You’ll Need Hard Negs For Facebook Game

If you want to hit on women through Facebook you’d better bring granite game. Facebook walls boost people’s self-esteems through the roof.

Facebook walls can have a positive influence on the self-esteem of college students, report social media researchers at Cornell.

This is probably because Facebook allows them to put their best face forward, says Jeffrey Hancock, associate professor of communication; users can choose what they reveal about themselves and filter anything that might reflect badly.

Feedback from friends posted publicly on people’s profiles also tend to be overwhelmingly positive, which can further boost self-esteem, said Hancock, who co-authored a paper published Feb. 24 in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking.

“Unlike a mirror, which reminds us of who we really are and may have a negative effect on self-esteem if that image does not match with our ideal, Facebook can show a positive version of ourselves,” Hancock said. “We’re not saying that it’s a deceptive version of self, but it’s a positive one.”

It may be one of the reasons why Facebook has 500 million users, who spend more than 700 billion minutes per month communicating with their friends via photos, links and status updates. [ed: you don’t say!] […]

“By providing multiple opportunities for selective self-presentation — through photos, personal details and witty comments — social-networking sites exemplify how modern technology sometimes forces us to reconsider previously understood psychological processes,” she added.

This explains Fat Girl Angle Shot. So you’ve got millions of women posting flattering pics of themselves and personal details that are uniformly positive on their FB walls, and you’ve got a bunch of cloying betas feeding the egos of these women even further with painstakingly crafted supportive comments, and you expect to make any headway with tepid game? That is a bitch shield too strong to breach.

This is one reason, among others, I advise against any sort of online game. The combination of self-selected profiles and nonstop beta adulation will boost a 5’s self-conception to a 7. Since 5s already have a self-conception of 6 thanks to the phenomenon of female upward dating momentum and the alpha cock carousel, you now have a double-strength bitch shield to bust instead of a single strength. Remember, if a 5 believes she’s a 7 (“But I *feel* like a 7!”) she is also going to believe that male 7s are not high enough status for her. Women are not truly happy unless they are dating men 0.5 to 2 sexual market value points higher than themselves. (Any higher and the discrepancy would be too large to sustain a relationship beyond a short fling or one night stand. Some women intuitively grasp this, which is why the scenario of ugly girls preemptively dumping significantly higher status boyfriends is not so rare. They’re sparing their feelings from the pain they know is coming.)

The reality, of course, is that the male 7 is two full points higher than the female 5. But the Facebook wall has meddled with the primal forces of nature. An unbridgeable chasm brought about by the advance of technology has severed the organically emergent hierarchy of the dating market where there is no escape from soul withering judgments made in mere seconds. Result: If you don’t know what you’re doing, or if you prefer the path of least resistance to sex and love, you’d be best off staying away from trying to court girls on Facebook.

There is a caveat for those men who like a challenge. While a girl with an overinflated ego is no picnic to pick up, it is possible to DHV yourself by doing the opposite of the 99% of betas who felch her anus on Facebook every day. A simple neg, edgy but not too insulting, to one of her posted wall photos can be the start of a beeyootiful romance. Perhaps an alpha witty comment such as “Ok, so what’d you do with the ten other pics of yourself that didn’t make the grade?”

Read Full Post »

Setting The Record Straight

Kay Hymowitz writes in her new book Manning Up:

SCENARIO 2: The Darwinian Playboy. These are the guys who plan to live alone and have a lot of sex with a lot of women. Though they might hang around for awhile, they will never, ever be that into you. They lard their deep mistrust of women with convenient bits of evolutionary psychology. Some saw fathers, uncles, brothers or friends chewed up and spit out by ex-wives who had cheated on them but still got the house, the kids, and half their ex’s income. Others probably never recovered from their own experience of betrayal; others are geeks who, having spent much of their twenties invisible to women, are also in a vengeful frame of mind. Some of them are devoted followers of CH, a philosophically sophisticated blogger who uses his multitudinous sexual encounters to analyze the amoral nature of female desire; think Hefner via Dostoyevsky. Women, no matter how determinedly enlightened and independent, are turned on by smart, dominant males — not bullies, not necessarily billionaires, mind you, but guys who know how to communicate the right mix of self-confidence, aloofness, and charisma. Love and marriage, concludes CH, are just “pretty lies.” “Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value,” he writes. “No matter how much you love your kids, if a divorce happens (50% chance, 70+% chance the wife initiates it) you are going to be paying child support for the new lingerie your ex-wife buys to sexually please her blogger lover. Life is a parade of worry and high wire risk, of love and loneliness, and no socially manufactured arrangement exists to insulate you from your dreaded fears. To imagine otherwise is beta.”

