Pre-Sex Offers That Sound Too Good To Be True

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous asked:

I met a 8.5 girl online (physically I’m a 6.5).  She’s extremely aloof, ignores half my texts.  Likely never LTR material. We’ve made out, nothing more.  Her interest waxes and wanes.  She planned a trip to Central America without me, leaving very soon, casually invited me.  I’ve never really traveled abroad.  I’m fast-tracking my passport and scuba certification.  I offered a nice hotel, she insisted on hostels to “meet people.”  I don’t want to feel like a novice or tag-along.  How do I prepare fast so that I can lead, demonstrate value, enjoy the trip, and build heat between us?

Short Answer: Don’t go.

This reminds me of a similar story I once heard from a friend. He, too, had sorta, kinda hooked up with a hot chick, except he did it in person while on vacation. They shared a make-out, but nothing more. After returning home to their respective countries, she invited him to visit her in her hometown. He opened his wallet, boarded a plane, took a cab from the airport to her place, crashed on her couch, and came back home two weeks later angry, bitter and pissed about ever having gone. She hadn’t put out at all. He wasted money and vacation time on illusory pussy.

He thought by taking her up on her offer of a two week vacation in her backyard she was basically offering sexy funtime. A sensible conclusion for any man to draw, but unfortunately girls are anything but sensible creatures. Unless you are the Don Juan of game, any “innocent” meeting (in her mind) that hints at a contrived pretext for sex will put a woman on guard. Not to mention, a man totally betas himself by going out of his way to spend money and fly to meet a woman on her turf in the tacit expectation of sex.

For these reasons I suggest you don’t bother going if banging her is your primary goal. She will smell that and make the path to her pussy arduous and labyrinthine indeed. Your trip will be miserable, as a result. If, on the other hand, you can honestly tell yourself that banging her would just be a welcome complement to a trip in which your primary focus is scuba diving and hitting on chicks in hostels, then by all means take her up on her offer as a TRAVEL COMPANION. But beware the danger in assuming she will be anything more than a platonic tour buddy.

Now if you had already had sex with her multiple times, I’d advise the opposite: clearly she was smitten by your bedroom prowess and offered the trip to monopolize more of your lovin’.

As for the travel preparedness details, don’t worry so much about that. Attitude is key. Go with a devil-may-care air of whimsy and enjoy your time in a foreign land with someone who will buy you tropical drinks. If you’re worried about seeming like a tag-along, make sure you have reservations to do some things on your own. Read up on the place, so you aren’t stuck in a situation where she’s telling you about all the good restaurants, clubs and beaches. If you have to leave her behind once in a while to do something you like but she doesn’t, do it. You have to act like this is as much your vacation as it is hers.

Comment Of The Week

Jaquan writes:

I dont agree with that IQ shit. Im from the hood and very smart in math and physics my favourite subject. Trust me tho homie when it comes to getting hotties im a monster and I respect all your games cuz im a player too and I learned alot from you these last few days. Being smart is a part of so you can mindfuck girls mathematically and keep them coming like a black hole in the universe lol. Just pointing out that science oriented guys got game too especially us from the hood. Shout out to the slimes. Harlem all day.

You laugh but the guy has a point. Combine intelligence with street smarts and thuglife attitude and you may as well sign your paperwork “Thee Most Honourable Sultan of Snatch, Ph.D. in Harem Studies, Pimp, Daddy & Daddy, BigLove Firm, LLCmeswoopyourho”.

Romney Is The Only (Viable) Republican Candidate

Randall Parker offers the clearest reason why Mitt Romney will wind up being anointed the Republican candidate for President.

Romney’s the best bet for the Republicans. He’s got very high analytical skills, understands finance, understands business management, and knows how to be a CEO. His Mormonism is not important. That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts. He’s not a nut case or a dummy like some of the other Republican candidates. He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect.

Note, the key qualifier is “viable”. Personally, I would vote for Ron Paul barring the emergence of a candidate who was strong on the only issue that really matters in 2012 for the U.S.: namely, immigration and the national question. But Paul is not a viable Republican candidate.

