Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

Ah, dat jerkboy charisma. Chicks dig it. If you’ve been a regular guest of the Chateau, you’ll know why chicks dig jerks, and you’ll know why cultivating your inner jerkboy is a pillar of Game teachings.

For a long time, CH was out there, a retreat in the deep wood willing to preach the Rude Word to any lost and yearning soul stumbling along the stony path leading to the ancient oak doors. Few knew of our secretive hideaway, fewer still could grasp the revolutionary nature of our message.

But our mischievous proselytizing has finally breached the sound barrier of the mainstream information gatekeepers (and from the reaction to their first line of defense crumbling, they don’t like it). As one reader who forwarded the following article wrote,

The substance of this article will present no surprises.  The tone of the author, apologetic and disturbed by the findings, will also present no surprises.

Not at all. The Atlantic is the latest Hivemind organ to hate itself for falling in love with Le Chateau.

Why It Pays to Be a Jerk

New research confirms what they say about nice guys.

The suspense is killing me! I hope it lasts.

At the University of Amsterdam, researchers have found that semi-obnoxious behavior not only can make a person seem more powerful, but can make them more powerful, period. The same goes for overconfidence. Act like you’re the smartest person [ed: or sexiest man] in the room, a series of striking studies demonstrates, and you’ll up your chances of running the show.

The Atlantic agrees with CH that overconfidence is the heart of game.

People will even pay to be treated shabbily: snobbish, condescending salespeople at luxury retailers extract more money from shoppers than their more agreeable counterparts do.

Seduction is the art of selling yourself to women. And just as it is in the realm of business sales, snobbish, entitled jerkboys are the most successful at selling their promise of pleasures to women.

“We believe we want people who are modest, authentic, and all the things we rate positively” to be our leaders, says Jeffrey Pfeffer, a business professor at Stanford. “But we find it’s all the things we rate negatively”—like immodesty—“that are the best predictors of higher salaries or getting chosen for a leadership position.”

Humans aren’t a rational species; they’re a rationalizing species.

“What happens if you put a python and a chicken in a cage together?,” Pfeffer asked him. The former student looked lost. “Does the python ask what kind of chicken it is? No. The python eats the chicken.”

“You’re like a big bear with claws and with fangs…and she’s just like this little bunny, who’s just kinda cowering in the corner.”

But, careful… all jerk and no softie makes Jack a d-bag.

In Grant’s framework, the mentor in this story would be classified as a “taker,” which brings us to a major complexity in his findings. Givers dominate not only the top of the success ladder but the bottom, too, precisely because they risk exploitation by takers.

All well and good. You can’t expect to lord it over all the people all the time without attention given to your reception. However… if you HAD to choose between being a niceguy and a 24/7 asshole…

ALWAYS CHOOSE ASSHOLE. To wit:

Consider the following two scenes. In the first, a man takes a seat at an outdoor café in Amsterdam, carefully examines the menu before returning it to its holder, and lights a cigarette. When the waiter arrives to take his order, he looks up and nods hello. “May I have a vegetarian sandwich and a sweet coffee, please?” he asks. “Thank you.”

In the second, the same man takes the same seat at the same outdoor café in Amsterdam. He puts his feet up on an adjoining seat, taps his cigarette ashes onto the ground, and doesn’t bother putting the menu back into its holder. “Uh, bring me a vegetarian sandwich and a sweet coffee,” he grunts, staring past the waiter into space. He crushes the cigarette under his shoe.

Dutch researchers staged and filmed each scene as part of a 2011 study designed to examine “norm violations.” Research stretching back to at least 1972 had shown that power corrupts, or at least disinhibits. High-powered people are more likely to take an extra cookie from a common plate, chew with their mouths open, spread crumbs, stereotype, patronize, interrupt, ignore the feelings of others, invade their personal space, and claim credit for their contributions. “But we also thought it could be the other way around,” Gerben van Kleef, the study’s lead author, told me. He wanted to know whether breaking rules could help people ascend to power in the first place.

Yes, he found. The norm-violating version of the man in the video was, in the eyes of viewers, more likely to wield power than his politer self. And in a series of follow-up studies involving different pairs of videos, participants, responding to prompts, made statements such as “I would like this person as my boss” and “I would give this person a promotion.”

“I would open my legs for this jerk.”

Ok, if being a jerkboy is so personally rewarding, the inevitable question follows,

Instead of asking why some people bully or violate norms, researchers are asking: Why doesn’t everyone? […]

“That’s a complexity of humans,” Faris says: it was not until after the human-chimpanzee split that Homo sapiens developed a newer, uniquely human path to power. Scholars call it “prestige.”

There are different kinds of ways to project power (and consequently arouse women). “Prestige” is better-known to students of Game as Demonstrating Higher Value.