The quote she attributes to this blog is from this post. I notice she decided not to quote more pertinent passages from that post, which would add context and shore up the argument presented against thinking marriage is a fail-safe way to lock a girl in.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that there are a few writers contributing to the Chateau (gotta give shout outs where due), Hymowitz misunderstands (I’m generously interpreting her motives here) some of the beliefs held by the writers of this blog.

For instance, no Chateau author claimed that love is a “pretty lie”. In fact, just the opposite has been written: that love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit. So right there, that small correction removes a big plank of her smear against “Darwinian Playboys” as merely heartless pump and dumpers with a chip on their shoulders against women. I mean, how can you demonize a Darwinian playboy who grasps the true nature of female sexual desire and the raw deal that is Western institutional marriage, but who also genuinely loves women and loves being in love with women? Makes it a bit more difficult, eh Kay? But hey, when confronted by a worldview that shakes one’s soul to the core, the urge to construct easily knocked down strawmen is a universal human cognitive deficiency.

Like most feminists and quasi-feminists (I include family values advocates and relationship complementarity libertardians in this bunch), Hymowitz’s hatred of evolutionary psychology is evident, and no wonder — it really does explain, rather elegantly, the behavior of men and women in the sexual marketplace. That women’s behavior can be so analyzed means that women’s actions can be predicted, and subsequently that men with this knowledge can tailor their behavior to get the most out of their interactions with women. Knowledge is a powerful thing, and knowing what’s up does, in fact, shift the balance of sexual power in men’s direction by removing the inscrutability and whimsy that has been the prerogative of women since time immemorial. Game means that it is no longer simply a matter of dumb luck when men get sex and love. Game, contrary to Hymowitz’s sneering dismissal, can increase the amount of love in the world by giving women more of what they desire in men.

Hymowitz, of course, can’t help but slander “Darwinian playboys” as wounded exes, geeks and mistrustful players. Do some men who learn about game fall into one or more of the above categories? Sure. But you could say the same for any group of men following anything. A proportion of white knighters and manginas who would agree with Hymowitz are emo geeks and limp-wristed hipsters who have to beg for table scraps from women. They sublimate their ineffectual effeteness into rage against “the Man”. You could call it a strategy. Mewling sycophantic betas occasionally hook pity fucks with sheer persistence and an effort to overwhelm their prey with egregious displays of phony sympathy. There are “real men” out there who suffered at the hands of ex-wives, or are bitter about having to return home every night to a waddling land beast, who would also balk at the concept of game.

The fact is that the majority of men who learn and use game are well-adjusted and successful in life, and simply want the tools to meet, seduce and bring more pleasure to beautiful women, or to meet and seduce that one perfect woman, fall in love with her, and minimize the chance that infidelity will tear them apart. Many men learn game simply to avoid getting dumped by women they love, and this includes wives swinging the divorce card like a sword of Damocles over their husbands’ necks. Is Kay prepared to say these goals aren’t noble, or aren’t in men’s interests? If not, why not? Kay, if you’re reading, you will be required to frame your answer without insufferable empty-headed references to honor or duty.

Speaking of shaming, Hymowitz has this to say about the supposed fate of the playboy:

Safe prediction: By his mid-40s, the Playboy is doing a comb-over for his balding head and wearing leather jackets to cover up his gut when he goes to bars to pick up women. Despite the fact that he tends to blather on about great bands of the 1990s, there are a few who are willing to sleep with him. Eventually, he’ll find himself seeing one of them and deciding to move in with her. He becomes a stepdad to her kids and begins to dislike her ex as much as she does. He’s not especially happy with his arrangement — he remembers the good old days when women appeared to him like an enormous, all-you-can-eat buffet — but now what’s the alternative?

