Scientific Evidence That Men Will Choose Women Over Money

In Scarface, Tony Montana famously advised, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women.”

Tony wasn’t wrong. (Piles of) money and power will buy a lot of pussy. But ♥♥science♥♥ disagrees about where men’s priorities actually lie, and what is the most efficient path, as implied by neuronal feedback, for men to pursue to increase their reproductive fitness.

An unusual but very illuminating study concluded that, given a choice between viewing a hot babe and making some dough, men will choose the babe almost every time.

An ERP study on decisions between attractive females and money.

To investigate the neural processes of decision-makings between attractive females and money, we recorded 18 male participants’ brain event-related potentials (ERPs) when they performed a novel task of deciding between viewing an attractive female’s fuzzy picture in clear and gaining a certain amount of money. Two types of attractive females were included: sexy females and beautiful females. Several new electrophysiological discoveries were obtained as following. First, the beautiful females vs. money task (task B) elicited a larger positive ERP deflection (P2) than the sexy females vs. money task (task S) between 290 and 340 ms, and this probably related to the perception matching process between a visual input and an internal representation or expectation. Second, task S evoked greater negative ERP waves (N2) than task B during the time window of 340-390 ms, and this might relate to response conflict and cognitive monitoring for impulsive tendency. Third, the ERP positivity in task S was larger than task B in the time interval of 550-1000 ms, reflecting that sexy female images may have higher decision value for males than beautiful female images. Fourth, compared with choosing to gain money, choosing to view an attractive female evoked a larger late positive component (LPC) during the same time window, possibly because attractive females are more direct and evolutionarily earlier rewards for males than money amounts.

See the accompanying graphs at the link posted to get a better handle on the study results. There’s a lot of dense scientific jargon to wade through here, but the gist of it is this:

Based on neural imaging results (“brain event related potentials”, or ERPs), men will choose to view a sexy woman (read: a slut signaling her availability for sex) over making a bit of coin. Men will choose to view a beautiful woman (read: a modestly posed looker you would take home to mom) about the same amount as they will choose to make coin when viewing the slutty sexy woman, but they will choose to view the beautiful woman more often than they will choose to make money while deciding directly between those two choices.

In even lazier shorthand, men are hard-wired by evolution to choose a shot at the ultimate reward of sex with hot, sexually available women over choosing a shot at sex through a proxy fitness signaler like making money. Or: yes, it really is all about the nookie.

Call it the theory of path of least resistance to sex (a concept elucidated here at CH many times, and THANK YOU science, for once again validating core Chateau Heartiste concepts about the workings of the sexual market). Those MGTOWs and tradcons who argue that the best feeling of reward men get is from making money and being one’s own man, are simply wrong. The best feeling men get is from sex, or even a promise of sex, with attractive, young women. The Christmas tree lights of neural imaging results don’t lie.

Not to say that making money or earning power doesn’t feel great on its own. Certainly each of those do. But if the choice is between the great feeling from a DIRECT evolutionary reward and the feeling from an INDIRECT evolutionary reward… well, it shouldn’t take a scientific study to figure the bleeding obvious. Men will go for the sex directly and skip the hard slog to make themselves more attractive as sex partners if they have the option to do so. There’s a lesson there for women who ride the cock carousel with aloof, low investment cads.

One interesting part of the study was the result that men will be somewhat more likely to concern themselves about making money if an attractive but chaste woman is within view. This suggests that men, justifiably, perceive less slutty women as better investment vehicles. It also implies that beautiful women who don’t need or want to use their sexuality to curry favor with men will be more aggressive about screening for men who can provide for them, or who signal potential that they can provide for them.

Do women have their own sexual market theory of path of least resistance? Yes. Except it’s not a path of least resistance to sex; it’s a path of least resistance to commitment. Women will go for a man’s emotional commitment EVERY TIME if said man makes it easy for them. “Easy” means, in this context, sexually undemanding. Anhedonic. Effectively neutered. LJBFed. BETA. A woman gives up nothing to get a beta orbiter’s loyalty, support and, in some tragic cases, hard-earned provisions. There’s a lesson there for supplicating betas. Make the ho say no? How about “make the slut pay up front”.