The Atlantic even goes so far to wonder if the Game axiom “Fake it till you create it” is a real thing:

I did wonder, though: Could the apprentice actors [tasked with acting irrationally confident], given enough time, come to inhabit their roles more fully? Anderson noted that self-delusion among his study’s participants could have been the product of earlier behaviors. “Maybe they faked it until they made it and that became them.” We are what we repeatedly do, as Aristotle observed.

Ripped from the Chateau headlines.

In fact, it’s easy to see how an initial advantage derived from a lack of self-awareness, or from a deliberate attempt to fake competence, or from a variety of other, similar heelish behaviors could become permanent. Once a hierarchy emerges, the literature shows, people tend to construct after-the-fact rationalizations about why those in charge should be in charge.

“Once a woman falls hard for a charming jerkboy, she tends to construct after-the-fact rationalizations about why the jerk she loves should be her soulmate.”

Likewise, the experience of power leads people to exhibit yet more power-signaling behaviors (displaying aggressive body language, taking extra cookies from the common plate).

Success with women breeds more success with women.

It is possible, of course, to reframe Anderson’s conclusions so that, for instance, initiative is itself a competence, in which case groups would be selecting their leaders more rationally than he supposes. But is a loudmouth the same thing as a leader?

aka the “bustamove” theory of Game.

So what is that special sauce that jerkboys have which flavors a woman’s life? Or anyone’s life?

When I thought about whether I had friends or associates who fit Aaron James’s definition of an asshole, I could come up with two. I couldn’t pinpoint why I spent time with them, other than the fact that life seemed larger, grander—like the world was a little more at your feet—when they were around.

“I want more LIFE, fucker!”

Then I thought of the water skis.

Some friends had rented a powerboat. We had already taken it out on the water when someone remarked, above the engine noise, that it was too bad we didn’t have any water skis. That would have been fun.

Within a few minutes, an acquaintance I will call Jordan had the boat pulled up to a dock where a boy of maybe 8 or 9 was alone. Do you have any water skis?

The boy seemed unprepared for the question. Not really, he said. There might be some in storage, but only his parents would know. Well, would you be a champ and run back to the house and ask them? The boy did not look like he wanted to. But he did.

The rest of us in the boat shared the boy’s astonishment (Who asks that sort of question?), his reluctance to turn a nominally polite encounter into a disagreeable one, and perhaps the same paralysis: no one said anything to stop the exchange. But that’s the thing. Spend time with the Jordans of the world and you’re apt to get things you are not entitled to—the choice table at the overbooked restaurant, the courtside tickets you’d never ask for yourself—without ever having to be the bad guy. The transgression was Jordan’s. The spoils were the group’s.

The transgression is the jerkboy’s. The romantic spoils are the women’s.

Isolating the effects of taker behavior on group welfare is exactly what van Kleef, the Dutch social psychologist, and fellow researchers set out to do in their coffee-pot study of 2012.

At first blush, the study seems simple. Two people are told a cover story about a task they’re going to perform. One of them—a male confederate used in each pair throughout the study—steals coffee from a pot on a researcher’s desk. What effect does his stealing have on the other person’s willingness to put him in charge?

The answer: It depends. If he simply steals one cup of coffee for himself, his power affordance shrinks slightly. If, on the other hand, he steals the pot and pours cups for himself and the other person, his power affordance spikes sharply. People want this man as their leader.

Women want to join a jerk’s world because they want to be taken on a mutually satisfying adventure.

I related this to Adam Grant. “What about the person who gets resources for the group without stealing coffee?” he asked. “That’s a comparison I would like to see.”

It was a comparison, actually, that van Kleef had run. When the man did just that—poured coffee for the other person without stealing it—his ratings collapsed. Massively. He became less suited for leadership, in the eyes of others, than any other version of himself.

If you’re nothing but a niceguy, people will come to despise you because you will be giving away your generosity as if it was worthless.

[C]ould rudeness cause other people to open their wallets too?

The answer was a qualified yes. When it came to “aspirational” brands like Gucci, Burberry, and Louis Vuitton, participants were willing to pay more in a scenario in which they felt rejected. But the qualifications were major. A customer had to feel a longing for the brand, and if the salesperson did not look the image the brand was trying to project, condescension backfired. For mass-market retailers like the Gap, American Eagle, and H&M, rejection backfired regardless.

This qualification exists in the field of pickup too. Acting like an egotistic jerk while hitting on fatties projects an incongruence. Hotties will scorn you, and the fatties will feel even more “devalidated” than they did before you leveled your very special attention on them. Interestingly, this aspect of jerkitude verifies the game technique of peacocking. If you stand out in a little way from the crowd of betas, your jerky charisma will be better received because you’ll be projecting a “brand image” of a man who breaks norms.

Luxury retail is a very specific realm. But the study also points toward a bigger and more general qualification of the advantage to being a jerk: should something go wrong, jerks don’t have a reserve of goodwill to fall back on.

