Top-Down Patriotism

A peculiar trend I’ve noticed in the past few years is the emergence of old-skool Americana on the walls and atop the furniture of various upscale shops and restaurants in urban blue elite-capture islands. It started with SWPL hipsters wearing ironic American eagle and American flag t-shirts, which became less ironic and more sincere over time, culminating in spontaneous outbursts of liberal patriotism on American holidays like July 4th. Recently, the trend appears to be picking up speed. Paintings of the stars and stripes adorn überwhite tapas eateries. Norman Rockwell-ish art lines the halls of globalist corporate elite headquarters.

Have liberal Americans suddenly begun believing in the idea of America, now that it’s a race cuck depot? No. This is fear speaking. The elite and striver SWPL class sense the nation is fraying, and may come undone in their lifetimes. The top-down patriotism is a frantic gesture of unity when division rules the day.

The gesture is too late, too feeble. America will break apart into regional powers within the next fifty years, probably sooner. Mark these words.

Do Men Desire Smart Women? Actually, No

CH answered this post title’s question already in the seminal “Dating Market Value for Women” at-home quiz, and in this post defining the qualifications of the “alpha female”, but feminists and male feminists continue to insist against the bleedingly obvious real world evidence that men desire smarts in women over and above all other mate value considerations. For instance, the latest garbage study purporting a strong male desire for female IQ is about as flawed as a self-report sex survey can get.

Instead of writing a draining exegesis on why smarts don’t matter much to women’s romantic fortunes —

executive summary: a woman’s IQ has little impact on her short- OR long-term desirability to men unless she’s beyond the comfort zone of intelligence compatibility with the man she’s dating; i.e. around 15 or more IQ points above or below the man’s IQ

— I’ll just reprint a Telegraph commenter’s witty response on the topic.

awesome research – it validates the view that porn has no future on the internet

So much feminist-friendly “””research””” has upon later inspection turned out to traffic in horribly flawed premises and methodology that it’s a good bet to prejudice any social science study issuing from an Anglo university with at least one Scandinavian- or Eskimo-sounding female name in the author list as worthless.

UPDATE

Commenter Arbiter does the hard work debunking this feminist study that I wasn’t willing to do.

All right, let’s take apart the Telegraph article:

1. Journalist Sarah Knapton has talked to a Professor David Bainbridge. So you would expect some strong scientific research to back up his claim, right? No. “Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for.” You don’t even get to see the surveys. Nor do you get any mention of the fact that what people say in a survey doesn’t mean it’s true, especially not in a leftist climate that pressures them to ignore nature.

2. Bainbridge sets up a strawman to attack: it’s “large breasts and long legs” vs. intelligence. This is even in the title. He knocks large knockers by saying it’s not big breasts men want but symmetrical breasts, and he knocks long legs by saying it is straight legs men want, not long ones.

Ergo, men value intelligence instead of looks! Right? If you ignore the little fact that he just mentioned physical traits that men desire: symmetrical breasts and legs that are not crooked.

Far down in the article we also get this: “However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips..” So the “men really look for intelligence, not beauty” theme that the article starts with is nonsense, even by the writer’s own admission. But this comes far down in the story.

3. The real “proof” to grab people’s attention is George Clooney. The article begins with a picture of him and Lebanese wifey Amal Alamuddin. Sarah Knapton writes under the picture: “Despite dating a string of attractive women George Clooney settled down with human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin”. They are mentioned again farther down in the article, and Alamuddin’s picture appears again.

No longer do you need to study thousands of people, you only need to look at one person’s choice. If you are the science editor at The Telegraph.

But not even this one example proves anything: Alamuddin doesn’t look bad for her age. She also no doubt shares Clooney’s socialist preferences, and his anti-White ideology served well by marrying a non-White. So looks, check, and compatible personalities, check. Furthermore, that she is a “human rights barrister” doesn’t mean she would be brimming with intelligence for Clooney to lust for. Probably she just has enough intelligence to be close to him on the scale.

Alamuddin is one of the worst exhibits the feminists could use to buttress their “men love SMRT women!” psychological projection. She’s hotter than 90% of women her age. And, lest the fact escape anyone, she’s also 17? years younger than Clooney.