Reader Mailbag: Goosing The Gunt

Email #1

What is the alpha way to suggest that your gf should watch her weight bc she has been gaining weight… I don’t like the passive agressive ideas [listed here].

Actually, some of those passive aggressive methods for getting a girlfriend to lose weight — like buying her clothes a size too small, or signing her up for yoga class under the pretense of “spiritually connecting” — are effective. So it’s a mistake to assume that alpha males never wield the carving knife of passive aggressiveness when doing so would be clearly personally advantageous. However, if you want to go the direct (i.e., lunkhead) route, then I offer the following suggestions:

– Brazenly flirt with thinner women while in her company. Women are hypercompetitive and hypersensitive to their declining beauty, and won’t fail to notice how much hotter are the girls who have grabbed your attention.

– Watch Girls with her and casually remark that you’re worried she’s starting to resemble Lena Dunham.

– Jab a roll of her fat and, with cocked eyebrow, mutter “hm” as if you’re inspecting a backed-up drain.

– Tell her in no uncertain terms that you will leave her if she gets fat. Stare at her stomach while saying this.

– Does she have a fat cat? Pick it up with its huge belly protruding, and tell her you guess it’s true how owners look like their pets.

– Ask if she’s auditioning for The Biggest Loser.

– Start calling her “my little honey boo boo”. If that doesn’t work, call her “my little honey boo boo’s mommy”.

– One morning, when you wake up, look at her naked body and say “What happened to you?!”

– Lose your hard-on during sex.

– Direct her to this blog. In particular, the “hungry hungry hippos” category.

CH will not be held responsible for any chubby girlfriend suicides that result from use of any of the above suggestions.

***

Email #2

 I live with my girlfriend who has no job. Should I pay for her or is that beta?

Depends how hot she is.

***

Email #3

Since Red Pill ingestion I’ve noticed more subtle shots at my confidence/power from the people around me, as if they recognize (sense?) my alphaness and want to test it. This isn’t just shit tests from women (dates, co-workers), but men as well. Some of these people I’ve known for a while, others it’s my first or second interaction. Clever remarks, wise cracks, etc. They’re all over the place. I brush them off, certainly providing reactions (or inaction) a lesser man (blue piller) wouldn’t understand, and alas we all move forward because I didn’t give a fuck.

Because being unplugged has only been my reality for a few months (and I’m still learning), I wonder if I’m actually being challenged OR if I’m just more aware of the social dynamics/interactions/behaviors of people? Or is it both?

Both. You’re noticing things you never did before, and people are reacting to you in ways they didn’t before. People prefer their beta acquaintances stay predictably beta. A beta who makes a run for alpha disturbs the peace and introduces chaos to the comforting established order. Expect a transitional period from beta to alpha where you have to endure inordinate challenges to your maneuver for the throne. These challenges will be more intense and more frequent the less congruent your behavior seems and the quicker you push yourself into a new identity. This is the most difficult period on the way to becoming a better man, because you will be tempted to fall back on old habits to assuage feelings and avoid burning envy from natural competitors. Whatever you do, stay the course. People will fall in line if by your actions you demand their acquiescence.

***

Email #4

I’m on my way home from an interview of sorts. Just before I turn the corner to head to my apartment I see a bar that I’ve had a few good nights at, but haven’t frequented in a while, so I walk in. The place is dead. Except for one solid 8 sitting alone in the middle of the room.

*I’ll skip a bunch of boring details here, but here are some (perhaps) not unimportant facts: We’ve both been in the city for about 5 moths now, I’m from X, she’s from Y*

We engage in conversation. An hour and a half passes.

But this isn’t your run-of-the-mill-casual-conversation-with-a-hottie. It’s deliberate. Calculated. Border-line cold, yet mostly consistent. There are some unspoken acknowledgements: she’s hot, and I know it, and she knows that I know it. I’m good with girls, and she knows it, and I know that she knows it. Sounds like a bit of a Mexican stand-off, eh?