This is why you’ve gotta mix up your jerkballs with some slow pitches, especially if you want a long-term relationship with a girl. A jerkboy can keep a woman spinning in a dizzying drama orbit for a long time, but eventually, should a major fault line erupt, she’ll come back down to earth, and if you haven’t provided at least a little padding for her landing the crash could be spectacular.

([Being a jerk] is also marginally more likely to fail you, several studies suggest, if you’re a woman.)

Contrary popular but embittered feminist belief, men don’t dig bitches (unless they’re smoking hot).

Yet in at least three situations, a touch of jerkiness can be helpful. […] The third—not fully explored here, but worth mentioning—is when the group’s survival is in question, speed is essential, and a paralyzing existential doubt is in the air.

Jerkitude is really helpful to your game right at that precarious decision-making point of your first meeting with a girl. When she’s wondering if you’re an interesting man she’d like to get to know is when being a jerk will nudge her in the direction of wanting more of you.

But can you become the jerk women love? There’s an anecdote in the article about an entrepreneur whose life changed after he joined the Marine Corp. His time in the Marines made him more aggressive. He learned how “to go from 15 to 95 real quick”. He did this so often that his personality permanently changed to a new, jerky valence, and it carried over later into business success.

Learning to become a jerk is just like learning Game,

Without that kind of modulation—without getting a little outside our comfort zone, at least some of the time—we’re all probably less likely to reach our goals, whether we’re prickly or pleasant by disposition.

You have to get outside your comfort zone. Not a lot. Just a little push against your comfy boundaries is enough to mold you into a better man.

He believes that the most effective people are “disagreeable givers”—that is, people willing to use thorny behavior to further the well-being and success of others.

No man is a jerk store unto himself. Speaking of “disagreeable givers”, that appellation fits a lot of natural players I’ve known. They are rude and shocking and arrogant, but are also sometimes surprisingly generous, and the recipients of the jerks’ generosity value it so much more than they would from a niceguy because they are preconditioned to assume the jerk had to sacrifice a lot more “character capital” to be generous with them. It’s like getting a pat on the back from the CEO versus getting slavish praise from the mailroom grunt.

Smile at the customer. Take the initiative. Tweak a few rules. Steal cookies for your colleagues. Don’t puncture the impression that you know what you’re doing. Let the other person fill the silence. Get comfortable with discomfort. Don’t privilege your own feelings. Ask who you’re really protecting. Be tough and humane. Challenge ideas, not the people who hold them. Don’t be a slave to type.

Game 101.

And above all, don’t affix nasty, scatological labels to people.

I dunno about this one. I’ve found that girls love my occasional streaks of sadistic cruelty. Ever play the “marry fuck kill” game with a girl you’ve just met?

It’s a jerk move.

And…

wait for it…

chicks dig it!

(this post was very meta-jerk.)

Read Full Post »

You can tell a lot about what people really value by… eureka!… listening to their conversations.

Women sometimes talk about sex — and they can be surprisingly raunchy recalling or imagining the details of intimate congress — but sex talk is hardly a major focus of their socializing amongst girl friends. Usually, one girl (the token slut) will crack a joke about the shape of the penis she inhaled and the others will collaterally cackle as part of an alliance preserving exercise. The smutcluck is dropped quickly for extended emphasis on subjects nearer and dearer to the female heart: Relationships and love.

(Slutwalk women who stick with the raunch talk for an awkwardly uncomfortable length of conversational air space tend to elicit disapproving glares and then social abandonment from their girl friends. Chicks have a limited capacity for enduring sex talk, even in their female friends.)

When women veer into R&L, as is the frequent wont of their meandering sex, their conversation assumes a VERY SERIOUS TONE.

***

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “We’re back together.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “Oh really! I didn’t know…”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #!: “You didn’t know?”

[twenty  more minutes of delicate social maneuvering before getting to the meat of the topic]

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “It’s just that he did this really nice thing and I really love that.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “mmhmm, yeah that’s sweet.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “And anyhow I think he tried to say he loves me.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “He dropped the L word! Wow, that’s big.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “Yeah, I know!”

[two more hours of hot debate about the precise wording of the boyfriend’s confession and whether it counts as a sincere exclamation of love. tack on another hour of girls #1, 3, and 4 alternately affirming girl #2’s decision to stay with her boyfriend and playing a gentle devil’s advocate for dumping the guy.]

***

Men, in the starkest of contrasts, rarely, if ever, have conversations about R&L. Instead, what do cool dudes talk about when the subject isn’t sports, work or hobbies?

***

ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #1: “So what happened last night? I saw you hitting on that hot blonde.”

ALSO ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #2: “Dude, I got her back to my place!”

VERILY, ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #3: “No shit! Did you tap it?”

ALSO ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #2: “Oh man, she was crazy. She was down on my knob, doing this thing…”

[twenty minutes of high fives and rapt attention as excruciatingly crude, detailed account is told of sex positions and composition of female squirt juice.]

