A Knock-On Benefit Of Ending The Friendzone Industrial Complex

We share a hearty chuckle over the avoidable miseries of friendzoned beta males, but there are dead serious implications should the practice ever fall out of favor or get deprived of its seemingly endless source stream of dupes, chodes, and tools.

The fewer beta orbiters willing or available to provide sexless emotional and financial support to dual-mate strategizing (“alpha fux, beta bux”) girls, the more pressure is applied to the alpha male lovers of those girls to assume the “beta bux” relationship responsibilities abjured by the former friendzoned betas.

In theory, this gutting of the friendzone industrial complex should result in three dating market adjustments:

– Girls choosing less conspicuously caddish jerks as lovers. Men who can’t or won’t offer any relationship dependability will have a harder time “locking in” girlfriends for the long haul.

– Girls becoming less disposed to take beta male attention for granted. This will mean that when betas do show romantic interest, they won’t immediately get stuffed into the LJBF hugbox.

– Girls experiencing more difficulty advertising-by-beta orbiter proxy their “no muss no fuss” sexual accessibility to roving alphas. As shartiste explains,

I’m growing more fond of my theory that girls use friend-zoned guys as signals to draw in low-investment alphas. Call it the Conspicuous Cuck Strategy. Look at her, framing him as a prop while she eye-fucks the camera and displays cleavage for any alpha onlooker. Come and get it, I know you’ll fuck and run but the cucks all ready!

I no longer hookup with attached girls, but I did a few times in less discriminating days. The girls ALWAYS talked about their bf/husband in the most beta terms possible, even though reality was probably a bit more shade of grey. They’d talk him down so hard and pitifully, not for any illusion that she’d dump him or I’d whisk her away, but it seemed more to signal just how bad she needed an alpha fuck, and simultaneously assure there’d be no reprisal. This is “flirting” to them. Its kinda disgusting, honestly.

It takes two to tango, and the female exploiting the asexual provisioning of the cuck is just as complicit as the cuck accepting his role and enabling the girl’s dual mate strategy. In this analysis, the girl is more malevolent, but the cuck is more contemptible.

Nevertheless, I don’t think girls are using beta orbiters as dinner bells for fly by night alphas. Not consciously, at least. It’s more reasonable to interpret a woman’s motivation to establish and sustain friendzoned eunuchs as exactly what it is: a status display to other women, and a practical consideration to “cover all her bases”. One can easily imagine a reproductive advantage in the EEA to women who gathered the resources of both sexual and asexual admirers.

Ideally, women want the cad and the dad in the same über alpha male; and women with very high SMV can pull off this coup. But for the majority of women who can’t, acquiring an entourage of harmless castrati isn’t without its twisted appeal. Think about how much the friendzoned beta orbiter offers women:

therapy.
extreme listening skills.
cashmoney.
endless ego-boosting flattery (without demanding reciprocation).
and, perhaps most crucially, a white knight perimeter defense against hopeful betas (and conversely a character-testing gauntlet for aggressive alphas).

So in theory reducing the frequency of friendzoning in the dating market should redound to the benefit of beta males and the detriment of alpha males.

But theory often gets abused trying to make sense of female sexuality. In practice, as the supply of beta male emotional tampons shrinks, what I think likelier to happen is that the alpha cads remain objects of female desire, but girls will have to find alternate outlets to absorb their bitching and moaning about their jerky boyfriends, which could mean girl friends and family. Hearteningly, or maddeningly depending on your degree of cynicism, it could also mean girls “amp up” their sexual coquettishness around beta males to secure the same amount of harmless male attention they used to get for less effort (and for less risk of misconstrual).

On balance, it’s a good thing to reduce the incidence of friendzoning, even if it means more lesser betas wind up alone with their dignity, instead of alone with a cute girl tormenting them with her unattainable nearness. If betas are unwilling to prostrate themselves to self-aggrandizing girls who will never put out for them, there might follow a morale boost and an impetus to learn and acquire the whole panoply of masculine traits that coaxes from girls the kind of hugs that really matter: post-orgasmic leg hugs.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, girls deprived of pushover eunuchs might start to view those betas in a more sex-positive light.