Early in the conversation she had [intentionally, undoubtedly] revealed some information: “…yeah, I keep wasting my time on OK Cupid with these lawyers, all they want to do is argue…” [Translation: I’M SINGLE!!!]

[My brain: What the fuck is an 8 doing on OK Cupid? Is she lying? Is this beta bait to see how quickly I’ll make a move? Then again.. she is at a bar all by herself on a Wed night. How often do you see that out of an 8?]

This would have been a good opportunity for a neg. Ex: “I heard only lovable losers use OkCupid. What’s your excuse?”

The conversation continued slowly and deliberately, but not without intrigue. Our momentum died a few times.

An hour and a half of asexual chit chat is too long. You should have been turning up the heat sooner. Otherwise, you risk momentum-killing dead spots in the conversation.

When it did, I turned to the girl next to me and started chatting in attempt to arouse some jealously and get her to re-engage. She never did.

That’s because you never got her invested in you. You’re just another talkative schlub from her point of view.

The guy next to her tried to strike up a conversation a few times but she quickly blew him off. Each time I re-engaged she quickly re-joined our former conversation.

She likes you enough to talk, but the raw attraction is missing. She’s hoping an attraction will find fertile ground.

And that’s how it went. For a little over an hour.

By the end of the night, I felt pretty confident that I had her in the bag:

Ask yourself, do you sound like a man with an outcome independent attitude that chicks dig?

we had kept up a solid conversation, she had deflected attention from other guys, the vibe was there, she was just playing coy by not re-engaging me (or so I thought)…

Me: *standing up from the bar and putting my coat on* “Hey, I’ve gotta get outta here [pause for a few seconds, look a little distracted]… but before I do, put your number in my phone” *I slide my phone in front of her, on the bar and nonchalantly look away*

Never ask for a number at the end of the night. Go for the number when indicators of interest are there, get it, then just continue the convo as if the number exchange was the most natural thing in the world to have done.

This always works for me. It’s almost guaranteed to at least get the number close.

Her: *snicker* *shaking her head* “No, sorry, that’s now how it works, let’s just shake hands and say goodnight”

I swear I didn’t read ahead in your email. Looks like I predicted her lack of interest correctly. A decent teasing reply to this quasi-rejection would have been, “Shake your hand? Not so fast, you perv!”

[Honestly, my frame is a little shaken by this response. I didn’t expect this at all. Even when I’m dealing with very hot girls, after this much investment (read: an hour of conversation) I almost always get an enthusiastic number close]

I’m going to guess that’s because you typically hit on girls who aren’t quite as hot as this one. The hotter the girl, the tighter your game needs to be.

Me: [surprised] “Oh yeah? gonna keep trying your luck with OK Cupid huh?”

Experts detect a subtle note of butthurtness.

Her: “Yeah, guess so, I’ve just got way too much going on right now. We should just be friends anyway.”

She’s enjoying her sadistic cruelty.

Me: [re-gaining frame] “Ha, don’t be so goddamn presumptuous, maybe that’s all I wanted to be in the first place…” *smirk*

What she’s thinking: “Yeah, right.”

Her: “Oh yeah?… well…. ok then….” *she nonchalantly types her number in my phone*

[Note:] I never did get her name this whole time. Of course she didn’t put it in my phone, so I have no idea what it is.

Me: “Cool, see ya” *I leave*

Did you try to call the number?

===========================

And that’s where I’m at. I maintained a pretty solid conversation with this girl the whole time. There were some definite attraction signals, but I’m dealing with a ball-busting bitch here.

The interaction did not end in my favor. After such a lukewarm number close, how do I re-open and get back in? What maximizes my chances at turning the tables? Advice is appreciated.

Again, did you call her number to check if it was real? You should have dialed it right then after she punched it in. If the number is real, call it and ask for the anonymous girl who pretended she wanted to be friends. If you do manage to get her on a date (long shot), go for the sexual escalation quickly, because I think there is a high risk here she will promptly try to box you in as an LJBF orbiter to guide her around the city as she prowls for alpha thug cock.