NOT SO COOL DUDE #4: “Man, great stuff. Does this mean you’re gonna date her for a while?”

[sound of air being let out of balloon. full-body group cringing and disappointed looks exchanged.]

ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #1: “How ’bout those Dodgers?”

***

The examples I presented here are highly illustrative of real life among normal psychologically healthy human beings, but neither presupposes that men never concern themselves with relationships and love, nor that women are never interested in talking about sex. The key difference between the sexes is this:

Women are primarily interested in R&L, and secondarily interested in sex. Men are primarily interested in sex, and secondarily interested in R&L.

To punctuate the point, try to imagine a conversation between men that focused on R&L without any familiar, tension-alleviating digressions into sex talk.

***

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “We’re back together. It’s been one month.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “Aww! Tell me all about it!”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “Wellllll… she’s been really good to me lately.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “That’s really great.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “AAAAaaaand… I think she might’ve said she loves me.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “Wow, that’s huge! How did that come up?”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “I’m not ENTIRELY sure she said the EXACT words ‘i love you’ but it sounded like she was trying to say them.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “I knew there was something between you two!”

***

Preposterous on the face of it. No straight man has a conversation like this with his buddies, unless he’s auditioning for a part in a Broadway play called “My Colon For Old Fags” or “My Own Private Hide-A-Pole”.

Yes, yes, so many of you are shocked by this news. “Tell us something we don’t know, CH.” But we have entered a cultural dystopia when this common sense is rapidly being distorted and replaced by feminist and manlet poopytalk. Tragically, some of the SJW poopytalk is reaching the ears of impressionable naifs, and setting some of them on a course for self-destruction, especially those whose emotional stability is marginal.

There are CH readers with children. One of these naifs swallowing feminist slut cunt lies by the bucketful could one day be your daughter.

When bitterbitches ape the mannerisms and sociosexual predilections of men, their butthurt try-hardness is a transparent ruse all but the lappiest lapdogs can see through. A girl screeching about “opening her legs for every man BUT YOU” is assuming a twisted, false pride in a domain normally and healthfully reserved for men which she knows, deep inside where the armor of her lies yields to the rumbling growl of her id, is a phony front serving no purpose other than blind rage at the retreating world of a good man’s sincere love leaving her behind.

Case in point: The “dick is abundant and low value” girl I had to disembowel as a lesson for the others. With much pain and sorrow in my heart, I took the shiv to her exposed ego and performed a necessary duty. A duty that perhaps would, one day, somewhere, and in a fashion that social science studies would struggle to capture in their arid data sets, rescue an innocent young woman or young man from living by the lies of a loser in love.

For those still wondering what this is all about, a revelation. Above all, Le Chateau abides the Keats’ ode: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.” Our glorious, gleaming civilization is getting uglier and further from the truth by the day. A mind full of lies contorts the body into misshapen ugliness. An ugly visage will infect the mind with ego-assuaging lies. Lies must be exposed at birth, or they will grow monstrous and consume everything beautiful in their path. In the wake of lies, ugliness follows like a toxic spindrift.

Therefore, the CH Excalibur… the Holy Heartistian Shiv… drives through the bullshit until the gore stains the hilt, so that beauty and truth may once again assert their rightful place as earthly host to humanity, and the loveless lampreys, despite their worst fears, find to their surprise a new hope for a better life…… or slink away to the icy outback where their limbic disease is quarantined to their own souls.

UPDATE

❤️SCIENCE❤️ presents her rump and accepts a meaty intrusion from yours truly before looking over her shoulder with love in her eyes.

Findings reveal that while communication patterns tend to be supportive and relationship-focused in women’s bathrooms, the graffiti in men’s bathroom walls are replete with sexual content and insults, in the course of the construction of hegemonic masculinity.

H/t commenter Strahlemann. The sex-based difference in predilection for R&L or sex talk is evident even in anonymous bathroom stalls. Chicks scrawl odes to LTRs. Men scratch sonnets to sexual slang.

If you play on Team CH, you bat 1.000. How can you not like those odds?

Read Full Post »

Many moons ago, Chateau comptrollers presented their findings on the value of makeup as a sexual market value (SMV) boost for women. Conclusion: Makeup doesn’t add much to the typical woman’s looks. Worse, the value of makeup to women appeared to be declining as a result of massive cultural shifts in the dating market.

Many esteemed, and not so esteemed, guests of CH howled with indignation. Women insisted makeup turned them into beautiful princesses, so skilled was their application that men were utterly fooled by the cosmetic magic. Some men agreed, pointing to before and after photos of celebrities and fashion models as proof of the radical change in appearance that makeup could produce.

But, as CH explained to the disputants, the 0.5 point average SMV boost from makeup is a generalization that applies to the vast majority of women. The few weirdo outliers who experience 2 or more points of SMV increase from makeup are the exceptions who prove the rule.