An Homage To One Of Film’s Most Iconic Alpha Male Jerkboys

Reader Chris from Dublin pens a stirring love letter to one of 20th Century filmdom’s most iconic (and loveable) alpha male jerkboys, and in the penning touches upon the abiding Heartistian sexual market truths that infuse the movie The Breakfast Club.

It was really only a matter of time before the Chateau would focus on John Bender of ‘The Breakfast Club’.

John Bender , brilliantly played by Judd Nelson (who was 26 at the time of shooting), easily ranks alongside Marlon Brando in ‘The Wild One’ and James Dean in ‘Rebel Without A Cause’ as one of the great cinema badboys, arguably the best of all because of his gritty suburban realism. It is deplorable that Nelson was not at least nominated for an Oscar for his performance and if he does no other work of note, ‘The Breakfast Club’ remains an outstanding achievement of his.

‘The Breakfast Club’ is John Hughes’s best film with a completeness that his other great work, ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off’, slightly lacks. What both films share is an enigmatic and deeply charismatic central character around whom the rest of the film orbits. ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off’ lacks the ensemble quality of script or performance of ‘The Breakfast Club’ and is also more of a straightforward fantasy (with it being generally accepted that Ferris Bueller is Cameron’s alter-ego, the man who the trapped and frustrated Cameron wants to be). Ferris Bueller is a far less likeable character than John Bender and, although no high-school bowsie like Bender would, in real life, possess the wit and articulacy that Nelson’s character has, this is no shortcoming of the film – it is, as the Chateau points out, a fantasy.

John Bender has an advantage over the characters played by Brando and Dean because, if for no other reason, ‘The Breakfast Club’ has a higher production standard than those films of the 1950’s and, as such, it is easier to watch. By the time John Hughes came around to the height of his career a more liberal attitude and practice had entered mainstream cinema allowing ‘The Breakfast Club’ to use explicit language and themes which would not have been considered in the 1950’s.

In terms of finding alpha moments, ‘The Breakfast Club’ has probably one of the richest repositories of such of any mainstream film. Bender spends nearly all of the film pissing off Princess Claire (Molly Ringwald) but the sexual tension between them grows incrementally and it becomes more and more obvious that Bender has seriously burrowed into her psyche – hear those tingles chime. When Brian interrupts their sexy ‘Moliere’ moment, Bender flings a damaged book at him in rage, but the sexual frisson is unmistakable.

As interesting is the vicious rivalry between Bender and Andrew Clarke (played by Emilio Estevez), the straight and serious beta jock who initially hits on Claire but gets politely declined.

Here’s why ‘The Breakfast Club’ is such a hit – it depicts the three levels of existence:-

Alpha: Bender and Claire
Beta: Andrew / Sporto and Alison / Emo (and they end up getting it on together by the end. Classic beta – Andrew doesn’t get alpha girl and has to settle).
Omega: Brian (who ends up getting nobody).

In that regard it is wrong to describe Brian as the beta nice-guy – Brian is the omega, while Andrew is the beta. Brian knows that he has no chance with an alpha female like Claire and can only fantasise, as Bender exposes him for doing, to his even greater shame. Andrew is not a nice-guy as such but he is a beta insofar as he is committed to conforming and playing within the system. Also his particular type of beta-dom manifests as butt-hurt and bitter rather than ‘nice-guy’. Remember that Brian ended up in detention for having a gun in his locker because he wanted to commit suicide. Andrew ended up in detention because he attacked a weaker boy in the locker room, very likely a subconscious manifestation of his frustration at having been pushed into an athletic lifestyle, to get a scholarship, that he did not want. Indeed, Bender makes a laugh of this scholarship nonsense during the film when he arses around in the gym and is taunting the deputy principal. This is another instance of Bender’s alpha-dom – he has taken a hit for the group by distracting the deputy principal (a great performance from Paul Gleason) while he lays on cannabis for the rest of the group (and see how that would go down in today’s America … !) As an alpha, the young prince is bestowing his weed upon the minions.