UPDATE: Ron Paul has moved into second place in the Iowa Poll. This race is wide open, folks.

If the middle-class economy really nosedives in 2012, Paul may be able to overcome elite antagonism to his candidacy and win the Republican primary.

I agree that the circumstantial evidence points to Gingrich having an intellect tilted too far in the direction of razzle-dazzle verbal fluency at the expense of critical thinking skills, but his standing in the polls is another reminder that it is in the nature of people to overvalue smooth talkers and to undervalue analytical thinkers. This cognitive bias likely has roots deep in our ancestral environment.

You need look no further than the dating market to see the same bias on full display. All else equal, who is getting the chicks? The math whiz or the silver-tongued salesman? Hell, even if you rig the comparison so that all else is not equal by, say, boosting the math whiz’s SMV with double the income and a two point advantage in looks over the salesman, the good money still bets on the latter to take the girl home and sully her cultivated purity.

Since this is a political post…

2012 prediction: the Eurozone experiment in forced financial busing implodes, taking the U.S. with it. Unemployment rises above 10%. A dark horse third-party candidate emerges sometime in April, stealing votes from both parties. Obama gently persuades Biden to retire and makes Hillary his VP. (Less likely: Obama quits the race and hands his candidacy over to Hillary.) Single women flock to his reelection bid in even greater numbers than they did in 2008, while white men vote in anti-Democrat numbers never before seen in U.S. politics. Racial and class polarization metastasizes. Obama and/or HIllary win, setting the stage for the final dissolution of the U.S. into a Balkanized banana republic. Feminists and equalists continue being stupid. Human nature continues flummoxing economists. No Child Left Behind continues leaving children behind. Mexico’s economy continues improving because their unskilled peasantry was offloaded on the U.S. for twenty years. Cheap chalupas remain more expensive than advertised because of negative externalities.

Women’s desire for alpha males stays, as always, unchanged.

Why Men Don’t Need To Worry So Much About Their Looks

The online dating site OkCupid’s crack team of SWPLs analyzed user data and made some interesting discoveries about men’s and women’s looks and how their attractiveness, or lack thereof, affects their profile response rate.

First, they posted two graphs which show how men and women rank the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex based on profile photos.

The first graph is a superimposed comparison of male appraisals of female attractiveness and the actual messages men sent to women:

Men have a very realistic appraisal system of women’s looks that clashes with their less realistic self-appraisal system of their chances to get the hottest babes. As you can see from the graph, men accurately rate most fertile-age women as mediocre lookers, with smaller contingents of the very ugly and very beautiful. This assessment accords with reality. But then, men send most of their messages to the hottest 20% of women.

As we will see, men are more forgiving than women in their ranking of the opposite sex’s looks, but they are less forgiving in their message send rate.

As with women, by their actions ye shall know them.

The graph might convince some that men have an entitlement complex as entrenched and powerful as women do, but that would be a misleading conclusion to the data. Men value looks above almost everything else in women, and this is particularly true when men have little to go on except online profiles. The photo looms large in online dating. Since women’s looks are so incredibly important to men’s happiness as regards their sex and love lives, men’s decisions to shoot for the moon on the one female variable that really matters in an environment that is conducive to mass approaches, (something which would not be feasible in a real world context), makes perfect sense as a courtship strategy. There is little risk that a man who follows this online strategy will refuse to later date down if the first wave of messages he sent to the 9s and 10s doesn’t pan out.

It’s all about investment cost. It costs men very little in time or effort to send a message to one hundred 9s on OkCupid, so the fact that they do so is less proof of their self-entitlement than it is of their rational utility maximization.

It’s more insightful to say that men have less an entitlement complex (as the term is understood when applied to female behavior) than that they have a tactical complex.

Now let’s take a look at the superimposed graph of female appraisals of male attractiveness and female message sent rate:

This is where things get interesting. The first surprise that jumps out in this graph is how harsh women are in their assessment of men’s looks. According to women’s perspectives, 80% of men fall on the ugly side of the physical attractiveness spectrum. This is way out of line with a reality where nearly every human trait is distributed normally. Clearly, women have a skewed entitlement complex much larger than men’s in how they judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex.