Look, she’s out on a Wednesday night alone, so you know she’s interested in hooking up. You know that she knows you’re a bit too smooth for your own good. So she’s got dual ASD bitch shields up: the first is her shield against being perceived a weeknight ho. The second is her shield against the predations of players. She needed you to deactivate her shields, and from what I can tell, you didn’t quite pull it off. You should have played the innocent “me, a player? no way” card, and pre-empted her Wednesday night friend request with one of your own, and THEN proceeded to sexualize the non-verbal aspect of your time together. That contrast is catnip to these kinds of women who WANT IT but don’t want to be perceived as wanting it.

***

Email #5

A lot of my army buddies brag about how the military uniform makes ladies swoon for them and gives them a chance to DHV easily with war stories and such. Do you think a military uniform makes for a good game prop?

Day game, yes. Night game, no. You’ll look like a tool if you’re decked out in uniform at an urban nightclub. But during the day, there could be any number of reasons why you’d be wearing a military uniform, and that will intrigue girls.

***

Email #6

Women do so much on their birthday it’s ridiculous…Women be pisces….still celebrating on Aries time…..27 acting like its their sweet 16…why do you think that is?

A pedestal atop a preexisting pedestal? What woman would turn that down?

***

Email #7

I very new to game, and am learning the art in a rather interesting venue; an engineering university where there are 7 men to every 3 women.

Luckily, I’ve figured out that most of the men aren’t really competition because most of them are seriously hardcore pussy worshiping betas and omegas who don’t even appear on the women’s radar.

That said I only just tried my first approach (using game) last week, which was a big eyeopener as pretty much everything I’ve learned here worked.

Sadly I botched things by getting too enthusiastic later on and trying too hard (figures), but I learned a lot from it and those mistakes will not be made again.

That said there was one thing I observed during my first pursuit:

The (girl’s) Herd.

Like the adorable lemmings they are. Girls survive on social cues. They need the protection and guidance of the herd. This is probably because their vaginas and brains are not on speaking terms.

She mentioned that she had a man-hating roomie,

Amanda Marcotte, is that you?

who (along with other friends I’m sure) probably helped persuade her that I was no good.

Maybe. But I wouldn’t put too much stock in that explanation. A lot of times, the disapproval of a girl buddy will only make a girl more attracted to the badboy who swoops her.

Now, I’m not saying that this is what convinced her to stop texting and start ignoring me, I know I failed a LOT of shit tests and so forth, but I am wondering, how do you deal with the female herd?

Its difficult for me to understand because its not something easily interacted with… or is it? help would be much appreciated!

Befriend the friends. This is Game 101. People are more apt to welcome you into the tribe if you make them feel like you are truly interested in their lives. When I get a convenient opportunity to meet a girl’s friends, I usually take it, because I know that meeting them and winning them over is a fast track to raising my social status. A short cut, if you will.

Also, if you have any advice for dealing with women in a environment with a High male/female ratio that would be much appreciated!

There is one advantage that a high male/female social environment offers, and that is the ability to elevate your value by doing the opposite of all the men around you. High M/F ratios usually mean the men are try-hard desperadoes, because they will feel the pressure of their competition more keenly. That means, a lot of bumbling beta moves, mule-headed insecure paper alpha hysterics, and pushy horndogs. It’s a simple matter to triangulate off that social dynamic by saying to a girl, “I bet you love all these hopeless guys throwing themselves at girls. Look, here comes one now. He likes you, it’s so obvious he can barely contain his excitement.”

Having said that, it is of course, much better to game in a low M/F ratio environment if you are a man. A disproportionate number of women = a disproportionate number of loose women.

CPAC In A Nutshell

Ever have a girl try to copy a porn move on you that she once saw, except it was one of those disgusting porn moves, like spitting for lube or gag drooling during a blowjob, that no normal man really likes?

Yeah, that’s what comes to mind reading about CPAC speakers and attendees dancing to the leftoids’ big tent tune.

