Study: Women Prefer Men Of Few Words

💋Science💋 has once again dropped to its knees and slobbered the knob of CH, vindicating the Heartistian observation that women love laconic men.

For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. […]

When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine.

Terse charm > loquacious charm > charmlessness. Gabby men are simply not very attractive to women. Men who keep their cards close and don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves are sexier to women. Men whose jokes are powerfully succinct rather than tiresomely pedantic are considered socially savvier. Brevity is the soul of wit and, apparently, the stroke of clits.

There are times when following the exception to this rule will be personally beneficial, but you should strive to express yourself more laconically, more pithily, as you work to craft your new sexy identity.

They found that people are naturally drawn to friends and colleagues with voices that sound familiar.

People prefer those who have a similar accent, intonation and tone of voice to themselves, for example.

Theoretically, group selection shouldn’t exist, but in practice there’s a lot of evidence for some sort of in-group favoritism motivating human interaction.

Fat Chick Drops Load Of Blubber On Louis CK, Fatty Apologists Mysteriously Rejoice

E’rebody not in da club getting tipsy over this blubbery fat chick scene from a recent Louis CK episode.

For reasons that cannot be explained by the established laws of logic, a great hue and squeal from the ungulate freak parade has arisen to rejoice over this scene as a breakthrough for Realtalk™ about the lives of fat chicks.

“As brilliant as the speech is, and as brilliant as Baker’s performance is, what makes this work is Louie’s willingness to just stand there and take it,” Forbes contributor Allen St. John writes. “He makes a few lame gestures in self-defense, but even if Vanessa largely refuses to judge him, we don’t. Louie is a jerk.”

Baker told EW she thought the scene “was so beautifully written.”

“My interpretation of it was that she’s (telling Louie), ‘You saying, “You’re not fat,” is like saying, ‘The worst thing a woman can be is fat, so I’m not gonna call you that,’ ” Baker said. “Whereas she’s kinda like, ‘Yeah, I’m fat. You know, I’m nice, I’m funny, I’m cute — so who cares?’ “

Writing for the A.V. Club, Libby Hill applauded Louis C.K. for starting the conversation.

“No matter how sad it may be that the only way many will start to understand this maligned populace is if a white guy explains it to them, the fact remains that through the platform of his critically acclaimed show, Louis C.K. has given voice to the fat girl,” she writes.

Funny, all I saw was a fat girl bitch about how tough it is for her to date and have happy relationships. This is news to anyone? No, of course it isn’t. The keepers of GoodSpeak want this scene to stand in for a “national discussion” about yet another loser cohort of society so that they can mold the direction the ensuing “discussion” takes. And you can bet the direction the Hivemind keepers want to take it is toward more and more proselytizing about how wonderful it is to be a fat girl (fat men get a media pass from this supposed wonderfulness) and how easily fat girls can get men when they aren’t demanding that men stop ignoring them and love them for their inner beauty.

Frustratingly for the Hivemind, Chateau Heartiste exists to jam sand in their sophistic gears. For example, here’s the true message of the Louis CK fat girl screed with all the tears and passive-aggressiveness and barely concealed entitlement stripped from her big-boned frame.

FATTY: Why do you hate us so much?

That’s not hate, Ms Wideload, that’s disgust. Fat chicks are like wet dog shit. You don’t hate the dog shit, you just don’t want to step in it.

Now if the dog shit starts making a nuisance of itself, say, by getting in your face and demanding you accept its under-appreciated beauty, or by organizing dog shit advocacy groups to change culture and law to better accommodate the feelings of dog shit, and to persuade others to become more like dog shit, then one may feel actual hate toward the dog shit.

FATTY: What is it about the basics of human happiness, feeling attractive, feeling loved, having guys chase after us, that’s just not in the cards for us?

To ask is to answer. Romantic attraction is biological, which is ultimately genetic, which means it is unalterable by weepy protests to the contrary or by reeducation camps masquerading as sitcoms. Most men are as repulsed by fat women as most women are repulsed by weak men.

FATTY: How is that fair?

Fairness has got nothin’ to do with it.

FATTY: And why am I supposed to just accept it?

Because you don’t yet have the legal recourse to force men to bed with porkers.

FATTY: You know what’s funny? I flirt with guys, all the time.

The uglier the woman, the more actively she has to communicate her sexual receptivity.

FATTY: And I mean, the great looking ones, like the really high caliber studs, they flirt right back, no problem.

They know they have a better shot with your hot skinny friend if they’re magnanimous with you.

FATTY: But guys like you never flirt with me, because you get scared, like maybe you should be with a girl like me.

More like, they’re worried that flattering a fat chick will give her the wrong idea.

FATTY: You know, if you were standing over there, looking at us, you know what you’d see? That we totally match.