Yet look around you and you’ll see much more than 20% of men either hooking up or in relationships of varying strength with women. How can this be if women think 80% of men are ugly? Well, it can only be if women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s looks. And the second line in the above graph is evidence that men’s looks simply aren’t as important to women as women’s looks are to men. Women’s message distribution more accurately reflects their ranking of men’s looks than does men’s message distribution reflect their ranking of women’s looks.

That is, women may be saying one thing — men are mostly ugly — but they are doing the opposite — sending messages to lots of ugly men.

Do we really need more proof that men should never listen to what women say they find attractive and instead should WATCH what kinds of men women fall for? If you are a stickler for reams of scientific evidence, there was a NewYorkBetaTimes article not too long ago about a study that essentially confirmed for all men who know the score that what women claim they respond to sexually and what actually causes their vaginas to tingle is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED.

That one study alone probably affirmed more about the core concepts of game than any other. That is, affirmed for those who disbelieve the field experience of millions of men.

Back to the second graph: there is a big difference between men and women in the number of messages each sends to the more physically attractive members of the opposite sex. OkCupid doesn’t delve very deeply into the implications, but we here at the Chateau will, and by doing so a crucial component of female mate preference is revealed:

Women are messaging less attractive men (according to women’s own assessments) because the suite of male attractiveness traits that women viscerally respond to includes much more than male physical attractiveness.

Women are looking at and judging the ENTIRE PROFILE of men on OkCupid and sending messages based on a more holistic appreciation of attractive male qualities. And what we can see based on female message sent rates is that plenty of ugly men — as perceived by women — are bringing other, compensating, attractiveness characteristics to the table that women find desirable in a mate.*

This conclusion is perfectly aligned with evolutionary psychology theory.

Moral of the post: Men, work on your looks, get yourself looking as good as possible, but don’t worry so much if you’re not among the best looking men in the room. A lack of good looks is simply not the deal breaker for men that it is for women in the sexual marketplace.

*It should be noted that a secondary motivation for women messaging lots of “ugly” men on OkCupid has to do with women’s greater craving for ego assuaging, which is much easier to obtain in the online environment. Most men can handle a fair amount of rejection from hotties without crumbling into a puddle of self-doubt, and they don’t need a lot of compensating attention from less desirable women to make them feel better. Women, in contrast, cannot handle even a little bit of rejection from very attractive men, and they do get a thrill from receiving lots of “safe” internet attention from hordes of lickspittle betas. Yet another reason why online game is pointless for the huge majority of unenlightened men, but a cornucopia of cooch for those few men who know how to game the system.

It should be stressed that this is a SECONDARY motivation, as the graphs are showing women who are actively messaging these “ugly” men, (which indicates a desire to establish contact beyond that afforded by the quickie ego stroke), instead of waiting around for betas to message them. This is a critical distinction from the sort of attention that a hottie will get when her inbox floods with 50 boring unsolicited emails every hour.

Reader Mailbag: Surfeit Of Flushed Nethers Edition

This was a good selection of reader questions, mostly because the questions were short and to the point. Lesson: If you want your question featured in CH’s ‘Reader Mailbag’, you’ll have a better shot if it’s tidily under one paragraph in length. (No run-on sentences, please.)

Email #1

Can you talk about circumcision and your thoughts on its effects on the male brain?  My theory is that circumcised men jerk off less and are therefore more productive whereas guys with foreskins have an easy time jerking off (never need to use lube).  I’d love your thoughts on this and possible correlating the decline of America to the decline of American male circumcision.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice, a close cousin of clitoridectomy. Civilized peoples should outlaw it. Instead, it continues to be de rigueur in large swaths of the population. The arguments for it are nonsensical.

1. “It doesn’t affect sexual pleasure”

Yes, it does. The foreskin is loaded with nerve endings and is ranked the most pleasurable part of the penis by men who still have it intact. Removal of the foreskin even reduces women’s sexual pleasure during intercourse.

