference heard.[…]

The women who had an average age of 38 did not expect to use their frozen eggs until they were around 43 and they realised they needed to undergo the procedure while they were still healthy and fertile.

“We found that they had all had partners in the past, and one was currently in a relationship, but they had not fulfilled their desire to have a child because they thought that they had not found the right man.”

The self-delusion on display here is astounding. These are supposedly smart, educated women thinking like this. They are deluding themselves in two ways. One, late 30s is too late to start harvesting eggs. The shelf life of eggs is short; the primo years for eggs are late teens to mid 20s to begin scooping them out in order to have babies at a much later date through an older woman’s bedraggled, paper-thin vajeen, just as nature intended. But the bigger self-delusion (and the funnier one from my point of view), is the implied belief of these women that they are exempt from the laws of the sexual marketplace. Do smart women really believe that in their late 30s to early 40s they are just as attractive to the alpha males as they were when they were younger, hotter, tighter? If their behavior and spending decisions are any indication, the answer is yes.

They are in for a rude awakening. Oh sure, a couple of them might get extraordinarily lucky and land their prince chumplings, but most will either fade into sexual worthlessness, crying tears of despair at night as their dreams stalk them with visions of empty children’s playpens, or they will suck it up and learn to settle for the unexciting beta lapdog with the advanced degree in domestic engineering. A few will choose to tough it out as single moms, gifting the world with yet another juvenile delinquent or slut in training.

On a side note, how would you feel if you were the “man” in a relationship with one of these cunts who was letting you know in no uncertain terms that she’s putting off childbearing because she doesn’t believe you are worthy of inseminating her? Would that be grounds for switching out her birth control pills for flintstones vitamins just to fuck with her?

[Dr Srilatha Gorthi] said the medical students gave career reasons as the most common reason for considering egg collection while the other students were more concerned about financial stability.

And she added that society needs to better support young women in having a family when they are ready without compromising their careers.

Typical wrongheaded feminist advice. “Better supporting” young women to have a family is exactly what got them into this predicament in the first place. What happens when society stitches a safety net of financial, legal, social, and cultural support under young women? Why, they ride the cock and career carousel until the parties start to get boring, and then they go asking for handouts from the state, from business, and from desperate betas to help them raise their late in life love children.

Here’s a crazy thought: maybe what the West needs to avoid a sad decline is a little less support, instead of more.

Read Full Post »