Now, one is certainly free to disagree with a Heartiste opinion. But, more often than not, that would be a mistake. Right on cue, 🐴SCIENCE🐴 canters into the pen so that CH may ride her toward the sunset, victorious.

Cosmetics have little effect on attractiveness judgments compared with identity.

While at Bangor University’s School of Psychology, Dr Alex Jones, (now at Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania, USA) and colleague, Dr. Robin Kramer of the University of York, recently investigated this question. To do this, they asked participants to rate the same faces with and without makeup, with the restriction that no one person saw the same woman made up and un made-up. If makeup is important for attractiveness, it should overcome the variation in attractiveness between faces easily. But if it contributes little, then the variation between faces could overshadow any benefits of makeup.

The good news was that faces with makeup were rated as more attractive – nothing new there. But when they examined all the variation in attractiveness judgments, they found an application of makeup explained only 2% of this variation. In comparison, the variation between faces accounted for 69%. This was very surprising. It’s perhaps unfeasible for makeup to completely overcome differences between individuals, but the size of its effect on attractiveness is remarkably small.

CH knob status: Polished.

If anything, CH overestimated the SMV boost of makeup. According to this research, the attractiveness enhancing effect of makeup was measly, and hugely overshadowed by the biomechanic, intrinsic differences in the facial bone substructure of women. Or, beauty is DNA deep, ladies, and men can tell the difference between a beautiful face and a plain face no matter how subtly you shade your blush.

What do these results mean? Dr. Kramer, of the Department of Psychology at York, said “These findings show that, while makeup increases attractiveness, it is a very small contributor to attractiveness judgments. […]

The take-home message here seems to be that, for better or worse, our attractiveness is mostly determined by our natural appearance, and wearing makeup will only have a small effect in comparison.”

Don’t misunderstand the message of this post. Makeup may not improve a woman’s looks much, but it does do something. Women should, and will, continue to put the penis on a pedestal and try-hard to please men by using makeup to increase their attractiveness, even when that attractiveness increase is miniscule.

A 2% improvement in one’s odds doesn’t matter much in any endeavor…. except one:

The endeavor to find the highest quality mate possible for oneself.

The sexual market is the ur-market. It is foundational. All other markets — including the venerated economics market — bend their knees to the Sex Market Overlord. We humans may not have the perception to clearly understand or believe that a sex market governs all our actions and behaviors, (as it is the wont of the cosmic force 10 amplifier that the functioning of the sex market should remain opaque to the neural antennae of daily human consciousness), but that doesn’t mean our natural self-deluded state is proof that the sex market is a phantom.

It’s not surprising, then, that men and women will breathlessly grasp at the slimmest advantages to tilt the sexual market playing field in their favor, where the only game that matters is played, and played for a zero sum outcome in a battle as pitched, if not quite as bloody, as any war for survival. It’s why women will color their faces, despite receiving little benefit and less still the morning-after when the ruse is smeared off, for an infinitesimally small leg up over their female competition.

The stakes are that high.

PS With each day, science lends its imprimatur to the CH Dating Market Value Tests. Ladies, head on over and take the test for yourselves. Like 23AndMe, the patented CH DMV test will give you a readout of your overall attractiveness to men, where you rank relative to other women, and what that all means for your romantic prospects and your happiness.

Read Full Post »

Back in October, CH wrote, based on social circle confessionals, that gay marriage is a farce.

I’ll let you in on a leetle secret…

Every gay marriage that was talked about was an open relationship.

Not a one of these gays who were married, or planned to get married, held any pretense of practicing monogamy. When the topic of promiscuous married gays came up, the only surprise was the blasé avowal of the fact. The gay men announced their intention to defile the tacit monogamous stricture of marriage with such nonchalance that it would astound them to learn anyone thought they might behave otherwise.

CH didn’t know at the time that the New York Beta Times had already implicitly agreed with the Heartistian premise that gay marriage is a farce.

Many successful gay marriages share an open secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Gay marriage was never primarily about expanding the marital franchise to “historically oppressed groups” in the interest of faaiiiiiirness or haaaaaaaarm reduction, as RAWMUSCLGLUTES Andrew Sullivan perpetually insisted through his fog of roidpouting. Gay marriage is a leftoid equalist project to undermine and eventually to destroy the traditional and biologically heterocentric configuration of marriage. Gay marriage is nothing less than a front in the everlasting equalist war against white male European culture.

Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all “liberation” that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

Gays and lesbians… just like you and me. Except not at all like you and me. And that’s a truth the equalists dearly want to hide from view.

Read Full Post »

It’s always preenfeed to receive positive feedback from guests of Le Chateau. An anonymous reader regales:

Field report – the state of the union

I don’t post a lot because the tools you have all given me lead me to be a pretty busy guy. This one I had to write up because it was something different and something telling.