Fat chick projection. Physically a fat man and fat girl match, but men’s SMV is more than the sum of their fat deposits.

FATTY: Have you ever wooed a fat girl?

I’ve mooed a fat girl.

FATTY: Go ahead, hold my hand. What do you think’s gonna happen? Do you think your dick’s gonna fall off?

No, it’s much worse than that for the fat girl. His dick won’t do anything.

FATTY: You know what’s sad? That’s all I want.

Lack of options = low standards.

Some mush-headed liberals, though, are unhappy with the message.

But not everyone is a fan. Writer Dan Weiss explored the episode for The Concourse, noting that “there’s zero representation for actual FAs (‘fat admirers,’ which is admittedly a voyeuristic term; I prefer the classic ‘chubby chaser’) on TV.”

I prefer the term fatty fucker. And if the wailing of fat chicks is any indication, there aren’t nearly enough desirable fatty fuckers to feast at the porcine troughs of America’s fatties.

In this putatively “groundbreaking” Louis CK scene that has the Jezebel hags dizzy with the possibility of careening down a fresh semantic path that defies the mirror, Louis is no more a jerk than is any woman who turns down a man for insufficiently meeting her attractiveness criteria. But since the lamentable is a fat chick instead of an awkward beta male it’s socially acceptable to sympathize with her loser pain and revile the man who presumptuously clings to his outmoded sexual preference.

Conflict, and unfairness, are intrinsic to the sexual market. Attraction is innate and impervious to cultural campaigns to alter its algorithm. If fat chicks resent that, there is a solution…

Push away from the table.

Amish Facebook

Commenter “The Burninator” muses about what an Amish Facebook page would look like.

I can’t imagine an Amish girl’s FB page.

Her:

“Today I churned butter with mama.”

Like 1

Amish father:

“Get back to work, girl!”

Like 124

😆

You have to hand it to the Amish. They have the preternatural ability to avoid corruption by the pozzed American dysculture while living in the belly of the beast. Part of the reason is the “boiling off” selection effect that results from their rite of passage known as Rumspringa, which assures that the Amish left in the community evolve the personality traits to successfully deter outside influence.

Another reason has to be hard work. Toiling in the fields or the farmhouse tires a body and mind so thoroughly that social media distractions become less tempting. The Amish are preoccupied with survival and community. The non-Amish are preoccupied with white privilege and gay weddings.

The Misery Of The Househusband

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”

 

Appeasement Is No Way To Win Wars Or Women

Maxim #54: A woman’s happiness is inversely proportional to efforts to accommodate her demands.

Corollary to Maxim #54: The more a woman’s demands are catered, the more irrational will her future demands become.

Appeasement is relationship death. Appeasement is the damping oscillation that brings a woman’s tingle to rest. There is hardly a self-defeating behavior a man can exhibit more hazardous to his love life than appeasement of his woman’s fickle and endlessly reconsidered stipulations. Once you go down the road of appeasement, the cliff side is an inevitability.

Given this reality of female nature, the riddle is why so many men resort to appeasement when the heat is on?

Part of the reason for the reflexive beta male embrace of the appeasement strategy is that it does work… occasionally, and only temporarily. Betas are so scared — picture a shivering, frightened little bunny as symbol of their state of minds — to provoke their women’s ire that appeasement becomes not only the emotionally satisfying recourse, but also the logically rationalized one based on retrieved pleasant memories of those few times it worked when nothing else works for them.

Barring competing effective strategies to pacify a pissy wife or girlfriend, an appeasement gambit only has to “work”, say, one out of ten times for it to become the go-to prostration for befuddled beta males. And remember that in the beta male’s worldview, a working romantic strategy is one that doesn’t end with his lover leaving him. The bar for healthy LTR management is set very low in the beta universe.

(For comparison, the typical alpha male standard of satisfying relationship health is the continuance of morning surprise hummers.)

A beta husband may be able to briefly calm his wife down by appeasing her, but the escape he narrowly engineers is just a trap door to a pit of lifelong termagant torment. That’s the poison appeasement pill he swallows: Quick relief, followed by progressive system failure. Tragically (and comically), he knows no other way.