Look, fudgePACers, you can yap all day about dropping social issues and appealing to Hispanics’ “natural conservatism”, but the unavoidable fact is that you either stood by or abetted the traitors as the doors to the country were swung wide open to permanent demographic replacement. No matter how far you bend over, you will never outcompete the leftoids on the appeal of their leftoid message to two giant underclasses and one giant hypocritical status whoring gated community class. So you may as well begin the process of carving out a new party and starting from scratch.

PS A slow and steady blowjob, lots of soft lip but with no phony gonzo drooling, is really sexy.

Alpha Male Membership Has Its Privileges

From a Craigslist W4M posting (since expired):

Gansevoort bathroom in January – w4m – 24 (West Village)

I was your cocktail waitress 3 weeks ago at the rooftop. You were there on a Wednesday night with your friends(?) or clients from work. You said you worked for GS, but you might have just said whatever. I mean, what does a dumb bitch like me know, right? You flirted with me and asked me what I did other than work here and I told you I’m in acting school. You were really hot in that asshole lacrosse kinda way with your blonde hair and broad shoulders, maybe 29, 30. You followed me to the bathroom and grabbed my tits and hair pushed down. I got on my knees and sucked your cock. I didn’t know what else to do. Then you blew a load on my face and stuck a $100 bill on it. You walked out without saying anything, when I straightened up and came out your table already settled. And left me a nice tip. I wish you left me a card but you probably didn’t want me to know your real name or where you really worked.

I’d just leave it at that, and apply it to my acting, but the trouble is that I really liked it. You made me feel like a fucking cheap chinky whore. I wanna do it again but you don’t need to tip me. Get in touch, please. We don’t have to date. I just really liked pleasing you.

I wonder if the General Social Survey captures this kind of data?

The Elaborate Proposal As Mate Guarding Behavior

In the March 2013 Beta of the Month contest, nominee #2 was a plush squeezable who constructed a twelve day extravaganza proposal for his chubby girlfriend, filmed it and set it to music by twelve indie band drummers (which must have cost a pretty penny, if they weren’t doing it as a favor for him). Commenter RappaccinisDaughter suggested a motivation for these elaborate proposal rituals:

The epic-proposal guy is forgivable because there’s kind of a cultural push in certain circles to plan ever-more-elaborate proposals. It’s more of a dick-measuring contest than anything else. He’s establishing among his circle that he’s the most clever, thoughtful, meticulous one among them.

Male status whoring? No. Men status whore by parading a hot babe on their arms. That’s how they deliver in the most direct manner possible the message that they have the goods to outcompete other men. No man that I know is impressed by a creatively exhaustive epic proposal event. If anything, men feel the opposite feeling when they are exposed to these courtship calisthenics by princess pedestalizing suck-up chumps: they feel disgust. Repugnance. Pity. Even contempt. No man watches one of these Cannes Film Festival proposals and thinks to himself, “Now there’s a high status alpha male I’d like to emulate.”

Usually what they’re saying to themselves instead is something like, “What a tool. She’s already got his balls in a jar.”

The reason is simple: Men sacrifice more by committing to marriage. It is the woman who is “alpha” for successfully extracting commitment from a man. A man who gives up his commitment is the equivalent of a woman who gives up her pussy; no skill involved, so no reflection on their respective statuses.

Here’s a better theory to explain the recent surge in elaborate, saccharine proposals:

It’s mate guarding behavior by beta males.

The beta male is essentially signaling to potential male competitors that his wife-to-be was so ostentatiously wooed by him she will never entertain the thought of cheating with another man, so don’t bother. He has her on “lock-down“. The elaborate proposal is also a mate guarding signal to the girlfriend that the beta male will jealously patrol the boundaries of his one-woman harem. It is perhaps even a signal to other women that he has enough energy to sustain the company of a mistress, although I would expect this latter reason to be more indicative of the machinations of a greater beta or alpha male.

Why would the elaborate proposal surge in frequency and fussiness in our current dystopian Beaver Runner society? Well, extreme mate guarding behavior is what you find in societies where paternity guarantee is low, fidelity guarantee is low, and cock carousel cad hopping risk is high. Or at least the normal social constraints on cock carouseling are loosened. Beta males in such societies are horribly outgunned by sexy cads, because the usual leverage that beta males bring to the marital table — their resources — has been devalued by women’s economic self-sufficiency and generous state and corporate largesse.