2. “Circumcision reduces the chance of infection, particularly AIDS”

The persistence of this myth is belied by the available evidence. Even among gay men, for whom circumcision is most recommended as a protection against AIDS and other STDs, the evidence is scant that circumcision provides a protective benefit. Think about this from an evolutionary perspective for a second: if intact foreskin was a high risk for infection, how did it ever evolve? Clearly, the foreskin is not the bogieman some faint-hearted doctors would have you believe.

3. “Women think an uncircumcised penis looks ugly”

First, what women think of the aesthetics of the penis is all over the map. I have heard a thousand different opinions on this subject from women. Second, what does it matter what chicks think of your dong’s look? I’m sure some African tribal chieftains somewhere think girls’ vaginas look ugly with all that labia and clit in the way, so they cut it off. Does that make it right?

The reader does introduce a compelling puzzle. Circumcision likely reduces the sensitivity of the penis head (glans) because the head is exposed to the elements and other sorts of friction on a continual basis, which it would not be if it were sheathed behind foreskin. So it’s interesting to muse whether circumcised men masturbate less than intact men who are more sensitive to every movement their penises make. If so, it could be plausibly argued, as this reader does, that circumcised men divert more of their energies to non-sexual productive pursuits that benefit society.

We’ll call this the Chateau Heartiste® Theory of Circumcision and Civilizational Progress™.

Email #2

I was wondering what your views are about guys that are below average height? How do they overcome the heightist attitude 99% of all women have. One is automatically disqualified as an attractive guy or romantic interest because of shorter stature.

I am 5″8 myself. This might not sound really short, but I live in the Netherlands. The average male height here is over six feet.

Thanks, love your posts.

How do short guys overcome women’s bias for taller men? Hit on shorter women than themselves.

I’m not really kidding. Target selection is an important part of pickup. Screening girls for likelihood of falling under your charms is smart game. If you find yourself surrounded by tall men, go somewhere else.

Of course, it goes without saying that even a handicap like shortness can be overcome with game, but it will be harder for you than it would be for a taller man. Not that I should have to regale you with anecdotes to prove my point, but one of the greatest players I’ve ever known was an unusually short man topping out at around 5’4″. One of his keys to success? He avoided nightclubs where tall men would tower over him, and focused on online pickups. Also, perfect your alpha body language; little things can go a long way to influencing women to overlook your shortness.

By the way, 5’8″ is not that short in the USA. I believe the average male height here is 5’9″, so you would not be working from any major disadvantage if you moved out of the Netherlands. But the Dutch are the tallest people in the world, so your height will be relatively runty there. I suggest a trip to a Congolese pygmy tribe to boost your ego and jumpstart your game. I hope you like chicks who can helicopter and rest a case of beer on their buttocks while standing.

Email #3

Dear Chateau,

With deep and abiding respect, I humbly ask for some help. I am overweight and poor. I think it is the overweight that gets to women more. I simply cannot get a date. I do not have women in my social circle currently, and dating sites are dead to me. I do not wish to be burdened with another man’s devil spawn, so I stay away from the single moms. I am 26 and still a virgin. If you can help me in any other way than berating my sorry ass on your website please let me know. I would be willing to pay you for your time and effort, as much as my paltry salary allows.

Salut,

Lonely Chubby Man

Dear LCM,

Good news! Your fatness is hurting your love life more than your poverty, but luckily, slimming down is easier than cashing up. I’ll keep it simple: squat, deadlift, bench and work your core three times per week, 30 minutes each session. Run wind sprints every other day in the park until you are out of breath. Reduce your grain and sugar intake by 70%. Substitute with more meat, fish, nuts, berries and vegetables. You should also consider avoiding beer. For the love of god, stay the fuck away from soda.

Nest step: read Le Chateau archives. You will find plenty of game advice, as well as links to other game resources, here. Learning game is as important as, maybe more important than, carving the fat from your obese frame.

Do these two things and I guarantee you will see improvement in your interactions with girls. If you can’t, or won’t, follow these recommendations, then get comfortable living out your years in grinding celibacy. Your willpower depends a lot on how much you truly value getting your dick wet. You’d be surprised how many men value food, sloth, laziness and self-pitying despair more than sexual pleasure with cute chicks.

