I’ve read all the pickup theories concerning this burning question. On paper, each side makes reasonable arguments. One that sticks out is the claim that women feel more comfy in their own places, and their comfort will translate into easier sex.
Theories abound, but my experience has already given me the answer to the question ‘my place or hers?’. It’s an If THEN ELSE *beep boop* computation.
1. If your place is much farther away than her place, go to hers. Favorable logistics wins every time. Too much delay getting her from the date venue to a bedroom means more time for her tingle anticipation to dissipate.
2. If the above condition is not met, by default take her to your place. As a percentage of total number of venue-to-home bounces, you will close the deal more often at your place than at hers. This is what I’ve found to be true. Taking a girl back to your castle instills a power dynamic that works to your favor. She will “feel led”, and that feeling, especially when coupled with a stir of anxiety, arouses her. Plus, a woman who knows subconsciously that she can kick you out of her place on a whim is a woman who has too much psychological leverage to ever fully submit in that most pleasurable way to your indomitable presence.
EXCEPTION TO ABOVE RULE: You’re slinking around for supplementary pussy. Best then to keep your mistresses in the dark about your permanent abode(s).
If, near the end of a mutually rewarding date, the girl lasciviously invites you back to her place, but once there, despite your best efforts and tightest takeaway game, steadfastly refuses to bang and taunts you with the prospect of night-long cuddling, you have a control freak with Golden Gash issues. Leave immediately, and wish her well during her stay at the spinster-in-training school for the reformed slut.
Insurmountable last minute resistance is unforgivable when the girl has made the blatant overture for a nightcap and opens her own place to you. This is nothing less than a bitch power play. The only way to beat a crazy, cock-creviced chick playing this game is to deny your participation. The last thing you want is to be that beta guy stuck in a situation where hours are spent fruitlessly begging for pussy table scraps like some street cur. If it’s heading in that direction, kick yourself out on a subtly underdramatic note, and head home with your pride intact.
Reports coming in confirm that it’s likely co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intentionally brought down Flight #4U9525 and crashed it into a mountainside. A lone photo of Lubitz sitting near what looks like the Golden Gate Bridge shows a beta-ish looking European man with a kind face.
I speculate on his motives for killing 150 people.
1. He had a schizophrenic break from reality. One report claimed he had taken six months off from flight school to combat “burn-out”. If a mental disorder caused him to snap, people will begin to wonder if we can pretest pilot applicants for susceptibility to paranoia. The Minority Report of the future may not be used to identify would-be criminals as much as used to identify people with hidden mental diseases capable of symptomatically erupting later in life that make them high risk candidates for jobs requiring responsibility over the lives of others.
2. Beta male rage. He suffered a recent breakup and took it out on himself and 150 strangers.
3. Omega male rage. One of the passengers was a woman (or man) he distantly loved, but couldn’t have, and in a fit of spite decided to kill his fantasy amour the only way he knew how.
4. Terrorist mole. We’ve had a spate of planes going down because of pilot treachery. Have secretive terror-sponsoring societies filled flight schools with terrorist moles? Talk about the long game…
5. Acute depression. Can depression really drive someone to kill? I thought very depressed people are prone to retreating to solitude, away from public activity.
6. Muslim convert. No evidence of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the media Hivemind keeps this kind of info under wraps for the duration of public interest. Very little of his Facebook profile is revealing:
His Facebook page lists his interests, including German electronica band Schiller, French superstar DJ David Guetta, his local Burger King, 10-pin bowling, aviation humour and a technical website about the A320 model of aircraft he flew into a mountainside.
Dat last part. How droll.
7. Bowling and Burger King are traditionally prole pastimes. Maybe Lubitz was a prole who, by dint of hard work and native gifts, elevated himself into the upper class. While there, he came to hate his upper class peers. He took out his resentment on them in spectacular fashion. Or maybe his anodyne Facebook interests are a clever misdirection to fool people about his true beliefs.