Let your hate flag fly, Kay! It’s good fun, isn’t it? Yes, yes it is. Welcome to the abyss. You may now check your moral high ground at the door. You’ve no need for it in the hell matrix.

I’ve got news for ya, Kay. All those things happen to most people — men and women — whether they’re married or not. And have you never heard of long term relationships? I’m a big proponent of them, occasionally spiced with the varied fling. All the presumed benefits of marriage with none of the costs. As for single moms… well, if they’re attractive and slender, they’re good for a romp in the hay. Just don’t make the mistake of marrying them or spending too much time with their kids. Keep it short and simple. I recommend two to three months of fun. You don’t want the law to presume you the legal father.

Those balding, paunchy single men are still going to ignore you, Kay, for the hotter younger tighter competition. It’s nature. That some of them without any game and limited options may settle down with a middle-aged hag doesn’t mean they’re gonna like it. Twue wuv! The alternative is for these men to keep in shape and learn game. A man’s options in the sexual market are wide open compared to the options available to middle-aged women. And that’s what really chafes your hide, right, Kay?

***

Glenn Reynolds takes a stab at explaining why he links to this blog (via Vox Popoli), and comes up a bit short.

The “game” stuff pretty much is for douchebags, or at least the otherwise hopeless. It involves taking the sophisticated approach that someone with actual interpersonal skills might employ, and boiling it down to a set of simplified rules that produce a sort of cartoon version — much as you might boil down social interactions into rules for an autistic person; the result is better than nothing, but not the real thing. But although it’s a cartoon — and focused largely on picking up women in bars, a fairly limited and artificial environment to begin with — the simplification process does reveal things that might otherwise be obscured or ignored. And it’s interesting to see some of these insights going mainstream. (The other thing you learn from perusing some of these sites is just how much some men need the help. And I’m not sorry to see them get it.)

First, everyone needs to stop throwing around the word douchebag so lazily and haphazardly. Douchebags aren’t hopeless with women. Just the opposite. Douchebags are pricks and assholes — usually gauche and lower class — who inexplicably do well with women. (Well, inexplicable to anyone who isn’t a reader of the Chateau. We here know the reason why chicks dig jerks.) Think of hotchickswithdouchebags.com, or some of the cast of Jersey Shore.

Most douchebags are naturals with women, probably because they aren’t smart enough to question their unwavering self-confidence. In fact, the best naturals with women mostly occupy the left hand side of the bell curve. The truly dangerous skirt chasers are the naturals with smarts. There aren’t many of them, but they do exist. They are unstoppable forces of nature, owing partly to their concomitant suite of dark triad traits.

Second, game isn’t cartoony at all. It’s actually quite psychologically advanced, which is why less intelligent men have problems understanding it, let alone applying it to real life. Some of the negs and routines are cartoony, but that’s a crutch for newbies who need something simple to start off with. As you get better at game, the cartoonish aspects merge and disappear into your core personality, so that the game you becomes indistinguishable from the real you. And that is the ultimate goal — to seduce without forethought. To live as a seducer in every facet of life, sexual or otherwise.

Third, game isn’t just about picking up women at bars. For fuck’s sake, this is a lazy, half-brained meme that needs to die already. The reality just doesn’t bear it out. My last three girlfriends were met, respectively, on the sidewalk, at a convention and during a bike race. That’s the beauty of game; it’s suited for every environment. There is no environmental limitation on female psychology. Women don’t desire one kind of men in bars and another kind of men at the mall. There is nothing magical about the bar that makes game work. It works everywhere.

The bar meme is silly in another way. The bar is no different in actuality than many other venues for meeting the opposite sex. Online dating, for instance, is nothing but a dry bar. (Unless you like to drink while staring at a computer screen in your gloomily lit bedroom.) Same thing for the park. You meet a woman walking her cat, and you hit it off, using the same or similar techniques you use on women in bars. The only difference is that neither one of you is clutching a drink close to your chest for comfort.