A few months ago I made a post for no strings hookup. One of responses was from a woman in another state. She was very flattering toward me for my pic but more for my post; it was gruff, short, direct, specific and used non-pc language to ward off men from responding. We exchanged a few emails where she explained she felt unfulfilled by the nightlife in her city. I said, “hey, in another life…take it easy” she said she might visit someday; I threw cold water on it, not looking to put any long term thoughts in her head.

…A few months later, I get an email that she is coming to my city and has purchased plane tickets. I told her she had better have her own place to stay and explained my time with her would be limited to 1 meetup. she wanted to press on…

This weekend she was here. I had the longest, most enjoyably depraved bout of sex in my life. Checked a lot of boxes. Not going to get into the nitty gritty but she was a goddamn maneater…and I tamed the tiger.

When I met up with her (in public), I spent about 30 minutes feeling her out to make sure she wasn’t boil-a-bunny crazy. What followed was a sad indictment of the current state of beta males. She complained about the men and the women in her city. The men were soft, overweight, sedentary betas. They couldn’t handle her sex drive, directness, or need for a strong man. She said she had stopped dating for x number of months prior to coming out to meet me because the guys just weren’t worth it. The women were all fat, entitled, bossy in a “born on third base and think they hit a home run” way, and of course, SJWs. If a table next to you is too loud, the shhhhh police show up. Basically, liberal feminists run amok. *Shudder*

She was attractive, fit, and petite, as far as looks go. Not long term material but good enough for a one night stand. Plus she was extremely direct and specific about what she liked sexually. It didn’t take much time to decide to head to a bed.

When it was all said and done, she had perma-smile. Multiple o’s. But heres the kicker: she basically worshipped me. I have never had this happen before. Very different. It was like I was Conan the destroyer and she was a girl in my harem. She moved over me catlike, she played with my chest hair, kissed and caressed every part of my body, basically acted like a cat when you give it catnip lol. I have had stuff similar to this happen before (laying on my chest, playing with chest hair, some girlish fawning, the ol’ pillow talk). This was unequivocally beyond that. I could have done anything to her and she would have done anything I said (trust me, I verified). She would have been happy to do this shit all day and night, apparently. It was strange, unfamiliar and extremely hot. It was the most manly I have ever felt; the confidence is dripping off of me currently.

All it cost me was $20.00. I took her to 2 well known food places but nowhere touristy. She flew to another state and all she got was marathon sex and a fast food. Didn’t give her a place to stay or act as chauffeur.
Heres what I did:

1. Shut the fuck up. Didn’t talk at all while driving or waiting for food. Answered her questions with brevity. Asked few questions but good ones (some from the list posted a few weeks ago on this site – the ones from the NYT).
2. Brought the wood. I think this more than anything is what made her believe my alpha state. Giving a chick mind blowing orgasms makes their hamster pretty much forget/justify anything they don’t like about you lol.
3. Body language in public. I let her caress/be lovey-dovey in bed after sex. But in public it was like she was a stranger. This of course made her want to constantly touch me/show other women she was with me. I would slightly shift or move away from her, enough to train her that she cant, aside from the occasional hand carass (her to me).
4. Wasn’t afraid to argue/disagree with her. She kept trying to get me to see things from her perspective. If it made sense to me, I would give her slight agreement. If it didn’t, I called bullshit.
5. Set up (false haha) time constraints. Made her freak out, kept trying to buy more time with me lol.
6. Was fun & playful, especially in bed. My roommate said all he heard all night was moaning then giggling, then moaning then giggling etc.

This post was not to brag, believe it or not. I felt it was my obligation to write this because CH is doing more for men than anyone else and this story provides anecdotal proof that following red pill truths and the 16 commandants of poon leads to real world success. Proof that there are unsatisfied women who will literally fly to another state for a taste of alpha. Thank you fuckers, I love you all.

You’re welcome.

One thing I would mention about these women who possess an outsized craving for absolute submission from themselves and absolute mastery from their lovers: Be cognizant that some women who readily embrace overheated sexual or romantic attachment early on can be major pains in the ass later, should you decide to invest more substantially in them. Watch for warning signs from her, like intemperate griping and complaining about all the men in her life who “didn’t measure up”. You’ll need a strong and swift pimp hand to tame these kinds of women. This caveat aside, it’s better for the health of a possible future relationship to fall deeply into passionate lovemaking sooner rather than later, and hotter rather than cooler.

Read Full Post »

What do women really want?, Steve Sailer asks. One of his readers, a possible CH mole, supplies an answer that’s closer to the truth than a thousand Ross Douthat NYBTimes columns on sex and love.

