Study: Makeup Doesn’t Do Much

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.

How The Urban Man Can Be More Masculine

Reader Corsair astutely notes that the “outdoors work” options for urban men are severely limited, and this means urban men have fewer avenues for displaying that crucial masculinity which is universally attractive to normal, healthy women.

Re: Heartiste’s comment about swinging a splitter vs. cleaning a shitter –

An interesting implication of the correlations described in this study is the impact of opportunities for men to engage in masculine displays. I have observed that in crowded cities like L.A. and NYC (to name just two of many), where land is scarce, where rent is high, and where a good proportion of married couples with or without kids live cheek-to-jowl in high-density neighborhoods of apartment buildings, the daily living situation for men does not lend itself to running the man script.

If you’re living in a city, you’re very likely not hunting game animals for food or sport. If you’re living in an apartment, you’re likely not using power tools for repairs and maintenance, because the building management takes care of that for you (if you let them). Also if living in an apartment, good luck doing any serious woodworking or automotive work (yes, it can be done, but it’s a pain in the ass – personal experience here). If you have no lawn to mow, no garden to plow (heh), no lumber to split, no horses to shoe, no deer to dress, your opportunities for showing your masculine side are constrained.

In this sense, cities, and especially apartment buildings, are de-masculinizing, while country living is masculinizing. I have experienced both. I have often wondered, given this distribution of MDO (masculine display opportunity) along the city-country spectrum, whether a reproductive regulatory mechanism arises as a result. I.e., country-living men get more sex, have more children as a result. Here where I find myself these days, any such reproductive regulatory effect is overwhelmed by the competing forces of over-education and religion: Less-religious (as a whole), mostly White Master’s Degrees holders have 0-2 kids, while more religious, mostly-Hispanic high school/G.E.D. types have 4-5 kids. But I’d bet that if you control for race and religiosity, you’d see greater fecundity in areas of the country where a man has room to swing a splitter. As those areas tend to be more red-state leaning, that may give some hope to those of us who’d like to see the constituency of the Hivemind wither and die off over time.

What does this mean for the sex-desiring man who finds himself living in a crowded apartment building? Obviously learning how to spit some Game will help, but I’d suggest buttressing your cool stories and Cube routines with some Man Stuff. BE SEEN doing the following: Drive a truck with an in-bed toolbox. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity and use a circular saw and hammer. Get a motorcycle and learn to take apart and rebuild the engine, then do this on the front sidewalk of your apartment building. Or park your truck on the street and do maintenance work on it at the hour when the career girls are getting home from their HR jobs (or near a coffee shop or popular brunch spot on weekends). Buy a rifle, learn how strip it down and clean it (be seen doing this your wife or girlfriend –> hotter sex, more often) (hat tip to … maybe SouthernMan ? Read that particular tip here at CH several years ago). Learn how to quarter a whole chicken and barbecue it; makes a great cheap date at your place or hers. If she doesn’t faint at the sight of you ripping the backbone out of a chicken, TINGLES.

Some of this is a regurgitation of ol’ Zombie Shane’s “get thee to a Red state” talking points, but inverted – I say bring the Red state to where *you* are. It works for me; it can work for you to, especially if you’re surrounded by manboob libtards and fake tatooed Bros who don’t know a spark plug from a butt plug.

Bring the red state to the blue city. Great advice, Corsair.

Cities are inherently de-masculinizing. And never more so, because cities have become soft degree employment agencies for yuppie chicks in yoga pants, who now make more on average than their urban male counterparts. How does the crimson-pilled urban man regain some leverage in this emasculated dating ecology?

All of Corsair’s suggestions are good, and most are workable. (Some ideas, like truck ownership, are not feasible in many densely populated SWPL dandy districts. Motorcycles are a better choice.) Not only are all these masculine chores and hobbies appealing to women observing the man performing them, but the habits of this kind of work will create a feedback loop that will straighten a man’s spine, boost his T, harden his erection, puff his chest, engage his hunter instinct, and enlarge the aura of his confidence.