26 is still young. You have plenty of time to right your ship. Remind yourself of this every day. Better yet, imagine a CH proprietor barking it to you like a constipated drill sergeant. Live one-on-ones are generally avoided by the staff, but if the price is right…

Email #4 (wall of text alert)

Hello, Thanks for your insight on game. Been reading the site the last few weeks. Im 21 girlfriend 20. I went alpha on my girlfriend, agreed and amplified all her shit tests when she wanted to ‘talk’ about how we’d been shaky lately. She got mad saying i dont care about her and that she was going to give a new guy a chance.

One of her texts: “As much as i want you i realize I really dont need you. The beautiful difference bw wants and needs. I’m striving to get over you. It’ll be a challenge but someone will treasure me”. She went on texting me things like this, i replied with lol and told her to send me a sexy picture, basically ignoring her long texts. She then texted “Ask ur other girlfriends for a pic. I’m sure theres a waiting list. Im going to actually give this new guy a chance. This is me being honest. I know you dont give a fuck but no need to hide it.”

i replied with another lol and said i was waiting on the picture. She didnt reply 3 days later(my birthday) she texts me “happy birthday!”. I dont respond, she calls a few hours later saying she wasnt sure if i got her text and wished me happy birthday. I said aloofly ok thanks. She nervously said ok thats all and i hang up.

Then that night she texts me some bs about my mom being funny on facebook “Your mom is soo funny”. I havent replied to it… Overall i think she reacted to my new non caring behavior by threatening me with all her long emotional texts to see if i would bitch up and say sorry like i have for the past 2 years. Im a tall good looking guy and handled our relationship well until recently when i stumbled across this site and realized why she began to withdraw from me a little. Personally i think shes waiting for me to come around and say sorry and try to get in her new graces but i really dont know how to take it from here. How should i reply to these texts? Also i remember reading that when a girl professes how much shes over you and wants to move on shes never been more into you…

So with that said, if ive been playing it right, she’ll come around and say shes made a mistake and that she wants things to be like before and what not. In which case id act aloof, and that its no big deal. Maybe even milk it a little and make her feel real bad. But im thinking it may take a few more days because shes not use to this uncaring reaction out of me. Once she realizes im serious she’ll hopefully be back. What do you think?

How long have you been seeing your “girlfriend”. If she’s saying she wants to “give a new guy a chance” after only two weeks with you, then I think you are dealing with a crazy attention whore slut you’d be better off excising from your life. You can bet pretty good money that when a chick says she wants to give a new guy a chance, she’s already giving a new guy a chance.

I consider words like that from a girlfriend to be either incredibly transparent, blunt force shit tests, or confessions of infidelity. In your case, based on follow-up emails and texts she sent you, it sounds like she’s shit testing and fishing for a jealous reaction from you. She needs to see indicators of commitment (IOC), which you are not giving her.

Her reactions to your aloof alpha game tell me that your replies were on the money. She’s chasing you, and that’s always the better relationship dynamic than the other way around. She doesn’t want to show her hand, though, so she lamely tried to conceal her interest and growing urgency by contacting you through plausibly deniable third parties, as she did when she referenced your mother and, to a lesser extent, your birthday.

(Question for the betas reading: Be honest, how may of you guys tried to reestablish contact with exes by sending them little reminders on their birthdays? Yeah, you tooled yourselves. I hope your dick shrinks when you think on those low points in your lives.)

HOWEVER, I do think you overplayed your hand a bit. All aloof, all the time, makes Jack an unreachable boy. A woman needs to see *some* desire from her man. There’s no need for you to apologize for anything, or to even mention this whole sorry episode in any capacity. Just reach out to her and meet her like you did when times were good. Make some token efforts at beta vulnerability. Deep conversations, eye gazing, a surprise purchase of some small bauble… it doesn’t take much to allay a girl’s fears that you are irrevocably drifting away from her.