What do women want? Let’s look at their sexual fantasies. In my long years, I’ve known large numbers of women with drawers and e-readers full of “romance novels”. The story lines and characterizations are generally all the same. They are the Cinderella story recast:

There are one and more women between Cinderella and the Prince, who is handsome, charming, and has lots of money, status, and power. Cinderella acts to remove the female competition between her and the Prince so that she can take her rightful place as the Princess of the realm. The story line is generally consumed by scenes of females going at each other as they compete for the Alpha Male. The “bodice ripping” at the end of the chapters are thinly veiled rape fantasies. The Prince eventually finds Cinderella so “hot” that he cannot control himself. His lack of control excites her … because, it represents her final victory over the female competition who are unable to drive the Prince to sexual frenzy.

The CH tentacles reach everywhere.

I’m gladdened that Steve and some of his readers are coming around to the Heartistian worldview. I’d imagine it was a tough road to illumination for them, given the demographic quadrant I’ll safely assume most of them occupy — traditionalist conservatives who believe in marriage and kids and not screwing around (much). These are well-meaning folk, but their limited breadth of experience in the mating trenches constrains their observational power.

In a similarly themed iSteve post, a few feminists dug their heads out of the sand to assert the opposite of the available evidence.

Just because people read something fictional it does not mean that they do actually want to experience that in real life.

This is a common “””argument””” from those who can’t bear the retinal scorching from viewing female sexual nature head on, and it’s bullshit. If fantasy were not a reflection of true desire, then we wouldn’t see a near-universal preference among women for a particular type of sexual fantasy. We would instead see a million women have a million different fantasies completely severed from any actual feelings of lustful desire, and shlock like Twilight or 50 Shades which conform very closely to one or two specific female fantasy archetypes wouldn’t sell hundreds of millions of copy.

Or, to put it more poetically, a random female fantasy generator disconnected from real world desire should turn up at least a few instances of women fantasizing about being taken by Bob the beta accountant. Yet, in all the pulp romance ever written, scarcely any pursue that theme.

PS In completely unrelated news, female prison guards keep having sex with inmates. That genderless feminist utopia is really working out as intended. Heh.

PPS Smart urbane chicks are into the 50 Shades crap too. This isn’t a prolefemme phenomenon.

PPPS A young CH once spent a few weeks perusing pulp romance books for inside info about what turns on women. He figured, if girls were reading this stuff by the truckload, there must be something in there that could give a man an edge over other men in the hunt for shiny, glossy poosy. He was right.

Read Full Post »

More major Hivemind organs are beginning to accept, or at least grapple with, some core concepts of Game and how men and women interact in the flesh when they aren’t being prodded to chant equalist talking points. The New York Beta Times and even that den of shrikers, Jizzebel, have in their own way, and likely without knowing it, come round to the Proposition long espoused at Chateau Heartiste that romantic love is a glorious biomechanistic function which can be induced with certain premeditated seduction techniques, and that these techniques are especially effective on women who are the sex with an innate holistic appreciation of potential mate quality.

YaReally did such a bang-up job providing the backdrop to this post that I’ll just repost his comment here:

Jezebel admits that PUA works.

…without realizing it. lol The experiment they describe is just smoothly building comfort/rapport and the exercise ends with 4 min of deep eye-contact which is just running standard laser-eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Z4Nq0OrrM

“Catron calls this accelerated intimacy”

Ya, she’d BETTER call it that…because if she called it PUA or Game, Jezebel would shit a brick lol

It’s cute when normal society finally manages to spark a fire with rocks when they actively refuse to use the lighters PUA has offered for years lol

Posting this mainly to link the actual questions they use ’cause there’s a lot of good comfort/rapport building questions in here to swipe.

For reference, here are the 36 Questions that you should ask a woman, in order of increasing intimacy, with the goal of making her fall in love and desiring sex with you:

******

Set I

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

Set II

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

Set III

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling … “

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share … “

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

******

Many of the above questions designed to create a rapid emotional bond with women will be familiar to long-time guests of CH. In fact, they are the EXACT SAME questions discussed in this six-year-old post.

YaReally continues,

Note that they go from silly/fun/light to deep/personal, just like building comfort/rapport should (really you build rapport and then transition into comfort). The first questions are more rapport based. Also there’s a lot of “us VS them” questions (assuming the two of you are together already and reinforcing that), and future projection (assuming the two of you will be together).

There’s also showing vulnerability but it comes AFTER the rapport stuff. The first Set of questions has no vulnerability but the third set has tons of vulnerability. A lot of this creates an emotional rollercoaster done in order too…like what’s your favorite memory (emotional high), what’s your worst memory (emotional low), and back up again after a few more questions.

Really this is rock solid in terms of the results it should give, though it would be weird to execute it in it’s full design in any way other than as a game/experiment. But you could take a handful of these questions and add them to your cheat sheet of comfort/rapport building questions and drop them into a conversation congruently and to the girl it would fell like, as Jezebel says, “and anyone who has met someone and moved fast knows what this feels like: It’s when you want to know someone so quickly and so thoroughly and so urgently that you wish you could do it via osmosis. You want to give of yourself and be given to, equally.” which in logical man-speak means “PUA fucking works, duh.”