Tell me, men, for those of you push papers as well as fix cars, which activity makes you feel more manly? Rhetorical. About the closest approximation to traditional man-work that the office cubicle environment can offer by way of masculinity display is being at the top of a corporate hierarchy, bossing around underlings. Power is also inherently manly, and we see this via proxy by how lustfully women respond to powerful men.

Other ideas for fighting the estrogenic tug of city living:

– Rent a warehouse space in an “edgy” part of town and crank up your guitar amp. Lots of sexually loose hipster girls live in these inexpensive areas, and they will melt for a shredder.

– Get a dog. A big dog. You know how fear and gina tingles complement each other so well.

– You don’t have a phone, you have a hunting knife. Strap it to your belt. (Consult local ordinances first.)

– Store a few photos on your phone of you knee-deep in deer guts and camo gear. (Ok, you still have a phone.)

– You want curious stares from smartly coiffed robowomen? Take a day to stroll around the gentrified boutiques in heavy work boots and dirty jeans caked with earth.

– Wifebeaters are your best bud. Don’t wear them ironically. Masculine men aren’t ironic, they’re sincere.

– Stop being a pudgeball, hit the iron. Sorry fatsos, but squeezable manboobs have become the signature asexuality cue of the beaten-down white collar white beta male. Good news! There’s a ripped mammoth hunter hiding underneath your Charmin bod; he’ll wake up quick once you give him a little air to breathe.

– Communal (communist) gardens are all the rage in SWPLvilles. I think this fad is driven partly by soft liberal men who feel a twinge of shame for their rootless (heh) effeminacy, and getting their hands into soil helps them feel less like a eunuch. But, communal gardens are also lesbian havens, and plots are tiny. If you have a square foot of private land, grow something cool for yourself, like giant squash.

– It’s the ne plus ultra of granola liberalism, but using your apartment building’s roof to raise small farm animals is panty-wetting if you aren’t doing it to “save the earth”. You just like raising your own meat and eggs. Crack the chicken’s neck in front of a girl, for an additional two hours of mind-blowing orgasms later.

– Become a handyman. You don’t need to know much; a little knowledge in the parched wasteland of useless SWPLs crying like babies when a light bulb goes out will reap amazing side benefits. As your reputation circles the condo halls, watch in amazement when cute neighbor girls are constantly stopping by for a helping hand.

– Don’t parrot urban leftoid boilerplate that masks itself as polite conversation. You may as well punch yourself in the dick until it collapses into a vagina.

***

You don’t have to do much to leap over your competition. American blue cities are non-breeding conglomerates of the weakest, feeblest, most effeminate, doughboy whyte men you will see anywhere in the world. Even through their hipster doofus beards. If you can change your car’s oil, you’ll have demonstrated more manly moxie than 90% of the liberal SWPL men around you. If anything, you should be careful of overkill. Maybe save that splitter for weekends at the farm instead of carrying it over your shoulder to the cuffed skinny jean coffee shop. “You wanna split the check? Yeah, let’s split the check. WHACK!!”

Marital Egalitarianism Is Bad For Your Sex Life

From an American Sociological Review research paper, 💋SCIENTISTS💋 (as opposed to feminist “””scientists”””) discover that egalitarian marriages — ones where in practice husbands shoulder a significant amount of the household chores traditionally the province of wives — are arid, sexless wastelands.

This article began by noting that American marriages are more egalitarian today than they were in the past, but scholars have found it difficult to offer a clear interpretation of how egalitarianism has changed the nature of marriage itself. One broad interpretation of egalitarianism is that couples exchange resources across various domains. Moves toward more equality in one area, such as earnings, might thus induce more equal distributions in other areas, like housework, a suggestion that has certainly received extensive investigation. In this article, we asked whether men and women use housework and sex as resources for exchange, or whether other logics govern sexual frequency within marriage.

