It’s Easier Picking Up Foreign Girls In Your Home Country

There is a phenomenon which I like to call Sex Mediated Differences in Travel Experiences. The theory accounts for the following real world observations:

– a woman is more likely to have a fling in a foreign country than at home

– a man is less likely to have a fling in a foreign country than at home

– a woman is less likely to have a fling with a foreign-born traveler in her home country

– a man is more likely to have a fling with a foreign-born traveler in his home country

For the typical woman, traveling abroad is basically an excuse to make dirty love with a dude who speaks broken English with an adorable cheese-grating accent. For the typical man, traveling abroad is a cultural awakening, since he won’t be spending much time banging foreign girls like he had hoped.

The science behind the Sex and Travel Theory is simple: women crave men higher in status than themselves, and territorial familiarity — or territorial mastery —  is one form of status signaling. A woman abroad — as long as she doesn’t restrict herself to expat communities — is surrounded by local men who know the land, the people and the language. By dint of their local knowledge and proficiency with the culture they become higher status than the traveling woman, no matter what her relative income or social status back home. As a result, the traveling woman is primed to perceive foreign men as higher status than herself, and thus more sexually attractive.

The traveling man, in contrast, will be perceived by local girls as having less status than themselves, simply by being a naif in a new land. This is especially true in countries where the women aren’t dirt poor or surrounded by drunkards and trying to win the green card lottery. (See: Any West European country.) Many men discover to their surprise that they have to work harder to pick up chicks in foreign countries than they do to pick up women in their own country.

At home, the scenario reverses polarity. A woman has less incentive to pursue a fling with a visiting foreigner because his baseline status as an outsider is lower than hers. He has no special knowledge of the land she lives in. But a man finds it easier to pursue flings with foreign girls in his own country because they now perceive his “home field advantage” status as higher than theirs.

Again, ask any man with experience in dating foreign girls and he will tell you scoring foreign chicks on his own turf is a breeze compared to scoring foreign chicks in their own countries. At home, he has an in-built status boost relative to visiting foreign girls, and this works to his advantage, even when he is not aware of it.

Caveats:

You still should have a working familiarity with some of the cultural and psychological differences between groups of foreign girls. A Russian is not a Czech. Although game principles are universal, there are some distinctive nuances separating the ethnicities.

The intrinsic advantage that you will have with a foreign girl on your home turf dissipates the longer she has been here, exposed to the rot of American feminism, consumerism and celebrity culture. This starry-eyed, zero-bitch shield period will be strongest when she’s fresh off the boat, and gradually diminish with time. If she’s fluent in English and from a Western nation, expect her disenchantment to emerge around month three. If she’s not fluent in English and she’s from Russia, Africa, Latin America or some parts of East Europe, expect the glow of automatic tingles whenever an American man talks to her to linger for two years.

You can do well overseas if a) you have game, hybrid vigor looks, and a decent command of the local language, or b) you leverage your “expert from afar” credentials. A man with some local knowledge, money, or international business interests can do well with foreign girls who, like all women, are attracted to the stranger who comes into town bearing gifts of mystery and allure.

If you are operating from your home country, don’t neg foreign chicks as much as you would American chicks. The language difficulties and tacit status differential are already enough negs for even the hottest foreign girls. Negs, sarcasm and teasing are often misconstrued by foreign girls as rejections.

Women Are More Comfortable Sharing A Lover

A religious American woman engaged to a Frenchman writes about her experience with him when he broke off their engagement. An old high school flame had come back into his life and, as he explained to his American fiancée, he couldn’t decide if he loved the old flame.

(Don’t old flames just have a sixth sense for knowing when their window of opportunity is about to close? goddamned eerie.)

The author decides to “stay” with him; that is, she does not harangue him with an ultimatum or break up with him in a fury of righteous indignation. She instead offers to give him the space he needs to decide with whom his love is strongest and whether to come back to her at an unspecified future date should he want to do that. She calls this a relationship limbo born out of love for him. They continue emailing and calling over the next several months (the author is vague about any chance that they met for quasi-makeup sex during the limbo interim), and the story ends with no resolution. He still has not chosen between the two women, and the author still loves him. In her words:

If the man I love does come back, it will not be because I have threatened or manipulated him. His return will not be mere capitulation to the all-or-nothing terms I have set. It will come from a place of deep self-knowledge that he has found in his own time. And if I take him back, it will be because of similarly deep self-knowledge, made possible by this very difficult thing I have chosen to do: live with limbo, and take responsibility for my own happiness.