And how “limited” is the bar experience anyhow? It’s dangerous to get into sexual relationships with co-workers (thanks for nothing, feminists) and most people in the cities at least don’t go to church or temple. So the bar has become the go-to meeting place for people with a lick of social savvy who prefer face to face contact over ASCII courting. This is the reality of early 21st century Mexamerica. It’s either the bar or OkCupid for many people.

Game, in fact, can *open* new venues in which to pursue women. When you have the skillset to meet and attract women, you can meet them anywhere. No playground becomes off-limits. Go to the bar? Sure, after I’ve chatted up the girl at the Trader Joes.

A lot of people new to the science and art of game (like, presumably, Instapundit), tend to equate game with the bar and club scene. That’s a misconception. Bars are where a lot of men run game because *that’s where the greatest concentration of young, single women are*. It has nothing to do with the kinds of women who go to bars or the supposed artificiality of bars. It’s simply an opportunity calculation based on target demographic. Game itself is a universal tool of seduction, and shines in and out of bars. If anything, game tends to work better in places other than bars, where girls aren’t expecting to get hit on. Unpredictability is alpha, after all.

Read Full Post »

To Preen, Or Not To Preen…

A consortium of “internet professionals who make their living as online influencers” (great gig if you can get it) has voted Citizen Renegade a partir de Chateau a Top 100 blog of 2010.

This calls for a celebration.

8=====>

Read Full Post »

Reader Feedback

Emails from readers praising this blog for making their lives better are a daily occurrence nowadays, but these two notes of thanks — one an email and the other a comment — struck a chord.

I found your blog about 1 1/2 years ago. I check it out just about everyday. I love reading your stories, about game, women, and just your day to day thoughts. During my year long deployment to Afghanistan it really helped me get through the week. Just wanted to say thanks for everything you do, and I hope you keep on posting.

Thanks

Nicholas

And this comment from a man in India who calls himself “kc”:

Dear Chateau members,
I was introduced to your blog in 2010 via Bernard Chapin. Ever since I have been an avid reader. I write from India. You have an Indian fan. As someone who is on the verge of getting married, let me tell you your advice works. I have tried it and it works. Man have to lead. There is no alternative. While I am looking for marriage and not STRs/LTRs, reading Game and Athol Kay etc etc has made a difference to my life. In the Indian context, I would certainly say that elements of Game work. Since we have not reached that level of feminism like in the US so far and in the comparative absence of a welfare state, while hard core gaming is not necessary, elements can be applied for the good. The knife of game can be used for life saving surgeries. I don’t have any illusions about women any more but enjoying the love of one is certainly good. Some day I would write a guest post for the Chateau, giving my experiences. Regards.

Would it be uncouth to preen? Of course it would. *PREEN*

Reader thank yous like the ones above are reminders that the subversive works of the Chateau have broadened into an enterprise more meaningful than the fun, downtime hobby which was, and will continue to be, its true purpose. What happens at the Chateau, no longer stays at the Chateau.

And, kc, you are welcome to write a guest post about your experience with game in India.

Read Full Post »

Penis Pic Game

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous emails:

Big fan of your work.

I saw this exchange on FB, and I couldn’t resist snapping some screen shots.

“R” is an early-thirties female. Commenters J, J, and E are all males.

When I read the initial post, I couldn’t help but picture a cocky asshole, annoyed with her presumption, and deciding the penis pic was the best way to shut it down.

After “E” suggests something similar, her story changes a bit IMO. But I’ll leave the interpretation to you and your readers.

Here is the exchange:

Frist of all, props to the guys “J”, “J” and “E” for handling this whiny broad with biting humor, and to the original penis pic sender for offending her sensibilities. I like the last suggestion from “J” that she should return fire with a pic of her vagina. For some reason I cannot fathom, I doubt she’ll consider that option.

When “E” implies there must be a good reason penis pic man stood her up and “nuked” their conversation, she changes her story in an obvious way that makes her look better. It’s funny how often women badly contradict themselves in a web of lies when their sexual market value is disparaged. Recall Maxim #77:

Maxim #77: Women will screech louder the closer your words get to damaging or exposing vulnerabilities in their sexual market value.