Following up on the widely publicized claim that by doing more housework, husbands in more egalitarian marriages got more sex, we sought to investigate the links between men’s participation in housework and sexual frequency using nationally representative data. Our findings suggest the importance of gender display for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage: couples where men participate more in core tasks—work typically done by women—report lower sexual frequency. Similarly, couples where men participate more in non-core, traditionally masculine tasks report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender-typed participation in household labor. Additionally, although our main results examined core and non-core labor separately, we note that regressions using the share of total housework (core and non-core combined) also show a negative and significant coefficient for men’s share of housework.

Game, set, match, Sheryl “Lying Shrike” Sandberg. Doing more women’s work in the home will NOT improve a husband’s sex life, as you feminist creeps assert. It will result in the opposite: A gradual weakening of the sexual polarity until a unisexual listlessness consumes the relationship in a quellfire of anhedonia.

Any male feminist who at this point still claims that chipping in with the housework will make his wife happier and their sex life hotter is just fooling himself. Or rationalizing his abject supplication to an overbearing shrew. Housework doesn’t lubricate vagina; acting a dominant man with dropped testes who’d rather swing a splitter than scrub a toilet is what turns on women.

These results—whether using both men’s and women’s reports in a pooled analysis, relying on opposite spouses for reports of our key variables, or relying on men’s or women’s results alone—show that households with a more gender-traditional division of labor report having more sex. The pattern of results suggests the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity.

Sex-traditional division of labor is sexy because, stop the presses, masculinity in men is attractive to women and femininity in women is attractive to men.

Many confounding variables were accounted for in the paper, including overall marital happiness, religion, and sex ideology. None of them mediated the housework-sex frequency interaction. Men who did more girly chores got less nookie; men who did less girly work and more manly outdoors work got more nookie. Women who did more girly work got more nookie; women who did more manly work did no see a change in their sex frequency.

(The bottleneck variable appears to be the type of work that men do. As long as the husband is the whip-hand, the wife will desire him, regardless how much non-core housework she does.)

The lack of interactions or mediation lends support, we argue, to the notion that the operating mechanism is one that links within-couple displays of masculinity and femininity to sexual scripts leading to sexual frequency. […]

Men or women may, in essence, be turned on (however indirectly) when partners in a marriage do more gender-traditional work. Of course, men and women could also be turned off by doing work that is not traditional for their gender.

Feminists and their down-filled male lackeys trying to convince people that women “leaning in” like men, and men “cleaning in” like women, will heat up the bedroom are fighting a losing battle. Because no matter how much propaganda the Hivemind Hatemachine churns out, there’s simply no substitute for the rude reality-based imperatives that harden dicks and slicken pussies.

At the very least, our results are difficult to reconcile with the idea that women trade sex to men for doing what is traditionally viewed as women’s work. Based on our findings, sex seems to lie outside the realm of conventional exchange.

Why do feminists argue against common sense? Why are feminists anti-pleasure? Why do feminists loathe male prerogative? One answer has to do with the intrinsic character of feminists. Most feminists like Sheryl Sandberg are masculinized women, in body and/or in psyche. This deformity of nature arouses their bitterness and motivates their desire to upend normal society to not just acknowledge, but exalt, their peculiar disposition. A psychologically manly broad like Sandberg is nothing like the majority of women, but that leetle inconvenience doesn’t stop her from trying to poison sex relations and rework society to assuage her low-E ego.

The importance of gender has declined over time, but it continues to exert a strong influence over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

Clarification: The importance of gender as a matter of legal redress has increased over time, but despite these immense social and legal pressures to obliterate any differences between the sexes the natural and evolved compulsions deriving from our gender continue to have the final say over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

***

Executive summary: As per usual, non-feminist science shits in feminist faces and slobbers kisses all over the Chateau Heartiste worldview. To preen, or not to preen… that is a silly question. *preen*

Study: Gay Marriage Is A Farce

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.

Comment Of The Week: American Dalit

COTW winner Mike writes,

Off topic, but I just finished watching Eastwood’s “American Sniper”. The fact that we live in a society which teaches our kids to idolize rappers and drug dealers, and yet I’d never even heard of this guy until today, depresses the shit out of me. It’s guys like THAT that we should be holding up to our kids as the ideal.