Read Full Post »

The Reason Women Initiate 70% Of Divorces

Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.

Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?

CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.

The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.

CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:

Options = Instability.

A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).

Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.

From Dalrock:

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.

On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.

In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.

One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).

The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.

If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.

A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.

(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)

Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)

Read Full Post »

White Autogenocide Is A Massive Loss Of Frame

Framing and reframing are core Game concepts that every Chateau guest should by now understand and have internalized. The topic has been discussed frequently here at CH, and deserves that level of scrutiny because framing has broader applications beyond seducing women.

A frame is a system of interpretation that an individual or group uses to understand a certain event/situation.

Frame is important in pickup, because it communicates the PUA’s mindset as well as the underlying psychology behind his words and actions. For example, Swinggcat advocates a “prizing” frame, whereby the PUA always assumes the girl is interested in him as the prize. In this frame, a chick can say, “I really like the tie”. The PUA can respond, “Thank you, slow down a little bit. At least buy me a drink before you hit on me like that.” […]

“Framing”, [or frame control], in the context of media studies, sociology and psychology, refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon by mass media sources or specific political or social movements or organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual’s perception.

In pickup, as with mass media, there are always certain levels of interpretation of a specific event that can be reframed based on frame control, and your emotions and conviction in your beliefs.

Pay attention to that word conviction. It’s critical to knowing why cuckservatives are so cucked, and why they can’t ever seem to go on the offense against anti-White leftoids.

For now, a helpful (and amended) reminder of a relevant CH maxim:

Maxim #45: Any conversation with a woman/leftoid/Hivemind jackboot that is not explicitly framed by you to maximize your perceived status will lead to her/the leftoid/the Hivemind forming a negative perception of your value over time.

Which brings us to a comment left by reader Moses,

I’ve said it before and I’m gonna keep saying it:

White self-immolation is nothing more than a loss of frame on a massive scale.

When whites began elevating other groups’ interests of White interests it was a loss of frame on a societal level.

Other ethnic groups saw an opportunity to exploit White guilt and did so — and continue to do so — brilliantly.

Non-Whites have only the power that Whites give to them. It’s true that Whites deserve whatever they get. And they will get it good and hard.

Moses is right. A massive loss of frame will not just send you home alone a (self-)beaten incel; it will also send your civilization and your race to an incel defeat.

Relevant to this discussion, I was listening to a news show about the GOP nomination race and the guest cuckservative cucked his way into a perfectly cucky explanation for Uncle Ben Carson’s popularity among middle America Whites. He said, paraphrasing, “I’m not racist! Some of my best friends are black!”

Well, yeah, that’s pretty much what he said. More precisely, he said, “Republican support for Carson proves that they would love to vote for a black or hispanic or woman president.” Left unmentioned was the stool chafing he gave himself while watching his wife get banged out by her black lover.

This is what is meant by a massive loss of frame enabling White autogenocide. The cuck actually aids his enemy’s purposes when he loses frame and ADOPTS THE FRAME of his tormentors. He is essentially conceding that White Republicans are secret racists who are trying hard to overcome their terrible affliction and prove they are making progress toward the one true faith of antiracism, and voting for a shell entity black guy is how they impress their reeducation camp officers.

What if cucks — or even BadWhites in general — stopped losing frame? What would that world look like?

I can think of two powerful ways to reframe the anti-White leftoid narrative, and by so doing recapture the moral and practical high ground.

1. Attack the anti-White leftoid hypocrisy.

Cuck: “Republicans need to do more outreach to black/hispanic/tranny voters and prove they are not the party of exclusion.”