The game insight here should be clear: don’t mate guard. Or, more precisely, don’t transparently mate guard. If you mate guard, you signal your betatude. The more diligently you mate guard, the more your girl will perceive you as having few mate options other than herself, and her labia will wither like rose petals in a Texas drought. Because chicks dig dudes who could fuck other chicks if they had a mind to.

Woman Admits To “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux” Dating Strategy

Some gross feminist careerist reptile who works for Facebook (dying media company if the decline in young recruits is any indication) has a long interview in Salon explaining her insipid views on the disparity between the sexes in upper echelon representation and the oft-debunked (but obviously not often enough) “gender pay gap”. I urge you to skim it quickly, because it’s largely the usual unverifiable, proof by assertion femcunt claptrap. However, there is one response she gives which bracingly reveals how a lot of modern American women, unawares or not, strategize their dating lives.

Look, I’m not pretending I can give advice to every single person or every single couple for every situation; I’m making the point that we are not going to get to equality in the workforce before we get to equality in the home. [ed: could you imagine being hitched to this repulsive ballbuster?] Not going to happen. You know, I give advice to young women. I say “pick a partner.” If that partner is female you are in good shape because you are likely to split up things very evenly; the data’s very strong that same-sex couples split responsibilities much more evenly. [ed: the data is also strong that dyke couples have high rates of domestic violence] If you are a female and your partner is likely to be male, this is something to really pay attention to. I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers.

“I don’t wanna sound like a feminist slut or nothin… but I kinda wanna fuck the sexy jerks and make the niceguys wait to put a ring on it.”

I hope every beta male in the world is reading this post right now, because this bitch just opened up and exposed the mouth to hell that burns at the heart of every woman’s naked id. Not all women are so aggressively calculating, but most feel the subsonic thump of compulsion to autonomically follow the alpha fux, beta bux dating strategy. It’s your job as a man with functioning testicles to stop women from using you in this manner. Paradoxically, most women will love you harder for stopping them from indulging their worst instincts.

Reader Days of Broken Arrows writes:

Few quotes reveal what’s so dysfunctional about modern dating than this — and that includes her desultory use of the word “boys” in lieu of men.

Exactly right. While the cad/dad dichotomy of choice in women is as ancient as the tree of life, the social constraints on satisfying the dichotomy have never been looser than now. Post-modern, post-industrial, pre-singularity West — whatever you want to call it — is enabling women to not only pursue an ultimately self-defeating dualistic cad/dad strategy that will leave the lot of them feeling spiteful and unloved, but it’s encouraging them to extol the strategy as an empowering way to interact with men. It’s as if women have forgotten that men respond to sexual market cues as well, and won’t just casually accept disadvantageous dating roles that leave them supine to women’s machinations.

I’ve noticed that as Western women have become masculinized and set adrift from their main purpose as nurturers and child bearers to ricochet down a rocky crevasse of careerism, multi-decade pump and dump victimization and pre-wall beta male settling, their desire, their need, to belittle men has increased. This need is likely born of frustration. And so we see them tossing around terms like “boys” and “guys” to avoid addressing their potential lovers and providers as “men”. Similarly, as Western men have become feminized and neutered of their ability to project dominance, their need to glorify women and accord their every trivial accomplishment or wayward musing a hero’s benediction has increased. The behaviors of the sexes are in the process of meiosis and reformulation, a classic switcheroo, and this is a harbinger of the end days of a cultural empire.

What the vapid feminist entity above confesses, perhaps unwittingly, is that chicks truly deeply honestly dig jerks. They dig jerks so much that they have to be counseled not to seek marriage with them, and to seek instead marriage to boring men who don’t viscerally excite them. For you see, it’s a myth that women don’t want the jerks for long term romances. They do. The problem is that the jerks don’t want to be tied down, especially not to unfeminine battle-axes who think their vaginas are gold-plated and their reality-denying stridency is evidence of their sexual worth.