Making *her* feel bad for the growing distance is a particularly powerful technique that I would advise only experts at female emotional tinkering should attempt. If you can do that without angering her, go for it. Example: “I’ve been thinking about us lately… (pause)… and your attitude has really made me wonder… (pause)… I dunno, I guess I needed some time to think by myself.”

I’m sure she realizes you’re serious, so you should ease up on the aloofness now. Begin taking the lead again. Let us know how it goes.

Email #5 (from a girl)

I’ve followed your blog for about a year now, and having observed my guy friends and evaluated my own life up till now, I can say that I agree with about 98% of your writing. but I feel like there’s a bit of a conundrum for your average 6/7s; you say alphas are attracted to femininity and girls who “don’t play games”. but 6/7s are often overlooked if the only qualities they possess are such.

also, of course, understandably no guy wants to be chased, as it is fundamentally unfeminine for a girl to chase a man… BUT, for a 6/7 is it possible that initiating the flirting (even with sexual overtones) would actually be productive by subtly seeming more open? I kind of got this from your Betty (9) vs Rachel (7) post.

so do you think 6/7s should initially be more flirty than their hotter friends to at least attract attention, and if not, how do you propose they (attempt to) set themselves above hotter women?

First of all, guys *do* like to be chased. The caveat is that they like it in small doses early on (just enough to let him know that his efforts are not wasted), and in larger doses as a relationship develops (so that his anxieties that you might be a cuckold risk are laid to rest). You are correct, though, in assuming that a girl who chases too much will be undervalued by men as a potential girlfriend and overvalued as a potential one night stand.

6s and 7s pass the cute threshold. If you are a 6 or a 7, you can easily get a solid beta boyfriend as long as your standards aren’t ridiculously inflated and you have the wisdom to know that settling is usually a better option than resigning yourself to pump and dump singleness. Too many women with their useless libtard degrees, $45K HR jobs and muffin tops think they are hot shit who shouldn’t ever have to settle, and these are the kinds of women who end up at 39 like Katie Bolick wondering why they are childless and ignored by the men who used to dump inglorious fucks in them when they were younger hotter tighter.

Good news! You do not sound like one of those women. The very fact that you write here seeking advice suggests that you have a head on your shoulders.

Flirting is a fine art that some women naturally excel at, while other women need to learn from their elders and peers. A 6/7 will be overshadowed by hotter girls, which she can combat in one of three ways:

1. Flirting more openly, as you said

2. Being nicer and more approachable than the hotter girls

3. Studiously avoiding those places where hot women congregate

Number 3 is self-explanatory. Classrooms and house parties are your friend. Nightclubs are not, unless you want an NSA hookup.

Friendly girls with kind demeanors will attract betas like flies to honey. (I would drop the idea that you are going to snag an alpha male for any long term commitment. You should focus on those betas who show sparks of alpha playfulness.) A beta is typically intimidated by 8s and 9s, and put off by their shit tests, so he will gravitate to women more within his purview who don’t give him a hard time. A friendly, non-shit testing 7 with a slender figure is like the holy grail to 70% of the world’s men.

Coyness is a form of flirting, and men love it. But the line between coyness and conspicuous sluttiness is easier to cross than you might think. If you are going to go the “sex it up” route to attract male attention, you had better know what you’re doing. A skirt too short or an eye play too lascivious, and you will get beset by alphas who only see you as a low cost, investment free sexual experiment waiting to happen.

Licking the lips, finger tracing a cocktail glass, crossing and uncrossing legs, smiling a lot, playing with your hair, bright red lipstick, sexy hipster stockings, saying “hi” first, good posture that thrusts the tits outward, high heels that hoist the ass upward, innocent touches on his forearm when he says something interesting… all these flirty expressions are tools of the trade that women over millennia have wielded to capture men’s interest.

I could go on but a full compendium of flirty tricks of the female trade would require a separate post. Bottom line: You aren’t going to outcompete 8s and 9s for alpha male commitment, but you can outcompete 6s and 7s for greater beta commitment. And, if the stars are aligned, you might even best the occasional 8 who has her eyes set on a beta male. A lot of greater betas with options will choose the less stressful, less hot girl for long term love because they don’t have the game nor the guts to keep a hotter girl than they are accustomed to in line.