If anyone wants to know what a true Alpha looks like, that dude was it. From what I could see, his only flaw was that he was willing to go overseas and risk his life for a country that would have happily thrown him under the bus if he would have come back and said something to offend a fat, spoiled, worthless SJW feminist.

That kiss-off disclaimer at the end is the shiv that twists deepest. From what I know, Kyle was an honorable man… and that was his flaw. He was duty-bound to a corrupt elite and government that, not to mince words, hated his guts, and hates the guts of those like him.

One insurgent tactic to hit the enemy where it hurts is to turn the affections of the natural constituency of the US military — all those competent white men from the more vigorous remnants of the culture — against the idea that service to the traitors within is anything remotely honorable or brave. It is, quite the contrary, stupid. It’s very stupid to fight for effete pussyboys, grotesque feminists, and diversity quota ingrates sitting in cushy offices who work tirelessly day and night to put the heads of white men like Kyle on plates.

The Seductive Value Of Emotional Range

little 15
why does she have to defend
her feelings inside
why pretend
she’s not had a life
a life of near misses
now all that she wants
is three little wishes
she wants to see with your eyes
she wants to smile with your smile
she wants a nice surprise
every once in a while

Women have slicker emotional fluidity than men, but their highs aren’t as high nor their lows as low as the passions that men are capable of feeling. Few women will ever feel with the same intensity the exhilarating rush of power that a man feels when he is victorious in struggle. Few women will experience the lustful, insistent, romantic yearning that surges outward from every corpuscle of a young man’s being when the merest flicker of a pretty girl grazes his retina.

To rectify this sin-inducing passion deficit, the devil gave women, as substitution for intensity of emotion, frequency of emotion. Whereas a man can easily make it through a day without needing his emotional state roused to action, women slowly rot from the inside if their inner emotional joyride rusts unused for too long. Women are not built for stoicism; an imposed stoicism drives them mad, a self-imposed stoicism madder still.

When a woman isn’t receiving her recommended gaily allowance of emotional stimulation, she will try to “fill the tank” by seeking out a man who can make her feel alive or, if no man like that is available, by manufacturing drama in the hopes of dragging others across the event horizon into into her black hole of anxiety.

This sex differential in emotional consonance has a major implication for the sexual market. Women, in general the more passive sex, will be more attracted to men who are skilled at frothing a woman’s broad (but shallow) well of emotions and, from that foundation, creating an emotional connection. As the “receiving” sex, women will naturally gravitate to men who best represent the prerogative of the “injecting” sex. (Fainting dames are welcome to describe men as the “infusing sex”.)

Like all things romance, there are inherent and unresolvable contradictions in the system which a wise player abides. Yes, women are drawn to “the oak”, the man who can keep his cool when her’s is heating up, who lets her frolic under his protective branches. But all stoicism all the time makes Jack a dull boy. Women also want to feel what a man feels, because women know, instinctively, that men boil with an active volcano of white hot passion women can only dream of feeling for themselves. So women, as the sex with the greater need for constant emotional stimulation, will work hard to coax that passion out of men, and when it comes to soak it up like the rays of the sun.

Unfortunately, this is the subroutine of courtship which fails too many men. I’ve seen it happen to older men and to socially maladjusted nerds, the two largest groups with a propensity to stifle their expressiveness, or an incapacity to summon it in the proper dosage. The older Lothario, through a combination of his own negligence and a fatefully slow passion contraction, will lean on manly stoicism less as a seduction tactic than as a necessity to compensate for gimped emotional range.

The spergy nerd has a different problem. His emotional range is bifurcated. Most of the time he’s a monotonic drone, but sufficiently pressured by social contingencies will explode in a cluster bomb of random emotional shrapnel, thereby codifying the social ostracism that always stalks him.

Older men and nerds aren’t the only kinds of men with a constricted emotional range. For example, men suffering from PTSD can lose the ability to feel emotion, or to signal emotion to others. To a normal woman, a man incapable of the occasional burst of passionate feeling must seem an alien to her female mind. Intriguing to her for a while, yes, but absent some human dimension her intrigue will soon enough wither to revulsion.