A few very beautiful women — not the Salon interviewee — can successfully pursue an “alpha fux, alpha bux” dating strategy. This is the equivalent of hitting the jackpot as a woman. And in point of fact, beautiful women have fewer sex partners than their more modest-looking sisters. The reason is simple: when you have the goods, you are less likely to give them away for free. Beautiful women can capture — and keep — alpha male attention without resorting to leg-spreading enticement. Homelier women must spread… or accept loneliness.

But most women are not that beautiful. For the majority, an “alpha fux, beta bux” strategy will net them, if they are in reasonably good shape, a decade of fantasy-fueling sex and miserable relationships, culminating in marriage (and a bank-busting wedding extravaganza) to a doughy herbling who must know deep in his bones that he is paying dearly for damaged product which better men than he used for free back when it was fresh off the shelves. He must also know that his rode-worn beloved who is about to execute the final stage of her indentured beta male servant plan considers him a second-rate alternative to the lovers of her past. If women don’t think this galls the betas who must accede to these liberated, feminist-friendly conditions, they are in for a rude awakening when they discover how quickly the hubby herblings give up on life and on pleasing their cackling sow wives.

An “alpha fux, beta bux” dating strategy may sound, on paper, very pleasing to women, but pursuit of it is almost guaranteed to lead to frustration and bitterness for most women in the modern mating market. One, the natural order of things can withstand only so much subversion before the spirit breaks. An aging woman with an extensive sexual history will come to resent her unexciting diaper-changing bore of a husband with whom she settled, and he will resent her rapidly imploding sexual attractiveness, acidic demeanor and daily tacit reminders of his low status.

Two, men are not wind-up toys ready to do the bidding of manipulative women; those jerkboy fux and betaboy bux may refuse to play along. The sexual market is the collision of competing reproductive goals, and in that plunderdome of all against all, where the only guiding principle is self-interest, the jerkboys may not bother showing up for a date and the betaboys may decide the jerkboys are getting the better end of the deal, and adjust their behavior accordingly, perhaps in the arms of a mistress or porn. Or game.

A woman who plays this strategy to the hilt is taking a big risk that she will be left a destitute single mom or, at best, an unhappy and unloveable EatPrayLove commodity, an appendage to the dehumanizing globalist corporate borg, desirable to no one but the most desperate loser men or conniving schemers. And, looking around, this is what we see happening all over America. The crosstabbed and powerpointed nth wave modern feminist woman will realize, at the end of her long, exhilarating but empty journey, that her happiness as a woman was never amenable to her best-laid blueprints for the efficiently maximized love life.

The Strongest Links

Ten charts about sex, from OkCupid’s data lab. Usual caveats apply (selection bias, SWPL staff bias, social desirability response bias), but interesting nonetheless. Charts 7 and 10 are the best. During their prime fertility years (when they are at their hottest), thin women have the highest reported level of self-confidence and fatsos the least. No surprise there. What is surprising (if you don’t fully understand the nature of female sexuality) is how women’s self-confidence continues to rise well past their sell-by dates. There is a serene resignation that accompanies sexual expiration which likely contributes to women feeling happier in their later years, but the biggest reason for this trend is that when women are younger and immersed in the dating market — that is, when competition to win at the most important game in life is especially ruthless — their solipsism serves a valuable function as a monitor of their physical state. A woman with unnaturally high self-esteem might go on eating and lounging around, doing nothing about her weight gain, while a woman with lower self-esteem would take care of herself better to avoid realization of her worst fears. (Men, too, experience a similar gradual rise in self-confidence with age, although for them the average degree of self-confidence for all body sizes is shifted to the right compared to the average for women. Remember that men don’t suffer as much of an SMV drop with advancing age like women do. In fact, men experience an increase in SMV at older ages when women are beginning their precipitous drop to sexual invisibility.)

***

Robert Shiller destroys the idea that home ownership is a good investment. He calls it “a fad”, and likens it to investing in a car.

“If you think investing in housing is such a great idea, why not invest in cars?” he asked. “Buy a car, mothball it, and sell it in 20 years. Obviously not a good idea because people won’t want our cars. It’s the same with our houses. So, they’re not really an investment vehicle.”