The IQ War Smears

Via GLPiggy, there’s a big dust-up over IQ and ethnicity again (these things seem to come in cycles, about once every two years), with Andrew “really, it’s not a stereotype that I own a beagle” Sullivan on the side of common sense and hard facts this time, and the denialist tools over at Gawker and, well, just about every other mainstream internet outlet smearing him and guys like Charles Murray as white supremacists.

You can’t make this shit up. Oh wait, yes, you can, because this debate is a fucking broken record at this point. The Left has their creationism, and even if they live their lives as if they don’t believe in it, you will never get them to admit they worship a false idol. Best just to mock and taunt them.

I give this topic little attention because, one, it doesn’t interest me as much as pussy does and, two, the bad faith arguments of the denialists are so egregious and their smear tactics so transparent it’s like trying to reason with a psychopath. You’re wasting your breath and giving him more chances to stick a knife in your back when you’re not looking. The way to handle psychopaths is to isolate and ostracize them, not try to engage them.

Some of them are reachable through triangulation, but why bother? For every one denialist who comes around to a distilled and palatable version of the truth, twenty more verbal prestidigitators pop up like crazed prairie dogs to fill the emoting vacuum left behind by the convert’s exit.

Lest we forget, there’s a reason why emotions run so hot on this issue. Not only does it cut straight to the beating heart of equalist ideology — the predominant ideology, arguably, of the last 150 years in the West — but the ramifications of the subject under debate are huge. The tepid bleatings of putatively diplomatic commentators like this one on Ta-Nehisi’s forum serve as a prime example of what I’m talking about:

Andrew never said that blacks are “inferior” to whites or that whites are “inferior” to Asians. He simply pointed out the fact that Asians, on average, perform better than whites on a certain kind of test, and whites perform better, on average, than blacks on a certain kind of test.

This dismissive hand-waving about “a certain kind of test” reveals more than it conceals. It is meant to assuage egos and smooth the airwaves for sensible, rational discussion on the topic. But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.

The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.

Their reasons are obvious, and understandable. But they are still lords of lies. And their time is almost up.

Does Game Work Less Well On Masculine Women?

A reader left a link to a very interesting study of digit ratio and how it affects women’s mating and nesting behavior.

The current study assessed digit ratio (2D:4D) and mate guarding in 101 dating couples. Low 2D:4D men (indicating higher prenatal testosterone exposure) were more likely to state that they threatened male competitors and used more threats and physical aggression toward their female partners. Men were particularly likely to use threats and physical aggression toward partners who cheated in the current relationship. In addition, women resisted mate guarding by men with high 2D:4D, particularly when women cheated on their partner. High 2D:4D women were more possessive toward their partner. This is consistent with ideas regarding the effects of sexual selection on mate guarding.

Digit ratio studies seem to come out every week now, with similar conclusions that the amount of testosterone or estrogen we are exposed to in our mothers’ wombs has real world consequences for how we act as adults when searching for a mate and settling into relationships. It is strange but true that you can tell quite a bit about a person’s character — barring exceptions, of course — by simply eyeballing the ratio between his or her ring finger and index finger. Cultural conditioning, my ass.

Studies like this one are anathema to feminists (for the obvious reasons), but they should give practitioners of the crimson art of game pause, too. For if digit ratio alters women’s behavior toward men and her fidelity within relationships, then game will have to adapt to those realities.

Examine, for instance, the second conclusion in that study abstract above. Women resist mate guarding by high digit ratio (i.e., feminized) men; in layman’s terms, women give feminine men more shit when those men act possessively. More masculine men, therefore, can better get away with possessively jealous behavior. A well-versed student at Le Château Institute for Advanced Poon Studies would slyly remark that it makes perfect sense when you consider that women would be more likely to want to step out on a feminized beta male to get impregnated during the ovulation part of her cycle by an alpha male. A very jealous beta boyfriend would throw an annoying monkey wrench in her subconscious plans.