The Un-Cucked: “Blacks vote 90% for Dems. Hispanics vote 70% for Dems. Billionaires vote 80% Dem. The Democrats need to do more outreach to Whites and non-billionaires.”

2. Attack the anti-White leftoid premise.

Cuck: “Republicans have to show they aren’t going to be the party of White people.”

The Un-Cucked: “It’s good that there is a public voice for White interests. No one else but Whites will look out for Whites.”

That is how you establish the frame and Uncuck the Discourse. Nothing good gets accomplished until the cuck is cast off his royal corner stool.

Read Full Post »

One Of The Most Powerful Female Attraction Triggers

Any guesses what it might be?

Basement Gollum: “Muscles!”

Nope.

Basement Gollum: “Looks!”

Nope.

Basement Gollum: “Facial symmetry!”

Ah nope.

The answer is FEMALE PRESELECTION.

The game maestros are, yet again, correct in their worldview. ♂SCIENCE♂ clearly confirms the field observation that women are instantly and romantically curious about a man who is in the company of other women, especially if those women aren’t fat bluehair feminists.

[Female preselection] solves a more important adaptive problem for females than for males—getting information about a potential partner. Because men are often initially concerned with the attractiveness of a partner, they can look at a female and instantly discern a fair bit of mate-relevant information. That’s often less the case for women. […]

Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably. This was taken as evidence of how the company you keep seems to be important. […]

Because physical attractiveness is an important cue for female mate-value, the perceived quality of a man’s female partner can be determined to a large extent by how physically attractive she is. Due to positive assortative mating, this can have a bearing on a man’s own mate-value. Some studies have demonstrated that mate copying effects are stronger when the female partner of a man is physically attractive than if she is less attractive or perceived as unattractive. In some research I personally conducted, a man’s mate-value was elevated simply by having physically attractive female friends. […]

Based on the research presented above, a man looking to romantically attract women might do well to surround himself with beautiful women. And if one (or all) of them behaves favorably toward him, all the better.

CH has discussed this topic many times, because it is important. You can fast track your seduction successes by rigging the game with a powerful attraction-building shortcut: the presence of an (attractive) woman to cue other women that you are a HSMV man.

But be careful. Being seen with an ugly fatty will actually hurt your attractiveness to other women more than being seen alone! The ideal set-up is one in which your female company is a young, cute girl who acts a little too vajcurious with you. (Btw, older men can greatly increase their close rate with younger women through the application of this principle.)

Of course, getting that first cute babe to join you on your nightly poon expeditions isn’t a small feat. But once you have her, successive cute babes become easier to score. It’s like the stock market; you’ve gotta find the money to invest, but once you’ve got a steady return on investment you can let the magic of compound interest work and live off your dividends.

In the future, I will have a post about game specifically designed for ugly men (bottom 20% in physical appearance), and preselection will play a big part in the ugly man’s ability to extend his dating market victories beyond a few one-off flukes.

Read Full Post »

The Pushback: Two German Women

I like the uploader’s description of the video:

As you can see, the scenery is clearly racist and problematic. You can see at least 9 Europeans there.

This hate must end. We must all work together to make Germany a hate-free, multicultural country free of Germans.

This is the inevitable logic of anti-White leftoid equalism, unless leftoids want to argue that they will work to protect native White German interests if their share of the total population falls below some predefined number like, say, 30%. But then we’re just arguing numbers, not morality, and once the leftoid goes there they have no tool left in their moral torture chamber to argue against a Germany that is 100% native German.

It all circles back to an inescapable truth:

This is what separate nations are for.

***

The Pushback, continued: Heather Mac Donald recently unloaded a full clip of Narrative-busting Realtalk™ on the assembled at a frickin’ Senate hearing! The woman has balls.

Any member who was paying the least bit attention to her mass destruction knowledge droppage could not in good conscience leave that room and ever again mouth the lies of anti-White BlackLivesMatter propaganda. But I suppose that would presume US public servants have an ounce of personal integrity.