I admire this. She is wise enough to know that ultimatums are the worst possible foundation for a marriage. She also senses, although I doubt she could comprehend the true reasons why, that men are capable of loving more than one woman simultaneously. This is an emotional feat most women cannot grasp, because it is not in a woman’s nature to love more than one man at a time. It takes a selfless woman with a grounded ego and big heart to be able to temporarily silence the hamster and admit to herself that, although she could never do it, perhaps her man really does love two women at once.

Maxim #200: Men acquire lovers; women share lovers.

But she is unwise in one respect: he may return, but not in love. There is no guarantee that he doesn’t return to his American lover simply because his options dried up. Perhaps years later the old high school flame gains weight and our intrepid alpha male* Frenchman loses his love for her, which impels him to seek the comfort and sexual satisfaction of his former lover once again. In other words, she may serve as nothing more than his safety snatch. Yet, for many women, playing safety snatch to an alpha male is preferable to playing top choice to a beta male. So we come round again to my admiration for her purity: she loves an alpha male, and she will surrender her ego to be with him, no matter the cost. I don’t fault her at all for her decision.

*How do you know he is an alpha male?, some of you are probably asking. We know because he has two women in love with him, and at least one of them has agreed to become a de facto member of his nascent harem. Or: it’s self-evident, Sherlock.

The implications of her decision, amplified a million-fold across the corners of the globe, should give betas pause. Women have a natural instinct to sort into concubinage under a sole alpha male. Now, this does not mean women favor such an arrangement to the exclusion of all others; ideally, women would like an alpha male all to their own. But given a world full of competing choices, a woman’s evolutionarily guided hindbrain impulse pushes her, continually like the slow but forceful eddies in a tidal pool, into an arrangement where she feels more sexually fulfilled, as a woman, being the second or third or even thirtieth concurrent lover of a powerful man instead of the first and sole lover of a weak man.

Of course, most modern women do wind up settling for beta males (usually at the tail end of their prime attractiveness years), not least because social taboos and restrictions prevent the large-scale formation in the West of openly recognized harems (to date; see: gay marriage slippery slope). Many women, unbeknownst to their conscious minds, find a loophole to this societal shaming mechanism by doing what the Salon author did: they drop out of the dating market to wistfully pine for an unavailable alpha male while he enjoys the pussy fruit of multiple women. Women who aren’t into the whole wistful pining thing prefer the alternatives of riding the cock carousel or cheating on beta boyfriends while keeping it on the DL.

The Salon author, Sharon Hewitt, very much resembles the protagonist from Story of O. She gives everything, including pride, in the service of love for a high value man. And she would have it no other way, though her actions violate just about every sacrosanct feminist principle of what it supposedly means to be an “empowered” woman. O, like this author, has discovered that the ultimate assertion of female empowerment resides in surrendering completely, despite all odds stacked against her and peer pressure to do otherwise, to love. Love, even, and maybe especially, for a man who would tell her he loves another, or would, like René, offer her body to strangers for sexual plundering.

That, my friends, is the unearthly pull of the alpha male.

So, a toast to Miss Hewitt, for reminding betas how badly the cards are stacked against them. You remain true to a man who has abandoned his wedding promise to you to spend time with another women. More than true, you remain in love with him. In doing so, you have removed yourself from the dating market, and ensured that one man enjoys the pleasure of two women while another man goes without the pleasure of any woman.

How Not To Spend A Ton Of Money On Your Girlfriend Or Wife

Remember some trivial detail about her and recall it many months later, to her pleasant surprise.

“The craziest field trip ever was that picnic last summer at Hyde Park. Poor Terry broke his hand playing frisbee.”

“Yeah, I remember you wore a cute blue and yellow ribbon in your hair that day.”

*shiny, glowy face* “That’s right! You remember that ribbon! Wow.”

Her girl friends, in unison: “Aaaw.”

Congratulations, you just saved thousands of dollars on expensive dinners, clothes, housewares and jewelry, all for the price of a strategically recalled, flattering detail about her appearance.

***

After a certain time has passed in a relationship, a girl wants to feel a powerful emotional bond with her lover. You have established your dominant alpha bona fides, now she wants to see signs of your commitment to her. Most men take the easy route and demonstrate commitment through acts of providership. You, however, read this blog and now know that for the low, low price of zero dollars you can stimulate a rush of emotional bonding by dedicating a little mental energy to remembering something small but personally significant about her, and reminding her of it months later. Multiply the bonding experience by two if you drop your total recall with her friends present.