Any homeowner knows that you can’t sell a home with 30-year-old roofing, carpet, and kitchen appliances. Sure, the home price might go up, but you have to adjust for years of maintenance and renovations.

***

Female sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality. (There are more *true* female bisexuals than there are male bisexuals.) The explanations given for female sexual plasticity sound plausible — especially the theory that women’s lower sex drive makes it easier for them to redirect it — but my personal theory is that women have evolved flexible sexuality as a form of in-group bonding and biological diplomacy between tribal competitors, most of whom would be other women. Or: good scissoring makes good neighbors! For this reason, you would find more bisexuality in cities, where tribal bonds are weakest and threats greatest.

***

NIH will use your taxpayer dollars to study why lesbians are lardos and gays are gracile. CH will give you the answer for free: Men are visual, women are holistic. This goes equally for homos and straights. In the next study, we will examine why so many of the Cathedralcrats are aggressively blind to reality.

***

Diversity + proximity = war. Atlanta’s suburbs are seceding from Atlanta proper. Translation: Atlanta’s white suburbs are seceding from the city of black Atlanta. Result: the suburbs and exurbs have become solvent, while the city continues to languish. De facto resegregation is going to be the story of 21st century America. It will be dressed up in plausibly deniable SWPL semantics, of course, but the motivation and inner voices will sing the same tune — “We’re getting the hell away from these intractable race problems.”

***

Diversity + proximity = war, Part 2. Latina randomly attacks white girl. You know how that flaxen white girl hair inspires raw, envious hatred in the Other. Not kidding.

***

Diversity + proximity = war, Part 3. The equivalent of the Nazi’s yellow jewish star to identify Jews in the population has come to Wisconsin, where education officials — representing a propaganda arm of the Cathedral — are

encouraging white students to wear a white wristband “as a reminder about your (white) privilege.” […]

The webpage also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive. They include:

• Wear a white wristband as a reminder about your privilege, and as a personal commitment to explain why you wear the wristband.
• Set aside sections of the day to critically examine how privilege is working.
• Put a note on your mirror or computer screen as a reminder to think about privilege.

The Wisconsin DPI also sponsors several similar programs, including CREATE Wisconsin, an on-going “cultural sensitivity” teacher training program which focuses largely on “whiteness” and “white privilege.”

Reeducation camps. That’s what our university and public school systems and HR departments have become. The scum who perpetrate these programs of psychological white annihilation dress up their motives in bureaucratic gibberish:

Geared towards high school students, the program “seeks to build capacity in schools and districts serving low-income families to develop an effective, sustainable, research-based program of family-school-community partnerships,” according to its Facebook page.

…but we know better. You will take their diversity, good long and hard, even if they have to lobotomize you to ensure your compliance.

***

Diversity + proximity = war, Part 4. There is evidence that as the country becomes more vibrantly diverse, whites in close contact with this diversity shift their views to more socially conservative ones, such as withdrawing support for illegal immigrant amnesty. You could call this the “brush with reality” voter preference theory. White Democrats may flock to the Republican party as they feel the familiarity of their majority neighborhoods suffocating under the grip strength of diversity, and they are beset on all sides by antagonistic groups who want to bleed them dry (or make them wear identifying “badges of privilege”). The question now is whether a white Dem exodus to the GOP will be big enough, and soon enough, to counteract the Hispanic influx to the Dems and prevent the country from becoming a facsimile of Ecuador.

A little bit of diversity is colorful fun, but a lot of diversity is national suicide. No (prosperous) nation should go beyond an 80% majority/20% minority ratio. Once that majority share starts slipping below 70%… event horizon trouble is brewing. You can tell a nation is on the path to implosion by the number of Orwellian signs around mixed neighborhoods boldly proclaiming “Diversity is Unity”. If diversity truly was unity, our Cathedral commissars would not have to blare the message on every street corner and ram it into our skulls. The unity would be self-evident. A good rule of thumb is that the more a ruling class idea is separated from reality, the more diligently it must be propagandized.