8. Lubitz hated his co-pilot for personal reasons. Not sure why he felt the need to kill innocents along with his main target.
9. Globalized elite conspiracy to firm up their authority. Why not? A global elite conspiracy is more believable now than at any time in the recent past.
10. There were a bunch of noted globalist liberals in the passenger list. Lubitz somehow knew this beforehand, and pulled an Anders Breivik, taking out scores of the enemy in one revolutionary blow.
My bet is on #1: A schizoid break from reality. The next time you’re boarding a plane, look the pilot right in the eye. Does he seem off to you? If so, reschedule your flight.
Commenter Days of Broken Arrows thinks Lubitz was on anti-depressants, and that these drugs have a history of occasionally causing users to snap, which Big Pharma in cahoots with Big Davos covers up. There is evidence that Lubitz took time off for “depression”. Was he on “approved” drugs for his mental illness? Would 150 people be alive today if society hadn’t deemed it helpful to shovel mouthfuls of psychotropic drugs down the throats of depressed people?
Commenter Bill offers a larger view which rings true:
Anomie. Expect more psychotic incidents as the West grows increasingly unmoored from any coherent social paradigm.
Some people can handle radical individualism and social atomization in a sea of increasing materialist diversity. But most people can’t. Unmoored is the right word to describe it all.
PS I think there’s more to Lubitz’s actions than garden variety suicidal tendencies. Suicide is a loner’s province. But someone who takes out 150 innocents on his escape from the binds of the flesh has other motivations than simple self-loathing or gloomy hopelessness. He has hatred in his heart. Who did Lubitz hate, and why did he hate them? Is a side effect of schizophrenia a scatter-shot hatred of everyone in sight?
Steve Sailer, bless his hardening heart, has a post up about a Charles Murray article reminding leftoid paymasters that high achievement on tests like the SAT are more a consequence of genetic heritage than of socioeconomic status.
One of the commenters, Jonah, draws the mostly-unspoken parallel of SAT scores to female hypergamy:
I’d wager a guess that the correlation would be significantly stronger if the father’s IQ could have been assessed as well. I’d assume that there are a significant number of affluent families where the father is the skilled/educated breadwinner.
This is very astute and under-considered by sociologists looking at longitudinal data like these. Given hypergamy – the propensity for women to “marry up”, and the willingness of men to “marry down” in favor of looks or other non IQ traits – I would bet Murray’s point would be amplified by if you looked at father’s IQ instead of mother’s. Wish he had the #s for dads/SAT rather than moms/PIAT. Would be a stronger and more striking piece.
By the way, I doubt I’m the only person here whose father was smarter than my mother. It’s probably true for over 60% of the population but you never hear about it. For people with one parent SIGNIFICANTLY smarter than the other, I bet it’s Dads over Moms 10-1.
And yes, the math checks out. Dumb, low status men, and ugly smart women are more frequently shut out of the marriage game than their gender opposites.
Female hypergamy in the West is, at least in its current configuration, dysgenic. Smart, overcredentialed women are shunting their smart genes into an ever narrower demographic slice, because these women can’t stomach the thought of “marrying down” in intelligence or phonyfuck credentials. And we see exactly that playing out, as the fertility rate of high IQ white mimosaettes is zeroing in on a little over 0.0 kids per woman.
But high IQ fathers, especially conservative fathers who don’t do woman’s work, have higher fertility and thus “male hypergamy” is eugenic. The primary reason has to do with the lifetime SMV slopes of men. High achieving men experience a gradual increase in their SMVs peaking at right about the time same-age women’s SMVs are crashing into the Wall. Many of these men go on to second or third younger wives, and produce second or third families of scions.