Also note that the female resistance to mate guarding by the male is *stronger* when she has already cheated. Gentlemen, if you have discovered cheating by your girlfriend or wife, kick her out immedaitely after throwing her shit on the sidewalk. Ignore her desperate entreaties to the contrary; it is already too late to save your relationship or marriage.

In addition, the study found that high digit ratio (i.e., highly feminine) women are more possessive of their boyfriends. Why would this be so? Presumably, feminine women would have more options on the dating market, so they would have less reason to be possessive within a relationship. But you have to look at both sides of the couple equation. Feminine women likely partner with masculine men — sexual polarity is the most potent attractant in the known universe, besting even black hole gravitational pull — and these are the kind of men who have more opportunity to cheat when the cheatin’s good.

Similarly, it would not surprise me to learn that feminine betas often wind up with masculine women who take charge of the development of the relationship. The problem that presents itself to these betas is that masculine women are going to find it harder to keep strange cock out of their panties when the ovulation bell rings.

What does this have to do with game? Well, we know that feminine men will have a harder time keeping their women in line, and feminine women will be easier to game into strict relationship fidelity. Possessiveness often gets a bad rap in the cultural mainstream, but ask yourself this: Would you rather deal with an overly attentive girlfriend easily aroused to jealousy, or a stand-offish “girlfriend” with a wandering eye? Which girl will give you better, and more frequent, sex?

From experience, I can tell you that girlfriend possessiveness, while annoying at times and dangerously apt to blossom into full-blown stalker-itis if improperly managed, is far more amenable to game and psychological ploys designed to minimize its worst aspects than girlfriend aloofness.

A masculine, aloof girlfriend is the beta boyfriend’s second worst nightmare (his first is involuntary celibacy). This type of girl will chew him up and spit him out, twice on Sundays, and this goes double for betas without a clue. A beta with tight game — which, by definition, will bump him into lesser alpha territory — can keep a masculine, low digit ratio girlfriend’s faithless instincts in check, but it will cost him regular peace of mind. He may decide she is worth the aggravation if she’s hot enough.

Alpha males have to deal with possessive, feminine girlfriends more than beta males do, so their perspective on that specific manifestation of female behavior may be skewed toward less tolerance for it. This is why you will often hear natural players complaining bitterly about clingy girlfriends who cramp their alleycat style, the gender opposite of masculine women who seethe with contempt for their clingy, beta boyfriends.

As a follower of the tenets of game, you have to take two critical presumptions into account when you venture into the field.

1. As a man, do you tend to the less aggressive or more aggressive end of the male behavior spectrum? Your digit ratio will give you a clue as to which way you lean. If more aggressive (lower ratio), you may want to shoot for women with lower ratios as well, since they will be less possessive of your time and attention, freeing you up to fool around. If you are less aggressive by temperament, you will want to screen for feminine women with higher digit ratios, as these types of women will be more easily gamed into loyal relationship material.

2. Are you looking for a fling or a girlfriend? If the former, target low digit ratio girls. If the latter, go with high digit ratio girls.

Returning to the title of this post, I surmise that masculine, low digit ratio women are harder to game because they are less possessive and more prone to cheat than feminine women. A lack of possessiveness means that a whole suite of game strategies that deal specifically with arousing jealousy and instilling a fear of loss will not work as well on women who don’t get jealous very easily by nature. Similarly, game tactics which inspire love, and, hence, loyalty, in women will be less effective on masculine women with stronger drives to cheat and slut it up.

My experience confirms this hypothesis. Think of masculine women as quasi-men. How well does game work on men? Not very well. It stands to reason that game will have less impact on women who have the psychology of men.

Luckily, most men prefer the company of more feminine women, particularly for LTRs. If she’s a fling, then it doesn’t much matter if she craves random cock once a month, or likes to scratch her belly while watching football.

This is not to say that game is useless on masculine women. In fact, many early game tactics work better on women with oversized clits. A masculine woman is probably a pro at brushing off betas, and it’s a good bet she has the broad but shallow ego of a man. As a result, negs will work particularly well on her kind, and the happy surprise of being on the receiving end of brazenly cocky game will catapult her straight past the comfort zone and into your bed.