A lack of emotional range is a serious handicap in the mating trenches for men who don’t have palpable or tacitly acknowledged social power to leverage in exchange for pussy. If this describes you, it’s time to learn how to express yourself. But not haphazardly. There’s still a stern science to this sloppy art.

Here are a few pointers for improving your emotional range:

– Learn to be more facially expressive. Raised eyebrows, comically widened or narrowed eyes, winks, hyperbolic brow furrows, etc. You don’t have to be Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura, but you do want to be more than a blank sheet of flesh with eating and breathing inputs.

– Use your full body. Accentuate your words with hand gestures. Backturn when she misbehaves. Become skilled in the art of slithering close to a woman. Play the “stop repeating me game”, except wordlessly, with your body mimicking hers. It goes without saying that you don’t want to be a spaz. Control of your body mechanics to whatever purpose you put your physicality is key. Be bodily loose, but also be capable of shutting it down at a moment’s reflection. Girls like to know a man is both excitable and self-calming.

– Use a fuller vocal range. Vocal variability is attractive to women.

– Try to “shock” a woman into attraction by polarizing her. There will be more on this in a future post. (Yes, it is possible to trigger attraction in a disinterested female stranger with nothing more than your body language and your words. This is one of the great advantages of being a man.)

– If you have the time and inclination, take an acting or improv class.

– Get well-acquainted with the classic game concepts of push-pull, hot-cold-hot-cold. Bring her up, bring her down, Take her high, take her low. Tell her a happy story about cute puppies, then tell her a sad story about dead cats. Be sexual with her, then be cold. Appease her, then befuddle her. Emotional range doesn’t mean going to one extreme and staying there; it means exploiting the whole spectrum of emotions.

– Storytelling succeeds in the details. Your stories don’t need a plot or a point if they are told with loving details that light up her imagination. In practice, this means more references to the senses: textures, colors, aromas, etc.

– Sing. In the middle of a pickup, I might just sing aloud a thought or two, Is it ridiculous? Yes. Does it entrance women? Yes.

– If you feel happy, or sad, or angered during the time you’re talking with a girl, express those emotions a degree more fiercely than you would in an office setting.

– To nerds: Your best option for self-improvement will be observing men who are good at emotional expression in the field. You have an elevated power of observation, so put it to use. There will be fits and starts, but after a few flame-outs with women you’ll get the hang of it.

– To weary, cynical men: Biomechanical feedback loops are a real thing. Time and/or experience may have robbed you of your expressiveness, but you can, to borrow a nerd expression, reinstall the OS by forcing a reboot. Making pointed efforts to expand your emotional range and expressiveness will invigorate any natural and instinctive habits of the emotional centers of your mind which have atrophied over time. “Fake it till you intake it” works.

– Finally, a cheap and easy method to project emotional range is sarcasm. Sarcastic remarks tend to recruit facial and bodily cooperation for some reason. Just don’t overdo it. Too much sarcasm will incriminate you as the kind of soul-seared man with massive ego-protecting shields. A girl has to feel like she’s cracking through your shell to the “real you”, and sarcasm works against that progression.

BPD Women

A favored hatemachine lever recently latched onto by an assortment of bitterboys and ignoramuses is the assertion that the world is full of women with borderline personality disorder, and these BPD women are the ones that “PUAs” are bedding, (due to some confluence of psychological factors intrinsic to BPD).

It’s time for perspective. And truthfulness.

2% of the general population have BPD symptoms. 75% of that 2% are women.

This female BPD rate is about on par with the percentage of lesbian homosexuals in the population. Perhaps even lower.

So the “EASY BPD TARGETS” smear by inchoate anti-charisma haters is bullshit. The odds that only BPD women, and never psychologically sound women, consensually share the romantic company of free-lovin’ jerkboy charmers are very very low. The odds that jerkboy charmers are equally adept at charming the panties off psychologically sound women are much higher.

And this fact really sticks in the craw of a certain sect of mythologizers.