A secondary reason for the eugenic effect of male hypergamy — the urge to pair off with ever-younger, hotter, tighter minxes — is the fact Jonah mentioned: High achieving/high IQ men cash in their higher SMVs for prettier women at a wider range of female smarts. Because, you see, to the vast majority of men, even to the SJW manlets in full denial mode, a woman’s youth and beauty are nitroglycerin to a man’s boner. Blows it right up. A woman’s smarts? No effect. Worse for the grad school ladies, boners will sometimes wither under the droning onslaught of SMRT women with something insufferably feminist to prove.
In the final analysis, high IQ women demographically hoard their advantageous genes, just like they romantically hoard their eggs. High IQ men, in contrast, spread their advantageous genes just like they spread their sperm.
Which brings us to the fascinating, if perturbing to fragile minds, question Jonah asks: Is your father smarter than your mother?
I can recall with the crystal clearest clarity only Lucifer’s favored son can summon that it did, and does, seem to me most of my peers’ fathers were/are brighter than their mothers. (NB: I am not a product of a black ghetto. I only play one on TV.) There were a few glaring exceptions, and like all exceptions they are extraordinarily memorable by reason of their rarity. Mostly, these pairings featured a ballbuster proto-feminist tankwife cracking the whip over the back of a stepnfetchit beta hubby. Not all though. A few couples in which the mother of my friend was noticeably smarter than the father had the right sexual polarity — submissive wife and dominant husband — that managed by way of alchemical sexual magic to work despite the father’s relatively gimped brainpower.
That’s the monkey wrench in the patented CH theory of dysgenic female hypergamy: The allure of badboys — who may or may not have upper quintile SAT scores — to all women, maybe especially to SMRT women surrounded in their milieus by supplicating beta males. If the Pill and condom and abortion weren’t acting as procreation thwarting intermediaries, the fertility of high IQ women might be a lot higher, as they opened the un-latexed gates to their eggs to sundry charming jerkboys.
Evolution grinds regardless. Where are we heading? I don’t know, but I do know the late 20th-early 21st century paradigms are not long for this world. More and more it appears the historical pairing of smarter, high achieving men with prettier, low achieving women has been severed and hijacked by powerful anti-human social forces. More and more the romantically healthy arrangements are upended by discordant faux-aristocratic entities. What was once common — a vital middle class distinguished by fathers smarter and higher achieving than mothers — has become a curiosity gawked at by the destroyers of harmony.
We know our trajectory. What we don’t know is our destination. So certain are you that a bright, sunshiney day waits at the end?
Reader Mel Gibson remarks on one of those subtle changes in white homelands that herald the inglorious end,
I recently spent some time in the waiting area of the state clerk of court. Hung on the walls were 10 pictures of the classes of the local bar association, dating back to 1900. Each class member had his own picture – essentially in mugshot format with a name caption.
The photo of the 1900 class was obviously all white males, many of whom had well-kept beards and healthy, thin faces. I saw one fat guy out of the ~100. Each had a determined look on his face, looking off into the distance. [ed: APLHA] There wasn’t a single smile. [SUPERALPHA]
The first woman showed up in the 1920-ish class. Two more appeared in the 40s and 50s. Most of the men kept the distracted look, while some looked directly into the camera. I saw a few smirks and upward-curled lips, but no teeth-bearing grins.
I didn’t see classes from the 60s or 70s, but by the 1980s picture I noticed some major changes. There were more women and some blacks. (Aside: Look, if these women and blacks earned their way into their profession and this association, then props to them.). The larger trend I noticed was that the white males were losing their beards, losing their hair, getting fatter, and not only smiling more, but larger like chimps who just earned a banana from the zookeeper. By the class of 2000, well, you know where this is going… all of the above-mentioned traits, and they were looking directly into the camera. I shudder to think what the class of 2015 looks like.
Basically, in 10 pictures over 100 years, I saw the decline of the white male.
Ugliness in all forms is ascendent in America and the broader West. Beauty will return, though. Her restorative fire can’t be snuffed for long.