Commenter ‘having a bad day’ serves up his own hard lesson in the futility of appeasing women:

my wife was like that too. pick a fight for no reason, not getting enough attention, blah blah blah…it almost ruined me and my ‘happy home.’

but wife’s behavior was based on the ‘best friend’ model of marriage that was indoctrinated into my impressionable young mind throughout my life…

who knew that women didn’t really know what they really want…? (that’s the real ‘crazy’…)

i had bought into the feminine imperative and was trying to ‘have it all’…best friend, lover, confidant, etc…and she hated it!

she was a follower, because all women are followers if they are happy. (just like the ‘teachings’ around here state.) it really is true…if they are happy, they are following someone they can look up to, admire, respect, feel safe and protected by, blah blah blah…if not, not happy…

the ‘crazy’ comes out when she doesn’t have that in a way that is unmistakable. she’ll put pressure on the relationship (shit test) to check for leaks…no leaks = anything you want…with a big shit eating grin at being able to please her ‘leader’

the ‘big crazy’ comes out the same way you train a guard dog…you push it a little, it ‘fights’, you let it ‘win’…you push a little harder, it reacts, you let it win…soon enough you can break a baseball bat over its head and it’ll still rip your arm off…same with women…and the younger, more fertile (hotter) the woman, the faster the escalation goes…so she can ‘win’ at uncovering the ‘beta’ (so no sex) or ‘alpha’ (so anything you want, just use me and not that other chick over there…)…because her body knows that her time is short, and it wants those better genes…

my marriage was shot because of the ‘friendship model’, but i got some game and turned it around, thanks to this place and the related ‘outposts’ and for that i am truly thankful…

my wife is ecstatically happy, deferent, doesn’t pick fights, apologizes for being crabby or in a bad mood, goes out of her way to offer support, etc. in other words, she has become much more feminine…

she does NOT want to go back to the ‘best friends’ model of marriage. Just today, i was doing something and happened to slip back into a beta response to something, and she got kind of panicky, and told me ‘you know, i don’t want you to beat me, but you need to sack up, and make a decision.’ (direct quote…) she did not want me to be her ‘oh, i don’t know, what do you think?…’ ‘best friend’…and yes, there was a little bit of panic in her eyes…but only a little, and then it went away when i told her what i wanted…so she could work on being a good follower…

better follower = happier woman…

Why do women come to resent their appeasement in time? The male mind formulates, “She’s getting what she wants, why isn’t she happy?” The problem is projection: The male mind draws a direct connection between wants and demands. Accounting for a few Machiavellian exceptions, when a man makes a (rare) relationship demand, you know that’s what he wants. And so men project their mental experience onto women. But what most men (and most men are betas by definition who lack a sufficient learning curve in the hearts and beds of women) don’t comprehend is that women have a disconnect between their demands and their wants. When a woman makes a demand within the context of a relationship, it’s a reflection of her want, not the want itself. Her demands are better understood as either child-like gropings toward self-expression of confusing and troubling emotions, or subconscious gom jabbars (tests of mind) that aid her in her hypergamous (yes) quest to obtain the best man her looks and femininity can afford her.

Seen in this way, appeasement is a strategy that misses the mark entirely or, worse, fuels resentment because it is evidence of failure to live up to a woman’s ideal lover and protector. And it makes sense if you put yourself in women’s stilettos; appeasement is the biopolitical strategy of the weak, and what woman wants to be with a weak man? Weak men are inherently untrustworthy. You can’t know with the requisite certainty that a weak man will have your back when threats emerge. Grrlpower glorification notwithstanding to the contrary, women are slaves to their hatred for weak men, and a manjaw or six figure salary won’t change that innate female revulsion for pliant men. This visceral revulsion is so strong that even the obvious benefits of a reliable and generous provider can’t fully extinguish a woman’s bodily disgust at the thought of receiving his seed.

“Women with the really good, stable guy felt more distant at high-fertility periods than low-fertility periods,” Haselton said. “That isn’t the case with women who were mated to particularly sexually attractive men. The closeness of their relationships got a boost just prior to ovulation.”

To ensure that the findings were not an anomaly, Haselton and Larson repeated the experiment with 67 other co-eds in long-term relationships. This time, however, the researchers administered a better-recognized measure for relationship satisfaction than the one they originally used. They also administered a questionnaire aimed at illuminating a dimension not studied in the first round: pickiness. The questionnaire asked the women to rate how characteristic such faults as being moody, childish, emotional, thoughtless and critical were of their mate.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility.

The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.

“Since our female ancestors couldn’t directly examine a potential partner’s genetic makeup, they had to base their decisions on physical manifestations of the presence of good genes and the absence of genetic mutations, which might include masculine features such as a deep voice, masculine face, dominant behavior and sexy looks,” said Haselton, who is affiliated with UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

Men can’t (pragmatically) change their Hollywood looks, but they can change their behavior to conform more with dominant behavior that is typically associated with irresistible alpha males. A big first step that doesn’t require huge amounts of willpower is simply avoiding the temptation to appease women.

They also plan to look into how, if at all, the [aggrieved female] behavior is perceived by the male partners of these women.

“We don’t know if men are picking up on this behavior, but if they are, it must be confusing for them,” Larson said.