This film was released in 1985 and I remember that it made a huge impression upon us over here in Ireland – we were amazed to see how short Judd Nelson really is in real life (the photography had hidden this very well). At the time I was twelve, attending a bourgeois Roman catholic all-boys’ secondary school in Dublin, and Bender was like something from the space age, the man we all wanted to be, or to have like us. In hindsight our school was a deeply damaging environment of papist omega-dom and, in particular, our form teacher was a disgusting omega worm – unmarried, he spent his whole life in the school, engaged in the various ‘activities’ that seem to obsess such places and he boasted of how he had devoted himself to the “welfare of the boys” (* crickets *). I hated him from the start and it is interesting to recall that the other John Bender types at school felt the same way, and wanted nothing to do with him. That school was no proper environment for any impressionable teenage boy and it is significant that I felt the same way then as I do now, in my forties. As a place where adolescents could be moulded to cope with the realities of life it was hopeless and was no example for any boy.

Ultimately John Bender will always be a fantasy character, as the Chateau freely admits, but his defiance remains as inspirational and relevant today as ever before, leaving ‘The Breakfast Club’ as one of the greatest teen movies of all time.

Although the term beta gets tossed around here a bit cavalierly (as a matter of convenience and artistic license), in reality most beta males will wind up with a girl in their lives. The problem is that it will rarely be their first choice. (Omega males are the men who can spend years tormented by their incel.)

Game, or learned charisma, offers beta males the tools to increase their dating market purchasing power and thus to decrease the odds they will have to settle, or to settle very far down the female ladder. Charisma can help all men, but I believe the biggest benefactors are betas, due in part to their lower initial obstacles and to the law of diminishing returns (that latter being the reason why natural alphas are often given to scoffing at game).

In TBC, Bender was an alpha male… he got the hot girl that other guys wanted. Bender was also a specific class of alpha: The lone wolf, rule-breaking, leader of women alpha male who, I understand, would be called a Sigma Male by Vox Day.

In every respect, Bender was that cynical, aloof jerkboy chicks have a habit of falling hard for. He may not have been the most noble, or admirable, or competent man — he may even have had his personal moral and character failings that would disqualify him from leading men — but no one ever claimed that the alpha male was necessarily a paragon of virtue, nor that women would never choose men of Bender’s unruly temperament and poor character over better men. If we were to judge women’s characters by the men for whom they freely divulge their sex, I’d say the ledger of self-abasement is represented equally by the sexes.

Off-topic, Chris adds,

***** OTHER NEWS:-

Social meltdown has hit Ireland. There is a level of social unrest across middle Ireland, across the type of people who would never cause trouble in their wildest dreams, that is unprecedented. There is a particular type of person who, when they become angry, release all hell. It’s not entering the mainstream media of the UK or North America, because the powers that be are too scared. When Ireland explodes it will take the rest of the world with it – it’s begun.

Look up “Irish Water” and “Irish Water protests”.

Bring the flames …

Any Irish CH readers know something about this? What a teaser…

Comment Of The Week: Harassment’s Just Another Word For Gelding

COTW winner is “anonymous”, reminding the studio audience ’tis nobler to suffer the fists and kicks of outraged white knights, than to sit trapped in a sea of man-hating humiliation sessions:

Sexual Harassment Prevention used to consist of the girls brother kicking your ass. Between that or a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation – Ill take the ass kicking

I dream one day the world’s HR broads have to sit through a 45 minute powerpoint presentation on false rape accusations. Their squirming would be, in a word, delicious!

***

shartiste is our COTW runner-up,

Its nice how “don’t marry the bad boys” is framed as the girl’s choice. They’re “bad boys” because they won’t marry you.

Right-o. Sheryl Sandberg is blowing smoke up everyone’s skirt. Women pursuing the “apha fux beta bux” strategy don’t refuse to marry the badboys; the badboys refuse to marry the women. Even arid studies confirm this observed reality.

***

Arbiter wins the CH consolation COTW (keep trying, commentbrah!):

This is what the puritan tradcons don’t understand, with their constant “Game is putting women on a pedestal”, “Game is meaningless sex and adultery”, “Game is faking and lying”. No. Game is about making it possible for a man to choose, instead of waiting to be chosen.

Pithy. Even if a man isn’t choosing his dating market options 100% of the time, a small improvement in the amount of control he has over who he dates can mean the difference between settling in legally-bound misery with a fat cow or cohabitating with a cutie outside the reach of the law. In the sexual market, the slimmest margins matter.

The Atlantic Accepts The Heartiste Theory Of Jerkboy Charisma

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.)