Emotionally distant men who generally don’t like women for anything more than sex and what they can do for their status at cocktail parties tend to buy off their women’s need for signs of emotional bonding with trinkets and baubles. These are the kinds of women who cheat on alpha husbands with smooth-talking poolboys. You can avert living this one dimensional love life by meeting women you actually like to do stuff with. You will find it easier to remember things about them which you can recall for maximum impact at a later date.

Men who like sharing time and activities with their women, and vice versa, don’t need to drop beaucoup bucks on them to keep them happy. They know the secret to happy relationships is a healthy mix of dominance, teasing, good fucking and shared experiences. One tiny, remembered detail about her — a blue and yellow ribbon from a picnic last summer — is the equivalent in love points of a 10 karat diamond set in white gold.

Many cynical readers of the Chateau often snark that the advice given to men to screen girls during the attraction stage for attributes besides their looks is nothing but a facade of discernment designed to get them into bed sooner rather than later. Partly correct. But their cynicism blinds them to the longer term view. There are real, practical reasons for screening girls for lifestyle compatibility. If she likes to do the same things you like to do, you won’t struggle to keep her entertained; you’ll be entertaining yourself every time you’re with her. Win-win.

Just don’t overdo your commonalities. Imagine your life occupies two worlds: your shared world with her, and your own secret world. She needs both to feel irrepressible lust.

Proximity + Diversity = War

Just another day in Diversityland.

I think I’ll make this a regular series, simply because I love shoving it in the faces of the equalist tards and cheap chalupas revolutionaries who have intellectualized their status whoring and moral preening by carefully constructing a mountain of lies over the past fifty years.

Moral of the story: Ignore human nature at your peril. No amount of snark in the world will shield you from that reality.

Concept Is Not Execution: The Smart Man’s Handicap With Game

Many of the commenters here have a good grasp of game concepts. Some of you give excellent answers to game tests that the Chateau occasionally throws your way, showing a fluency with the fundamental psychological techniques that lead to better relations with women. However, understanding the concepts is not the same as properly executing them in the field. You can read all the game manuals you want, but if you don’t get out there and apply the tactics until you start to feel comfortable using them and, more importantly, until you start to *sound normal* using them, you are like the professor who’s respected in the classroom but mistaken for a bumbling homeless man in the real world.

A glaring example of this disconnect between concept and execution are the turgid, wordy replies that more than a few commenters offer as suggestions for passing particular shit tests and the like. Superficially, they comprehend the principles at play, but something gets lost in the translation. Just ask yourself when you write your comment whether any actual alpha male talks like that in the real world. Most of the time, the answer you will have to concede to yourself is… no.

This is why I strongly counsel readers to adopt a natural as a mentor. Books and manuals are one thing, but seeing it done in live action by someone who knows his stuff will rapidly boost your progress as a ladykiller. Personally, I’ve learned about 30% of what I know from books, forums and videos, and 70% from personal experience and from hanging out with men who were good with women. Note: these friends weren’t teachers; I was just a very observant lad growing up.

Wordiness and stilted language seems to be a big stumbling block for a lot of smart, presumably borderline nerdy, men who comment here. You write your examples of conversational snippets as if you were reading from an electronics manual or, worse, a clip from a James Bond movie left on the cutting room floor. I suspect this is the reason a lot of intelligent noobs to the game get shot down in the beginning — women are a little bit weirded out by the staccato rhythms and debate team formality of their speech. These guys aren’t losing points on the technicals; they’re losing points on style.

So, a word of advice: succinctness is the soul of cool.

Get out of your head, stop trying to formulate your sentences with the perfectionist’s eye toward proper grammar and logic, and start learning to get comfortable speaking with slangy informality. For examples of good game lines delivered with the right mix of attitude, concept and style, see any comment by el chief or el guapo. (If I left any of you out, don’t be offended. I’m too lazy to recall all of the outstanding commenters.)

Comment Of The Week

From lock n’ load:

It’s amazing how much blubba bitch’s SMV increases when she just LOSES SOME GODDAMN WEIGHT.

I remember a woman who lost 45 lbs because she lost her job and had to eat oranges from a tree in her backyard to survive. Before, when she was chubby, I did not want any part of her. When she reappeared minus the weight, her attractiveness hextupled. I did not care about her financial troubles, I genuinely found myself interested.

There ya go, folks. A funny story that illustrates the huge differences between the sexes. If you’re a fat woman who has lost your job and are forced to eat nothing but oranges from a backyard tree to survive, resulting in weight loss down to a slender profile, you will become more attractive to men, including financially sound men who could whisk you away from your misery.