You bet it’s confusing for them, if by “them” you mean beta and omega males with limited experience navigating the shoals of women’s ids. Men who have bedded more than two or three women know the score, and the female behavior that’s confusing for most is for them an opportunity to play and enlarge the scope of their authority. The plain fact of this highlights the trade-off inherent in the womanizing lifestyle: The sexual experience that permits exploitation of women’s mate choice ploys to one’s personal benefit will also degrade a man’s ability to feel transcendent emotional attachment. Knowledge inevitably leads to cynicism, which is corrosive to romanticism and relationship stability unless one has the unearthly capacity to resolve the tension between self-interest and self-transcendence.

Relationship appeasement, then, is a Pyrrhic victory, buying time at best. When you stand accused by your woman, don’t act like a guilty party. Instead, act like a powerful authority figure suffering a self-incriminating tantrum from one of his acolytes, no matter who is technically at fault. I’ll give you an example from CH’s own repository of rendezvous.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ GARDEN HOSE: Sorry. I’ll stop.

hahaahha. Bizarro world CH. No, that’s not how it went.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: [silently waits a beat, then stealthily moves in to perform the same asshole move at half intensity and half speed.]
GIRL: Cut it out! What’s the matter with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: Would you say I’m being the biggest asshole you’ve ever known, or just a run of the mill asshole?
GIRL: Enough of an asshole.
HADES’ HOWITZER: Cause you know, I can turn it up so I’m number one asshole in your heart again.
GIRL: [starts to smile] Seriously, you have problems. No don’t turn it up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: [pulls same asshole move]
GIRL: Fuck!
HADES’ HOWITZER: Oh yeah, that hit the sweet spot.
GIRL: Grow up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: You know what I’m hearing? “Please pee on me in the shower tomorrow morning.”

To all the beta male readers: Next time you feel the need to appease, stop, and do the opposite. Pacification is the province of pussboys. You will take the road less traveled. The road to goad. Expect push-back. That’s a good thing. If you can stand strong against the immediate headwinds, you’ll find a tranquil, and deliriously scenic, vista open before your eyes.

Comment Of The Week: Ground To Lust

This week’s COTW is richly deserved. Congratulations, burke.

and these stories are just the jolt ‘normal’ guys like me need as a reminder. i have had many MOA [moments of alpha], but i still have the instincts born of being raised by a single mother. if i say something that is shockingly rude in my mind, i am right about in a woman’s sweet spot. you can go way way further and still get results. if you could grind a woman’s entire being to dust with your dick, like a mortar and pestle, that’s the oblivion she is searching for

Insight elevated to sheer poetry by the breezy lack of punctuation. Women secretly desire their oblivion at the insistence of an imperious man. As the vessel sex, they must be filled with the life force of another — a powerful man, or a child — to fully experience sublimation of their souls. Thus it is that surrender is encoded in the gristle of woman.

Why Night Game Is Dying

RooshV writes,

I went out with my friend on a Friday night, ready to put in work, and this is what I was greeted with instead in multiple bars:

what we have here… is an unfavorable ratio

Severely skewed sex ratios will affect your game. If a bar is 80% men-20% women, that means on average each woman got ego-fluffed by three men before you approached her. You are therefore attempting to open a line of loving communication with a female ego four times as large as it would be in a normal state of nature. That’s an uphill battle, folks. Throw in the expanding and waddling mass of fat chicks, and that 4-to-1 ego-fluffing ratio could jump as high as 8-to-1.

This is why night game is dying. The ratios suck. Either men are restricting their pussy trawling to the night alone, or women are abandoning night venues in droves. Add the demographic cratering of marriage leaving too many single men who lack the creativity and balls to day game descending on bars like migrating wildebeests to watering holes and you’ve got what you see above. Weekend day game, (or weeknight evening game), if nothing else, has the powerful advantage of a sex ratio that more closely aligns with a natural 50-50 split.

On Saturday night I was called the following by four women:

-shady (girl 1)
-douchebag (girl 2)
-creep (girl 2)
-disrespectful (girl 3, girl 4)
-asshole (girl 3)
-dick (girl 4)
-weird (girl 2)
-“I don’t like you” (girl 2)

One girl from the above gave me her number and the other took me to her place.

What a bizarro world for girls to call you names but actually like you.

Despite the horrible ratios, night game still retains one benefit that’s hard to acquire in day game: In nighttime venues, girls respond better to jerkboy charisma, and your odds of closing the deal in the same window of time that you opened the deal are higher. In contrast, it’s advantageous to soft-shoe your jerkitude and cloak your message when you meet girls under the harsh glare of sunlight. But at least you’re not hobbled by beer goggles, dim lighting, or Michelin Woman egos. You can be confident that the girl you meet during the day will look almost as pretty the next morning.