Penis pic game justifiably gets a bad rap as a seduction technique, but it’s under-appreciated as an effective means of belittling a haughty bitch. It is the ultimate shit test, because there really is no answer to a picture of a penis on your phone. Even as a serious pickup technique, I think it could work on really twisted, slutty girls who crave the most intense asshole experience the cock carousel can provide.

To properly run penis pic game, you should be aware of the basic rules of engagement:

• You don’t have to send a pic of your own penis. Choose from any number of porn star penises on the web. Or, if you really want to deliver a powerful message, text her a pic of a penis maimed with disease and pus-dripping open sores. Bonus points if you send a black peen to a white SWPL girl.
• If you send a pic of your own penis with authenticity in mind, make sure you are packing heat. You’ll have to be honest with yourself. Treat penis pics like any other text game: does it pass the Jumbotron test? If your penis is flashed on a Jumbotron in front of thousands of spectators, would you beam with pride? Or hide in shame? It kind of kills the purpose of penis pic game if she shares it with her friends for a good laugh.
• Caveat to the above point: A pic of a micropenis from a medical reference manual would be funny. It’s like saying “this is all you’re worth, honey.”
• Send a flaccid penis. An erection will make her wonder if you get excited at the thought of texting her. A flaccid penis says all the right things to a bitch you want to put in place. Namely, “You are not woman enough to marginally bestir my loins.” Also, you aren’t a gay man texting another gay man.
• Include the balls some way. If you have a robust, assertive sack that frames your penis like a museum piece, this won’t be hard to do. There’s just something extra demeaning about frank *and* beans.
• Shoot from below. This is a well-known trick that photographers use to emphasize largeness and dominance. Plus, it’s been shown that women like looking up at men. Extend the honor to your junk! Lighting is important, too. When lit from below, the penis will have that malevolent look, like a flashlight under the chin.

I would run penis pic game, but a phone with a 24 inch screen hasn’t been invented yet.

Read Full Post »

Science Can’t Stop Proving Me Right

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

The same study shows that idiocracy is in full effect:

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

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

******

As if feminism needed to be discredited even further:

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Comments Of The Month

From Marcus:

Mystery is a great example of a guy who has a tremendous amount of empathy for both men and women. I remember watching a video where he was training a new coach, and when the coach said something about bitch shields, Mystery corrected him, calling them “protection shields”. He wasn’t doing it to be PC or to avoid offending women (there were none present) – rather, he was working through the problem in real time by imagining why a woman might behave like a bitch when a man first approaches her.

It sounds strange, but this blog has made me less of a misogynist. I have come to view women as elegant machines — machines for using, to be sure — that mostly do a damned good job of doing what they were designed to do. As I get more comfortable and consistent at either aggressively torquing their levers or gently greasing their gears at just the right moments, my appreciation only deepens.

As with machines, my love of women tends to be more general than specific. Upgrades are always welcome.

I preen. Would that the army of tards who occasionally spill into this exclusive estate reflect on the fact that the underlying message is in reality a romanticist hymn to the unique and abiding attributes of women, warts and all, and to the good that can come from seeing women as they really are instead of as what we wish they were, there would be more love in the world.

And not that fraudulent asexual love that new agers yap about.

***

Comment #2 is from “Me”:

Text messaging back and forth should never be done. He should be too busy out making money or shovelling snow or digging ditches to bury his enemies or some shit like that.

Just ask yourself if Ghengis Khan, a man who killed his first man to prove himself ready to lead his household at age 12..a man who, along with his children and grandchildren, did so much fucking his genes are still active to this day, would be text messaging. I do not think so.

Genghis Khan game. Would Genghis Kahn text? No, he wouldn’t. If a girl texted in front of him while they were on a date (assuming Genghis takes a break from his impressive harem to squeeze in a legitimate date), he would grab the phone out of her hand, place it on a table, and cleave it in two with his war sword. The girl would be pissed, but she’d spend the next five years of her life thinking about him. Five minutes of world bestriding conqueror beats 500 years of beta.

Read Full Post »