Summertime Gine

Reader Waffles tastes the rainbow,

In honor of great scenes of game in the movies I have to give a special shout out to the official start of the summer of game, Memorial Day Weekend. Summer offers the promise of endless possibilities and is a game reset button. I am sure many in the Chateau can speak to the experience of arguably the most exciting arena of game, the coed summer shore house. In the car with the windows down, music up, that giddy flash of anxiety that hits the moment you smell the salty air, it’s too late now. Here it comes.

Evocative. Who didn’t get a tingle up their legs reading this and envisioning that romantic rush of summersun fun?

I offer a game tip, Waffles. When you meet a girl at the shore this weekend, and you will, at an opportune moment tell her this story exactly as you wrote it here. Not necessarily with her as the subject of your story; instead, told as a bodywide feeling that carries you aloft. Then sit back and slip your sunglasses on, because her sparkling eyes will blind you like the glittering midday surf. If your car is a convertible, bonus storytelling points.

Great Scenes Of Game In The Movies: Bender Gender

Possibly the most iconic charismatic alpha male jerkboy in pre-post-America movie history is the character “Bender”, played by Judd Nelson in the (all-white) cult classic The Breakfast Club.

On that topic, a reader writes,

I’ve watched this movie twice this month. You really have to appreciate Bender’s alphatude.

I think it would be fun to hear your take on him. To my surprise I’ve searched around the Manosphere and found zilch. You would think he would be the poster (man) for the Manosphere, at least Alpha of the Month!

Could it be that CH overlooked Bender as Exhibit Asshole of the jerk with the alpha attitude that is diggeth by yon maidens? I searched the archives and, scandaleux!, an ode to Bender is nowhere found. Pry your eyes, time to rectify.

Bender is the classic übercool, sarcastic, brooding, lone wolf neg machine who supercharges the sex fantasies of girls from good backgrounds. He has so many great scenes of game in TBC that it’s hard to pick a favorite, but this one — a quickie in a closet where Bender responds to Claire’s pregnant ASD inquiry about his feelings towards her earlier trick of putting lipstick on herself using only her cleavage — is (IMfactualO) the perfect distillation of charismatic jerkboy game in as few words as humanly possible.

Claire: Were you really disgusted about what I did with my lipstick?

Watch out! This is a scrumptious niblet of beta bait that Clarie tosses overboard to see if Bender goes all goopy on her. Most betas would promptly qualify themselves, along the lines of “no i was just kidding with you. how could i be disgusted by anything you do?”

Bender: Truth?

Bender knows what to do with beta bait. Tug on the line, get the girl excited that maybe you’ve bitten down on the hook, but attach an old shoe instead and watch her face light up when she reels it back onto the boat, happy that her feminine wile was so expertly subdued.

Claire: Truth.

Bender: *nodding as if saying ‘yes’* No. *follows up with award-winning smirk*

Unpredictability and playfulness are the alpha player’s coin of the womb. She expected a straight answer, he responded with a flirtatious contradiction in verbal and physical acknowledgment. In other words, he broke the courtship rules. And she loves him for doing that.

Bender’s alpha attitude is a fusion reactor of gina tingles. His kind is so rare and so in-demand by women that he’s practically his own gender, a subspecies of betamale flaccidus. Why aren’t there more of him, then? Maybe his subspecies is reproductively self-correcting, flourishing only when his numbers in the broader population are low.

The CH series, Great Scenes of Game in the Movies (GSGM), is a useful learning tool for men seeking to become the charming player who sets female hearts fluttering. Movies are fantasy, but fantasy reflects real life desire, otherwise no one would be interested in watching. Art must contain a kernel of truth to have any true effect on viewers.

Browse the archived GSGM entries
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
and the one that started it all, here.

PS a girly commenter (swkstudent) to the above Youtube video snippet, shocked and dismayed by what she saw, felt an incredible urge to volunteer this ego-fluffing platitude:

no she likes him because she knows deep down he’s not an asshole and he was honest with her

It still amazes me the lengths to which delicate flowers will go to avoid the bleeding obvious when the bleeding obvious isn’t kind to their comatose belief systems.

swkstudent, you can’t later rationalize your love for a jerk by insisting that deep down he’s not an asshole unless you first know he’s an asshole. Otherwise, Brian, the niceguy in TBC who’s clearly not an asshole and who’s honest with everyone, would be sailing the seas of Claire’s beaver brine. And yet he’s not. Fancy that.