“Which makes it worth noting: The experiment sounds like some kind of trick or shortcut to love, but if both parties are well intentioned and in agreement to try it, who is to say what sort of time it should really take to scale this terrain? We all move at our own speed.”

Will have to quote this the next time some feminist is crying that PUA is an evil trick that doesn’t work. lol

lol indeed. I’d also add a ‘heh’.

Also the description of laser eyes was interesting as it’s something I’ve been focusing on over the last year:

“After completing the questions, Catron and her date do the four minute unnervingly deep stare that ends the experiment, which at first involved a lot of nervous smiling, but then got a little more comfortable. She writes:

I know the eyes are the windows to the soul or whatever, but the real crux of the moment was not just that I was really seeing someone, but that I was seeing someone really seeing me. Once I embraced the terror of this realization and gave it time to subside, I arrived somewhere unexpected.

I felt brave, and in a state of wonder. Part of that wonder was at my own vulnerability and part was the weird kind of wonder you get from saying a word over and over until it loses its meaning and becomes what it actually is: an assemblage of sounds.”

Again it’s gay woman-fluff speak, but translated into something you can apply it describes why slowing down your speaking and leaving long lingering silences while you hold the laser eye-contact Liam describes in that video works…the first few seconds (I find it’s around 10-20 seconds) the girl is off in la-la land and then her brain realizes “oh wait, we’re really looking at each other here…” and her words trail off and your conversation switches more to subcommunications instead of surface level communication.

But casual glances or talking so fast you don’t leave tension in the air etc. won’t pass that point where it’s “nervous smiles” and entering that vulnerable “sense of wonder” stage that holding it and leaving silences creates.

Drive with Ryan Gosling is a good movie to check out for laser eye-contact…him and the chick do a lot of sub-communication shit just staring at each other. It’s exaggerated in that movie, but that’s along the right track.

Biggest key that Drive doesn’t do and this experiment doesn’t add is closing the distance during laser eyes. If you lock eyes and slowly close the distance so you get closer to the girl, it sends butterflies in her stomach into overdrive and you can turn that into attraction/sexual tension.

Gambler demos it here at 33:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unuqF4uklE&t=33m35s

She doesn’t fully crack until he takes that last step and closes the space.

This really deep rapport/comfort stuff is what Mystery Method was built around and it’s the reason that Mystery was getting girls to “fall in love” with him, not just want to fuck him. Old school MM game was more about creating multiple-LTRs where the girl felt like you had a special connection she’s never felt with anyone else before etc. than just getting enough attraction for a one-night stand. There were reports of girls breaking down crying when Mystery/Tyler/etc. wouldn’t take their number, which sounds like bullshit until you’ve run this really deep comfort/rapport game a bunch and seen how earth-shattering it is to girls to experience it (especially hot bar chicks who are used to more shallow interactions with people) and taken it away from them suddenly and seen how they flip out and chase lol

I agree with this observation. Men (aka inexperienced betas) underestimate just how few women, and how infrequently those women, get to experience the attention of a man who really knows how to properly seduce and challenge small-talk emotional blockades. A woman who is a gifted recipient of a man’s seductive expertise can fall in love harder and faster than she ever thought possible.

This is also why people I meet feel like they’ve known me for years when we’ve only just met, because I know how to smoothly build comfort/rapport with strangers.

If you’re finding girls don’t stick around for more than one or two lays, or if you want to get into mLTRs, [ed: multiple long-term relationships, for the iSteve readers] experiment with this stuff. But also be aware that if you want casual relationships, you don’t want to use too much of this or she’ll get too attached and drop the Ultimatum sooner than she would’ve if you hadn’t built so much comfort/rapport.

And seriously, go study Mystery Method. Skip the feather boas and black nails, but study everything else. It’s lengthy and dense but it’s the ultimate foundation of understanding this shit.

Mystery Method, first edition, is a compendium of truths about the sexual marketplace and women’s romantic natures that will never go out of style. As Ya said, don’t be put off by some of the outlandish self-promoting of the original playas (OPs). They hit the field and in so doing hit upon deep abiding realities about women and their call-and-response behavior to particular courtship tactics.

Read this post carefully and think about the implications of the message contained in it. ‘Yes, you can inspire a woman to feel love for you by following this flowchart of pretested questions and nonverbal communication, just as the game aficionados have asserted for years’ is not the kind of lesson that will warm the tender hearts of rom-com saturated women or trad-con saturated men. A thousand bromides about the mystery of love and “just being yourself” will need to be jettisoned, to make way for a better understanding of the human universe.

To ask so much of them is practically an exercise in cruelty. You can tell this by the enraged and uncomprehending reaction they have when their polite beliefs confront stone cold reality.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: