Scientific Evidence That Men Dig Barely Legal Chicks

We had to search high and low, but we finally found it: good news for feminists and growly cougars!

Via valued commenter Chris (who adds his commentary), scientists have found that men DO NOT prefer maximally fertile women.

Useful facts: Residual Value=0=hitting the wall. [ed: RV means “an individual’s future reproductive potential or total expected reproductive success from the present time forward”.]

Men evolved to find max RV attractive=late adolescents most attractive, not most fertile i.e. not women in early-mid twenties.

New word learned=nulliparous. [ed: it means “never having borne a child”]

On page 116:

“For any given woman, RV is age-dependent. It increases throughout childhood as she successfully passes through a period during which death but not reproduction is possible, reaches a maximum at the beginning of the reproductive period [typically the late teens], and steadily declines thereafter, reaching zero at the onset of menopause. […]

A number of authors have argued that men are attracted to features associated with RV…. In particular, some authors have argued that men are attracted to features associated with women’s age of maximum RV, late adolescence… And indeed, many studies show that sexually attracted features are maximally developed in women at these ages. Women’s breasts, for instance, develop at puberty, reaching adult size by late adolescence. Men are particularly attracted to breasts that are firm, upright, and characterized by relatively reduced nipple pigmentation. These features peak during adolescence and in young, nulliparous women… Women’s waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic indicator of the ratio of gynoid fat distributed throughout the hips and buttocks to android fat around the abdomen. In many modern and traditional populations, men find women’s bodies with relatively low WHRs (around .7)… particularly attractive. WHRs reach minimum values during adolescence and, on average, rise as a function of women’s age and parity…”

Feminists rejoice! The “prime fertile age” trope has been debunked!

Oh, wait.

Hold on a sec. Still reading…

What’s this? Men actually prefer women YOUNGER THAN MAXIMALLY FERTILE?

Men are most attracted to late adolescent girls?

Oh, fuckity fuck douchecanoe douchenozzle. {fistpump retracted} I am a sad feminist hanging onto sanity by a snarky ASCII thread. I shall now retreat to my Jezebel hovel and make up a few more empty-headed neologisms using the words “douche” and “fuckity” to gently escort my battered ego back to the confines of a safe, protective femcunt circle diddle.

What was on first glance thought to be good news is now bad news for feminists and growly cougars:

Men sport the hardest, longest, evolutionarily evidentiary boners for girls in the 15-19 year old range, arbitrary legal demarcations be damned.

Barely legal babes. Sweet sixteens. Captivating coeds. Gloriously gynoid girly girls.

It’s enough to make an aging beauty on the accelerating morph from gynoid to android turn to cats and cookie dough straight from the tube.

To sum up the latest science behind the male lust for sexxxy sirens:

As CH has asserted in the past, and as science has now proven, men are most attracted to women aged 15-25, and the raw physical attraction is strongest for girls between 15 and 20. Men are not most attracted to maximally fertile women (which would correspond to the mid to late 20s for most women); rather, men are most attracted to women with the GREATEST POTENTIAL for reproductive success over a lifetime, aka RV (residual value).

The evolved preference of men is for women at the beginnings of their reproductive lives, so that men may subconsciously exploit for their own genetic gain the full health and reproductive potential of those luminescent late adolescent lasses. A man who impregnates a 19 year old woman glowing gynoidally with untapped tapping promise and has five kids with her over a twenty year reproductive career evolutionarily beats out the man who impregnates a maximally fertile 28 year old woman and has three kids with her over her remaining ten year reproductive career.

Ah, I do love the scorching fires of a powerfully ugly, yet beautiful, truth in the morning.

Great Scenes Of Game In The Movies: Tony Montana Game

Some of you read the post title and immediately thought it referred to Tony’s classic master of the universe maxim:

Nothing wrong with this version of game. Power is, after all, the ultimate aphrodisiac to the female libido. But power derived from insane wealth takes a lot of work to acquire. What if you just want some quickie game to charm the lady in front of you, right now? Zipless fuck game, if you will.

Commenter Scray writes of another aspect to Tony Montana’s tight game:

Also, game in the movies…I never really got it before, but Tony Montana seems to have some game:

He drops a huge neg on her (it’s pretty nuclear but seems correct considering how low value she seemed to think he was). Then, when she gets pissed, he gives a pretty alpha smirk (I may try to steal that look actually lol)…”now you’re talking to me, -that- I like.”

The huge neg (really, more an insult than a neg, but whatever works) Scray refers to is the line (around 1:30), “Only you got a look in your eye like you haven’t been FUCKED in a year”. A line which, if I’m not mistaken, was lifted and reformatted for a sensible SWPL audience by Mystery et al. and incorporated into early ’00s game.

But the best part is how Tony handles Elvira’s inevitable (and quite caustic) follow-up shit test, “Hey Jose, who I fuck is none of your business.”

He replies, smirking egregiously, “Now you’re talking to me, *that* I like. Keep it coming baby!”

Patronizing condescension in full effect. THIS is how you handle a merciless shit test from a hard 10* who would make the typical beta puffboy crumple to the floor wetting his underoos. It says all the right things that chicks love in men: Amused mastery. Grace under pressure. Cocky humor. Dismissive entitlement. Daring. Impervious self-regard. Self-confidence. Immunity to beauty.

I want you to try this line the next time some hot chick gives you shit. “Now you’re talking to me, *that* I like. Keep it coming.” Report back here. This line is a shockwave of alpha. I predict that responses will be mostly positive. It may take an hour or two for the deep impact to scour the needy hole in her heart, but she’ll be thinking about you, and imagining… scenarios… transactions.

You say you can’t possibly utter such a gaudy line to a girl? Surprise yourself. If you aren’t doing something every so often that scares you a little, you aren’t growing as a man. In return, you may be surprised by the rewards lavished upon you by suddenly curious women who have had their expectations joyously defied.

*Yes, Michelle Pfeiffer was a hard 10 back in the day. One of the few who could accurately be described as such. Pointy elbow syndrome nerds, before you comment, please find the nearest couch crease and empty your tepid seed into it. The world of men thanks you for living your shame in solitude.

Scientific Evidence That Chicks Dig Aloof Assholes

The tsunami of scientific evidence vindicating core premises of game and the teachings found in Chateau Heartiste archival documents keeps on rolling. The latest study adds to the accumulating weight of evidence that game works, and that women prefer men who are less emotionally available, i.e., insensitive jerks.

[W]omen are less attracted to men who seem too caring on a first date, according to research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

In the study, women were less likely to want to sleep with male acquaintances who expressed concern when they opened up than with men who were less emotionally responsive.

It’s another case of nice guys finishing last. “The ‘too-nice stranger’ may come across as desperate,” says lead study author Gurit Birnbaum, Ph.D., a lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel.

Rather than trying to empathize with a new interest, “just really listen, without interrupting,” says Birnbaum.

Male desperation kills tingles dead.

(Female desperation is largely irrelevant in the context of female attractiveness. Men will want to fuck a hot woman no matter how desperate she seems, and in fact any attractive woman signaling desperation for sex will only stoke the male desire to achieve immediate sexual gratification with her. Ugly desperate women can improve their chances for sex by roping in a man who’s in the middle of a dry spell with the promise of effortless, if unsatisfying, access.)

This study’s results are so self-explanatory that not much more needs to be said. It is total confirmation of one of the most powerful precepts of game: That women love mysterious men who play hard to get, who present themselves as challenges, who don’t give away the store, who don’t “woo”, “chase” or appease, and who don’t assume the role of the emotional tampon.

In other words, be a bit of a jerk. Or a lot of a jerk, as the situation or the type of girl may call for.

Male overconfidence is the heart of game, but plausible deniability is the hot red blood pumped through the veins of a pick-up. Girls like their male sexual intention on a need-to-know basis: Expertly concealed and fully revealed only when the tip has breached and all hope of maintaining an illusion of coyness is lost.

The art of flirting is the progression of an intensifying series of sweet little lies intended to provide plausible deniability cover for a woman as she steers her burning libido through labyrinthine and often misdirecting pathways put into service to maximize her hypergamous rewards and minimize the threat to her reputation and the risk of post-coital abandonment or unworthy insemination. Women love the evasive parries of flirting because flirting is the limbic fuel that feeds their hungry hungry hamsters, and a man who is skilled in the manipulation of women’s desires — a man who keeps it close to the vest and who knows better than to bare his soul like an emoting whore manboob and thus rob women of the joy of slow, anticipatory discovery — is the aloof and charming asshole that women find irresistible.

In related science/game news, a study finds that students think they learn more from an overconfident instructor than from an awkward instructor, even though there is no real difference in amount learned.

The present study explored the effects of lecture fluency on students’ metacognitive awareness and regulation. Participants watched one of two short videos of an instructor explaining a scientific concept. In the fluent video, the instructor stood upright, maintained eye contact, and spoke fluidly without notes. In the disfluent video, the instructor slumped, looked away, and spoke haltingly with notes. After watching the video, participants in Experiment 1 were asked to predict how much of the content they would later be able to recall, and participants in Experiment 2 were given a text-based script of the video to study. Perceived learning was significantly higher for the fluent instructor than for the disfluent instructor (Experiment 1), although study time was not significantly affected by lecture fluency (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the fluent instructor was rated significantly higher than the disfluent instructor on traditional instructor evaluation questions, such as preparedness and effectiveness. However, in both experiments, lecture fluency did not significantly affect the amount of information learned. Thus, students’ perceptions of their own learning and an instructor’s effectiveness appear to be based on lecture fluency and not on actual learning.

Manipulated perceptions FTW. Overconfidence FTW. Gaming your mark FTW. How to win pussy and influence people FTW.

Appearance of competence or seductive prowess matters, and it matters in the biggest way: it increases reproductive fitness.

PS For the haters:

SCIENCE ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ GAME!

aww, does the hater hurt? where’s the boo boo? here? let me fix that… twiiiiiiiiiiiiist

Alpha Assessment: Tinder Love Edition

A reader asks for advice about how to handle a girl clowning around on Tinder, the stripped-down eugenics website that features photos and “likes” and not much more.

On Tinder, this hot, kinda snobby-seeming 27yo (I’m 28) chick’s info is:

“Not interested in love but if you want to sell or buy apartment… I can be your tinder gal :)”

We match up, I wait/forget a couple days and message:

“So wait, you sell only apt’s to guys you think are cute?”

Her 15mins later (2:30 today):
“Ha it’s a joke but w truth, not on this thing to find men so might as well make it a business transaction.”

Now I want to bust on her for this (b/c it strikes me as ridiculous, and is my honest reaction), but maybe not?

I do pretty well generally (I was like a 17 on that alpha test thing), but this has me unsure as to how to proceed.

Thoughts appreciated. This literally just happened 15mins ago.

Your first reply to her was good. Part teasing, part assuming the sale. Now look at her next reply:

“Ha it’s a joke but w truth”

This chick is on there to meet men, but she’s embarrassed about it and doesn’t have high expectations, so she clowns around to provide herself plausible deniability. If she were really a professional realtor, would she open a Tinder account and write idiotic copy that makes her sound like the last realtor in the world with whom you’d want to do business? Maybe she would. Scouts tell me America the Babel-full teems with so many idiots one would wonder how the whole enterprise manages to function.

“not on this thing to find men so might as well make it a business transaction.”

Did somebody say…

?

Bust on her. Go all in on assuming the sale. Examples:

“If you wanted to meet me, you didn’t have to violate Tinder’s terms of service.”

“Tell you what. I’ll buy your apt if you buy me a drink.” (Obviously, you are not buying her apt.)

“‘business transaction’ gotcha. Hate to tell you, but I’m not that kinda guy.”

“It’s always about transactions with you girls. I can only love so much.”

Or, tease her hard:

“You’re a dude, I bet.”

“Your business model needs work. Show more skin.”

“Apt for sex. I don’t consort with hookers.” (100% chance she’ll qualify herself)

“this works for you?”

“men fall for this?”

Finally, you could just blow her off:

“good luck”

“gay”

“lame”

“i prefer doing business with a more experienced realtor.”

Let us know how you proceed(ed). The readership will be interested in the most effectively tailored response should similar situations arise for them.

Another Tiresome Hater Schooled To Discourage The Others

Drive-by hater “k8” whiningly demurs:

Has it ever occurred to you, that this “game theory” stuff is just another way of appeasing women?

Has it ever occurred to you that make-up is just another way women appease men? Has it ever occurred to you that men must make more conspicuous up-front effort to attract women than women must make to attract men because of the inherent differences in the nature of the sexes?

It’s the same as the men who claim to be feminists; both are changing their behaviour (or rather putting on a ridiculous act) to please some chick.

The difference is that men who claim to be feminists to win pussy are pursuing a flawed strategy, unless the pussy they want to win is fat, ugly and unfeminine.

I think the real alpha thing to do would be to stick to who you are, and if the woman doesn’t like it, move on.

“Just be yourself.”

I’m aware that attractive women do gravitate towards certain kinds of personality, isn’t it far more important to be honest with yourself than to have sex with attractive women?

Good salesmanship is not dishonesty. And that’s what the sexual market requires of men: an ability to sell themselves to women.

We here at CH have noticed an uptick lately in game and sexual market denialist hate. The shrillness of the hater crowd has reached fever pitch, and that’s a strong tell that they know their carefully cultivated worldview is coming under attack. Good. There’s nothing like the smell of desperation in the morning.

Here’s a suggestion for the perspiring haters who find themselves scampering into this happy hating ground: First, know that you are up against an enemy the likes of which you have never encountered before. Second, learn to distinguish between is and ought. The Chateau revels in the fun of laying bare the clanking gears of reality and observing the result as the crisis of a thousand consciences unfolds, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we like the world this way, or would want the world, if we had our druthers, to be this way. CH simply gives you the Word; what you do with the Word is your prerogative.

If you can manage that simple distinction without experiencing a mental breakdown like a hysterical woman-child, then you may discover the vitriol in your cragged keyboard fingers dissipating as illumination swarms over you and the lightness of the Chateau’s love makes your heart grow three sizes today.

Ps On the subject of schooling game and sexual market denialist haters, see commenter Steve Johnson (scroll toward the end) in this Steve Sailer thread. The stevedore Steves of hatecargo full of truth.

Hamster Of The Month

A dating website which helps women meet the sexy alpha prison inmates of their dreams is up and running, and the hamsters on display are, in a word, rabid!

Canadian Inmates Connect Inc. showcases numerous prisoners serving life sentences and helps the incarcerated find pen pals and, perhaps, much more.

The 16-month-old website, which promotes some 40 convict profiles, has even churned out a few lockup love stories.

The site’s founder says several prisoners have asked her to remove their bios because they have already found that special someone.

There are whole armies of beta males who spend months and even years in book clubs, at speed dating events, and in bars and happy hours hoping to meet that special someone but coming up empty every time, while convicted murderers sit in cells as ladies basically throw caution to the wind and hurl themselves at them.

Melissa, who does not want her family name published due to privacy and safety concerns, was inspired to start the website after seeing similar ones in the United States.

America, fuck yeah!

[Melissa:] “It doesn’t matter what they’ve done. It’s not for me to judge… I’m just a firm believer in redemption and rehabilitation… I believe everybody deserves a second chance.”

Nonjudgmentalism: the leading sickness of a sick society. Or: this is what happens when you let women have the run of the place.

The profiles are authored entirely by the convicts, which means nobody double-checks them for accuracy.

No worries. These are pre-approved alpha males, which means the women will suspend all disbelief.

In a disclaimer on the website, Canadian Inmates Connect states that it’s not responsible for any type of relationship developed through its pages.

And by “relationship”, they mean any love match which may go awry and lead to “accidental” auto-asphyxiation or headless torsos under floorboards.

“They’re taking the chance to write to these guys.”

Yet, for some mysterious reason, the increased risk and obstacles to FMAC (Find Meet Attract Close) alpha inmates don’t deter any of these women from their dates with destiny.

Since inmates don’t have Internet access in the clink, initial contact must be made via snail-mail to their respective penitentiary.

There will never be a Canadian Law-Abiding Beta Male Connect website. If you aren’t a challenge, the women are callous.

Julie Young, a single mother from Truro, N.S., credits the website for introducing her to a convicted bank robber she hopes to marry one day.

“I would marry him because I love him and I see him having a really good future now,” said Young, whose sweetheart, Steve Mehlenbacher, is serving his fourth federal sentence after a total of 16 bank-heist convictions.

We have our first hamster sighting.

“We get really deep and personal in our letters about our pasts and just stuff like that, so we’re able to open up to one another.

“I never was able to open up to anybody before him.”

When women say this, what the really mean is “I never *wanted* to open up to any of the boring beta herbs I knew before I met my supremo alpha king.”

Eventually, they plan to go to school together to become child-care workers.

Would you entrust your kids to these two? Stick a fork in the West, she’s done.

Young argues that it’s probably safer to get to know a convict than to meet someone at a bar or on standard dating websites.

The hamster has gone feral.

“I heard from a lot of people there’s a lot of weirdos on there,” she said, referring to one popular matchmaking website.

“You could talk to somebody on a dating site in the United States, and you could talk for like three years every day after work or something, and that person could be murdering a bunch of people and you don’t know because they’re just some everyday person, right?”

By comparison, Young says, an inmate cannot just show up at your house uninvited right after you meet them. And she believes they would be less likely to lie since you already know why they were sent to jail.

“You just do your research on them, or whatever, and you’ll be good,” she said.

Congratulations, Julie Young, you are the Chateau’s Hamster of the Month! Or, rather, your hamster is hamster of the month. You, Julie Young the person, are apparently just a fleshy vessel to nourish your hamster which squats in your skull in complete operational control of all your faculties.

Many of the notes, [alpha criminal thug] said, were from women hoping to see him at the prison for conjugal visits.

“I already had women who were willing to do that,” Mehlenbacher said.

“That’s not what I was looking for.

“I wanted to find a real relationship.”

A thousand betas wept in unison.

[Melissa, the owner of the inmate dating website] said her cousin has died since she started the website and the death occurred in a suspicious case that she said police believe might have been murder, though the investigation is still ongoing.

Melissa added that she’s been in contact with the potential suspect and even brought that person to the funeral home when nobody was around, so the person could say a final goodbye to her cousin. All of this was with her family’s blessing, she added.

“The person’s still a human being,” she said.

“I don’t think anything that happened that night was intentional.

“Would I allow this person to join the website? Absolutely.”

Is it possible that two giant, feral hamsters, zombified by a disease of platitude prions, are on the loose in one news story? Yes. Congratulations, Melissa, you are now our second winner of Hamster of the Month, a prize you share with the esteemed Julie above, sweet girl who knows those murderous alpha male prisoners that leave her snatch sopping are just angels on the cusp of redemption.

I would tell you to go read the full article for more triple-action *facepalm*ing goodness, but what’s the point? Anyone who isn’t a sputtering hater or a complete retard about the female of the human species knows the score by now. It’s just overkill. And overkill is the way the ladies like it. 😉

In related sequiturs, it’s high time the ruling class ditched their equalism ideology and started offering inmates deals for early release on condition they get vasectomies. Similarly, women with a history of dating societal parasites should be offered cash for Norplant, and those who couldn’t thwart their spawnage in time should be escorted to the abortion clinic by limo, all expenses paid, plus a little extra. Say, two months’ worth of McDonalds coupons.

Reader Mailbag: Own Goal Edition

1. A reader wants to know if he blew himself out of the water.

Background
Her 18 (7)
Me late 20’s (7.5)

We have been studying alone together for the past few weeks both at school and her parents house. (Non dorm college). She send various signs of interest (ex: when working on her computer I accidently clicked on the show background button and it showed a picture of her in a bikini, not her normal background). On the other hand she always mentions her boyfriend who dorms in a different state. I got annoyed with it and showed her a pic of my gf (8.5). we are by Boston

Text follow later that day

Me: let’s work on blah blah next week
Me: also I’m really offended you thought I was middle eastern
Her: my mom thought you were middle eastern too (wide eye smiley)
Me: I’m getting you both glasses!
Me: show your mom this (pic of my European passport) [ed: nicely timed DHV]
Her: I will
Her: were you born there?
Me: let’s talk about it over coffee or something, easier than texting
Her: true
*i never text back

Was it weak to ask via text when I knew I would see her next week?

Mistake to show gf pic and ask to hang out same day? To forward for one young and innocent?

Mistake to send pic of passport? Trying to hard to win her approval? What would you have done instead?

To your first question: Was it weak to ask over text instead of in person? Yes, you could make a case for lameness, particularly since you and her have been, and would continue to be, in the same room together for a few weeks. But this mistake is just a yellow flag, not an own goal.

To your second question: It’s only a mistake to mention your girlfriend if it’s clear to your intended target you’re doing so in reaction to a perceived slight or disappointment. In your case, it sounds like that’s what happened. Luckily, your girlfriend is hot, so your study partner’s “preselected by quality women” algorithmic alpha male detector fired off. I would say this move was a wash in terms of any advantage or disadvantage it gave you.

To your third question: There’s no such thing as being “too forward” with a girl as long as your forward motion is executed with finesse. Recall Poon Commandment XIII:

Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little.

If you’re going to make a pick-up mistake, make a mistake while moving toward sex, instead of away from sex.

To your fourth and fifth questions: No, and no. You had an open to DHV with the passport without sounding try-hard.

To your sixth question: I would have texted her again after her last reply. If there is any part of this exchange where you own-goaled, it’s the part when you didn’t follow-up your tacit promise to get her out for coffee. The study room dynamic is sapping the romantic energy between you and her because it’s going on too long without forward progress. You were on the right track with your thought to move her into a different context. After she replied “true”, all you had to write back was “k, X place at X time.”

Ya know, there is seductive aloofness that entrances girls, and there is the overwrought aloofness that men who are suddenly afraid of success will resort to as a mechanism for avoiding the pain of a rejection that heretofore only exists in their heads.

tl;dr Bust a move.

***

2. A reader has sprog on the nog.

So I’ve ‘taken the red pill’, learnt game, agree with you on everything about not getting married etc.

However, I can’t seem to shake my desire to have children. To me, it seems like one of the most worthwhile things you do can with a life is to have kids. Maybe it’s because my parents did an incredible job raising my siblings and I, but I just feel like it’s a legacy I want to create.

How do you come to terms with this (assuming you share the same view)? Is marriage ESSENTIAL for having, and properly raising children? Do you believe you can do so without marriage (seen as I adamantly want to avoid it)? Or do you just not share my same desire?

Is marriage essential for having children? 😆 😆 😆 What do you think this is, 1950s America? You can be in prison and still pop out four upstanding citizens if you have a way with words and the low impulse control that chicks lurv.

But maybe you’re the kind of would-be father who actually wants to be around his kids, and impart his wisdom so that they may grow up proud and strong and become net tax payers to support the kids of the kinds of fathers and mothers who don’t much care about imparting wisdom to their womb spewage. Maybe you had the misfortune of being genetically cursed with a K-selected psychology in an increasingly r-selected world.

r-selected world
r-selected world
r-selected world girl
(li-ving in an r-selected world
we are li-ving in an r-selected world)

If kid quality is your Job 1, then yeah get married. It’s good for the children. Marry young, marry hot, marry tight. And marry chaste. (Not you. Her.) But if marriage is not your bag (and who could blame you?), you can get the same child-raising, K-assuaging, father-amazing benefits by having kids within a committed, cohabiting relationship. It works for Sweden. Well, it works for Sweden’s historical native people, at any rate. There’s nothing magical about signing on the dotted line that will alter the properties of your character, other than the disincentive magic of divorce theft. But if that’s what you need to keep your lover or yourself in line, perhaps she’s not the one you should be considering for the mother of your children.

***

3. Reader can’t believe the Pavlovian call-response of modern women.

I think this world is coming to an end. I was chatting to this girl on a dating site. I opened her by being polite and respectful, because she was from a southern country and I thought she was traditional.

She basically brushed me off by telling me I’m ugly.

Next day I make another profile and find her. My profile had nothing special at all, my picture was even uglier than the previous one. First words I open her with : you’re fat. Guess what? She was all nice and flirty with me.

Wtf is going on? Has feminism even reached the corners of all sounthern latin countries now? This is ridiculous.

I’m not a fan of the “insult as substitute for fine-tuned neg” game, but even I’m occasionally amazed at how often a shot of straight-up asshole works on women. If you’re ever stuck on a recalcitrant Westernized girl, and it’s going nowhere fast, just call her fat. It beats doing the same beta suck-up routine and expecting different results.

***

4. A reader has ideas in his head that might be counter-productive.

I would love your feedback on this-

Some brief background- I’m a recovering beta (with the soul of an alpha but duped by societal pressures, etc. to being a beta)- I was in a relationship for 11 years (was married for 7 of those years). For job purposes I moved to Paris France while my wife stayed in the US, with the plan being for her to move here after a year. She cheated on me during that year, and we broke up soon after she moved here (she still had to spend a year here as she had already committed work-wise to doing it).

Absence makes the heart grow fonder… up to a point. Extended absence makes the heart go wander. Especially if that heart is desired by a lot of other hearts in the sexual market.

This was 2.5 years ago, I was a different man then than I am now. I’m better off because of the divorce (which I never had the balls to do myself then). I’m going to visit home in a couple of weeks. Part of me wants to track this guy down (I know what city he lives in and a few people he knows, and presumably could do it) and beat the shit out of him, just to prove something about my manhood.

Whenever you feel this feel, just remember that your ex-wife represented one-half of the parties involved in the adultery. Beating the shit out of this dude, if it gets back to her, will only enable her to avoid blame for her own part in her disloyalty.

Part of the reason is that if he is still with my ex-wife (I feel like they may be- all I know is he visited her in Europe at least once while she was there for a year after we split) I just want her to know that I did that- not with any attempt or interest to win her back or anything.

I really recommend against this. You want to get back at your cheating whore of a whore’s whore ex-wife? Date a hotter babe and make sure the ex sees you together with her. That will impact her psyche a thousand times more than downwind news that you brawled with her boyfriend.

Do you think this is worth the effort- (tracking down and beating the shit out of the guy who fucked my ex-wife while I was with her) – in what it means to me in being a mostly alpha guy? Or is it more alpha for me to live my life and forget about them?

A good way to judge your frame of mind in these situations is to ask yourself, “If my ex was suddenly aroused by my display of alpha after trouncing the guy she cheated with while we were together, and she made it clear she wanted me back, would I gladly accept the opportunity?” If you answer “yes”, then you don’t have the right (aka alpha) frame of mind.

More generally this is a question I struggle with in my life at the moment. I know that I do care about how people remember me- but to what extent should I expend energy towards affecting the memories of me from people in my past, compared to spending energy on my bright future in general?

I think you already know the answer to your question.

***

5. This reader has a request for analysis of his text game.

Got a girl’s number on the street through using the “put your number in my phone” routine I saw on your site. Waited four days, and texted her to meet up, and tried to operate as I thought Chateau would advocate. Was wondering if you could evaluate my textual interaction to get her out. [Names changed to protect the devious.]

Monday., April 22, 4:08pm
Me: Hey Katie, we should go out this week. -Brad from X last Thursday

4:30pm
Her: Alright, so you definitely caught me off guard, and I’m not going to lie I was pretty flattered. I’m sorry, I just didn’t get a chance to tell you that I have a boyfriend.

This was a golden opportunity to use any number of “I have a boyfriend” neutralizing replies.

7:27pm
Her: I really am sorry, I do admire your confidence

Tuesday, April 23 11:17am
Me: U seem like an independent person who can hang with who u want. Let’s meet up tomorrow.

The problem with waiting a day to respond to a girl who dropped an “IHAB” on you is that you risk coming off like a guy who got blindsided by her revelation and needed a day to compose himself. You shoulda replied soon after. That said, this is a decent rescue of a text exchange heading south out of the gate.

11:42am
Her: But you hardly know me not to mention I think that wouldn’t be the greatest idea seeing as that would be shady on my part.

12:33pm
Her: And what could you get out of going out with a girl who has a boyfriend?

The good: She texted you back immediately, and texted twice in a row. There’s some interest.

The bad: She mentioned the boyfriend again. She might not be bluffing.

The opportunity: When a girl mentions her boyfriend a bit too frequently, it sometimes is a tell that she harbors illicit fantasies and is leaning on the “boyfriend boyfriend boyfriend” chant to strengthen her resolve in the face of temptation, or to excuse herself of any responsibility should she HAPPEN to succumb to another man’s seductive charm. You know, the ol’ “But I told him I had a boyfriend, so anything that happens between us will be his fault” hamster rationalization.

1:23pm
Me: I won’t judge u, Katie. (Particular bar) tomorrow at 8

I don’t like this response. Too straight and by the book. You’re playing into her frame, i.e., you’re tacitly agreeing with her that it would be shady for her to meet with you. Better to have replied playfully, For example:

Her:  And what could you get out of going out with a girl who has a boyfriend?

You: A free drink.

1:29pm
Her: Well I’m not sure what this has to do with my independence but I can’t meet you especially when I don’t even know you, Brad.

Ok, she’s interested. She’s begging for you to give her the flimsy excuse she needs to come out and see you.

3:21pm
Me: U know u can, Katie, and should. Come get to know me tomorrow. Don’t cheat yourself.

Game by assertion? I like the “don’t cheat yourself” line, but this reply is veering dangerously into begging territory. You’re totally in chasing mode. I dunno. It’s not my style. Anyone else want to chime in here? YaReally? I’ll give you points for boldness and directness, though. That may be enough.

Wednesday April 24, 12:02am
Her: I just don’t even know what to say anymore to be honest

As long as a girl is still replying, the game is still on.

11:52am
Me: Say you’ll see me tonight 😉

This kind of earnest charm works better face to face, where you can soften the sappy edge with a smirk. In text, you risk sounding desperate, even with the ameliorating smilie.

12:31pm
Her: Do girls just not say no to you very often or something?

She’s stiiiiiiillllll replying.

2:24pm
Me: Other girls have nothing to do with me and u

Ok, so you’re basically running battering ram game. Nothing wrong with that. It can work well on girls who had an initial reservoir of romantic interest.

2:28pm
I don’t even know your full name, and my name is spelled “Katy” by the way haha.

Did you misspell her name on purpose the whole time? If so, kudos, sir.

4:13pm
Me: Duly noted, Katy. I’ll be sure to give u my last name right when we meet up tonight

This is becoming too insistent. You need more cocky playfulness. All I see is you chasing 100% and her being chased 100%. For instance, there was an opportunity here to fuck around with the “wrong name” conversational subthread. Instead of “Duly noted, Katy”, you could have replied “Duly noted, Qaaytee”.

7:43pm
Me: U on way, katy?

I know the Chateau recommends Zero Punctuation, but honestly it looks kind of stupid when a man uses “U” in place of “you”.

7:45pm
Her: No I’m not haha I’m studying I don’t believe I told you I was going

Aaaand…. failure to launch.

7:47pm
Me: Gay

The “gay” response is better at the start of trouble, not ten days later.

7:50pm
Her: Not gay it’s a Wednesday night

She’s just using you for shits and giggles now. Abandon ship.

My next move was to abandon her, but if she contacts me, wait a long time to respond and somehow fit in the “because I don’t want to get you pregnant” line. Your opinion?

“if she contacts me”. That “if” is a big if. You’re thinking twelve chess moves ahead when she hasn’t even moved her pawn E2 to E4. There might be a way to turn this around and somehow convince her to go out with you, but I think you’ll have an easier time recruiting a new girl for a date. And it sounds like that kind of perspective is what you need.