Read Full Post »

Where Are The Male Friends To Save-A-Beta?

A thought occurred as the detritus of yet another beta male’s shipwrecked soul bobbed along the CH surf.

Where are the male friends of these abject betas to slap some sense into them?

A man needs male friends. He needs them a hell of a lot more than he needs female friends (and almost as much as he needs female lovers), because the potential to receive honest and learned guidance through the rough patches of life only exists with the former. A female friend can be great company, and even useful as a pivot to meet other women for much sex, but when crisis looms — romantic or otherwise — she won’t be the one to steer the hapless man away from terrible, avoidable mistakes of judgment.

Take JohnnyTampon. What a loser, right? But it didn’t have to be this way for him. Was there not one man, one male friend he could trust through the years, who would take him aside and verbally pimp slap the masochism out of him? Or were his male friends little sniveling manlets, Merchants of Mewl, all too eager to enable his self-sabotage? Was he simply friendless (despite his homemade video’s assertion to the contrary)?

The wages of SCALE. The wages of social and sexual atomization. The price we pay for radical individualism and postracial multicultural autonomy is big, sometimes small, but add it up and one day society is in hoc up to its eyeballs. JohnnyTampon’s dearth of Realtalking male buddies is one of those small prices that a fractured society pays, an insignificant detail to be sure in the grand scheme, but a personal ruination nearly as total as death. How many JohnnyTampons, broken men utterly denuded of dignity and manly valor, can America brush under the rug before the last connective fiber frays?

Read Full Post »

CH Game Wisdom Confirmed: Never Apologize If You Want To Win Hearts And Gines

CH Poon Commandment VIII (first printed oct 2008):

VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary

Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.

Recently, in the Washington Beta, an article was published confirming that the CH game advice to never apologize is effective at winning people to your cause.

Donald Trump never apologizes for his controversial remarks. Here’s why he shouldn’t.

[..]

Research shows that a person who backs down in a dispute becomes less likable to observers, who may want to punish that individual.

Second, overconfidence, even to the point of breaking rules, causes people to view an individual more positively, as does social risk-taking. In particular, males who show social dominance are judged more attractively as potential mates. An individual who does not back down in the face of controversy shows confidence by not giving in to social pressure, and takes a risk by refusing to follow the conventional path. Some on the right openly suggest that part of Trump’s appeal lies in his refusal to apologize and his unwillingness to be “politically correct.”

“some on the right’. hey, throw a chateau proprietor a bone here!

Here is where my research comes in. […]

Respondents… read about the suggestion by then-Harvard President Larry Summers in 2005 that genetic factors help to explain the lack of high-performing female scientists and engineers at top universities. After reading the comments and hearing about the outcry, half the participants were told that Summers defended himself by saying he believed that “raising questions, discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important.” The rest learned that he had apologized and read a brief statement Summers made expressing regret for his comments and reflecting on the damage that they had caused. […]

The results for the Summers controversy were even more surprising. Of those who read about his apology, 64 percent said that he “definitely” or “probably” should have faced negative consequences for his statements about women. However, that number dropped to 56 percent when respondents were led to believe that Summers stood firm in his position. Moreover, the surprisingly negative effect of Summers’ apology was even larger among the groups that arguably should have appreciated the apology: women and liberals.

No one who is familiar with Le Chateau’s teachings should be surprised that women and liberals react the most positively to alpha male Realtalkers who don’t back down like sniveling plushphag manlets from their hurtful, triggering words.

CH has long been on record stating that liberals, women, and especially liberal women are secret submissives and CRAVE the guiding pimp hand of a strong, deliberate, unshakable, dominant alpha male to calm the storm of their feels whirlwinds. And now here’s ¡SCIENCE! to give its imprimatur — the same imprimatur that shitlibs adore more than life itself when it’s used to discredit biblical creationists — to one of the coldest, stoniest, Heartiste-iest ugly truths.

perchance, to *preen*.

Read Full Post »