In the meantime, the class of 2015 photo will be a phalanx of ugly bulldykes and mystery meats glaring triumphantly, BradyBunchily, over the literal mugshots of one physically amorphic white manboob quisling crouched into the defensive pose, head buried in chest, smiling like an idiot through three pube-pocked chins, and one shell-shocked semi-discernable white man gritting his teeth, amicably trying at once to fit in with the wretched Shrikegeist and to project a tiny bit of whatever shred of pride he has left fermenting in his nads.
(You thought the title of this post would refer to some other social phenomenon related to courtrooms, didn’t you? Give yourself a ‘heh’.)
PS If you’re ever having your photo taken for a group picture, and especially if you’re a white man in this acrid culture, think of the illustrative CH Jumbotron Test. This test applies equally to the ebbs of courtship as well as the legacies left behind in courtrooms. Just ask yourself, before the picture is taken or the text is sent, “How will my pose or my words be perceived by women, by men I admire, and by future generations, including possibly my children and grandchildren?” If you can ask yourself this honestly, and you still pose like a beta chimp grinning for approval from your trashworld masters, you are a lost cause and best left in the remainder bin of discarded genes.
Commenter lllooooolllzzzzzllloooolll writes,
Hipster faggots are often seen imitating old photographs, even the “looking in the distance” pose. This is ironic faggotry, along with their faggot beards they use to store cum from their boyfriends, for a mid morning snack.
Irony is the modern SWPL white man’s plausibly deniable safe space to play around with racial self-pride. It’s nauseating, yes, but also a sign of progress. Complete prostration is giving way to ironic detachment, and finally, if the CH oracles are right, the irony will become that most feared and fearsome white man state of mind…
The really illuminating lesson of this photo is the tacit realization that its inverse wouldn’t be nearly as revealing of the participants’ SMVs. If a hot girl was in the arms of a shlubby beta male, no one would mistake her as the female version of “beta”. She would still be a hot chick. A hot chick with a really lucky beta boyfriend who must have some compensating SMV-boosting traits. No one would negatively reassess her looks (the bulk of a woman’s SMV) because her boyfriend didn’t appear to be “in her league”.
In contrast, people DO reassess the SMV of men based on the physical attractiveness of their girlfriends. A handsome man with an ugly girlfriend isn’t a quirky love match; it’s a tell that the handsome man has unattractive personality qualities which decrease the potential return on his looks. Similarly, an ugly man with a beautiful girlfriend immediately prompts musings that he’s got cash, got flash, got mast, or some combination of all three plus the rarefied “charisma”.
An ugly girl with a handsome boyfriend isn’t the fortunate recipient of positive reassessment from onlookers. An ugly man with a pretty girlfriend *does* receive revisited glowing reviews. This photo is sort of a Voight-Kampff empathy test, reminding viewers that the sexual market values of men are women are intuitively assessed very differently by impartial strangers, because the measure of a man is nothing like the measure of a woman.
Ugly man with a hot girlfriend is an alpha male.
Handsome man with an ugly girlfriend is a beta male.
Ugly woman with a handsome boyfriend is still an ugly woman.
Hot woman with an ugly boyfriend is still a hot woman.
Some context is needed for this week’s edition of COTW. That venerable company embodying the masculine virtues, Starbucks, recently announced a campaign called “Race Together” (Twit tag: #RaceTogether).
Commenter elmer asked,
Do you patronize the Starbucks in your upscale Bohemian neighborhood? How will you respond to the barista’s entreaties to have a dialogue about race in America?
To which driveallnight, our unanimous COTW winner, replied,
I now request my black coffee be prepared “straight up nigga”
Very respectable troll. America’s aggregate T level just rose a notch, from sloppy wet vagina to erect vestigial clitpenis.
I’m afraid if the white leftoid elite and their vibrant shock troops insist on humiliating non-elite whites, their call for war will be answered with twice the venom and three times the scorched earth. They asked for it…