Fatness: it matters to your life outcomes, ladies.

Before And After: The Hilarity Of Self-Deception

Nothing better illustrates the destruction that fatness visits upon a woman’s attractiveness than before and after pics of her weight gain. A website has posted a bunch of these types of before and after shots and the results are stunning… stunningly depressing. Every single one of the girls went from highly bangable sexy tarts to asexual lumps of disfiguring blubber. (Note: A couple of the comparisons from that website are obvious photoshops.) Want to watch your boner deflate in fast forward? Check these:

A crying shame. For girls who are gaining weight, the uglification of their looks can sometimes take months or even years to register in their consciousness, because the change is relatively slow and thus more easily psychologically accommodated by their hamsters which are loathe to contemplate the true nature of the horrors they have committed against themselves. But when you put the thin and fat pics side by side the comparison is so stark there is no running from the cruel truth: these girls have destroyed their sexiness. They have become monsters. And the widespread (heh) existence of these monsters distorts the sexual market so badly that game becomes the only answer to successfully navigating it.

Female obesity is not just bad for women; it’s bad for men, too, who have to wade through tons of sunbathing walruses before finding the lean babe on the beach, competing furiously for access to her overpriced vagina. (Fat men are no great shakes either, but due to the nature of sex differences in attraction, fat men don’t suffer the same penalty in the dating market that fat women do.)

But that is not the primary message of this post. Check out this comment left by a putative girl named “janeway” at that website:

Yes, let’s see what junk food does to guys! Eating is not why these women got bigger. NOT eating and destroying their health and subsequently their metabolism in order to attain impossible standards is why they got bigger. And in most cases, hotter.

Is there a better example of self-contradictory nonsense than what is spouted in this comment? And it’s not the only one like it; that board is filled with similar comments extolling the virtues of fatness while chastising those who put up pictures of fat girls. “Janeway” is by no means an exceptional specimen of human inanity; the world is filled with women — and men whose testicles haven’t descended — who think just like her. Lies and ego-salving bromides come as easily to them as eating another piece of pie.

Let’s break down Janeway’s comment line by line, smirking sadistically as we do it.

“Yes, let’s see what junk food does to guys!”

This bold challenge implies that Janeway thinks fatness is repulsive. Premise established. Janeway knows that it would hurt the image of guys who bloated up from eating junk food, otherwise she wouldn’t have taunted the authors of the original post; a taunt, it should be noted, which was ended rather confidently with an exclamation point.

“Eating is not why these women got bigger.”

Janeway can string some words together, so we know she’s not clinically retarded. Therefore, she must know that eating a lot of bad food is how people get fat. Yet, her ego is so invested in denying this obvious reality when it’s women’s fatness that is the subject of scrutiny, that she has found refuge in blurting a blatant lie so ridiculous that it’s clear the lie was meant for her own psychological well-being than for any audience to consider on the merits.

“NOT eating and destroying their health and subsequently their metabolism in order to attain impossible standards is why they got bigger.”

Janeway apparently has convinced herself that people get fat from breathing air while trying to reach “impossible” standards that millions of people around the world manage to reach. Also note that Janeway admits the women got bigger.

“And in most cases, hotter.”

Ah, the coda to this excruciatingly insightful comment. Janeway believes, or rather, pretends to believe, that fatter means hotter. And yet she has admitted, directly or tacitly, in the previous three sentences that –

1. Eating a lot of junk food will make guys fatter and uglier.

2. The women did indeed get bigger.

3. The women got bigger because they destroyed their health and metabolism trying to reach impossible standards via a non-eating mechanism that eludes less open-minded scientists.

4. The impossible standards are desirable, otherwise women would not try to attain them.

5. And yet, given all the above premises, fat women are hotter than thin women.

Well, Janeway, if bigger is hotter, why are you so hopping mad to defend these fat chicks from judgment? Their hotness should be self-evident, no? Do you get mad when pictures of slender supermodels are posted on the web? No, of course you don’t. That is because you, Janeway, are filled to brimming with lies you tell yourself to forget the muffin top you sport that causes your belly shirts to constantly roll up so insouciantly.

Janeway = 100% dumbass. And 95% fat.

Janeway is just a prototype, a pawn for the purposes of this post. You could see this same infantile sewer logic expressed by just about any female commenter on any blog discussing fatness, sexual market value and universal, immutable beauty standards. It goes like this:

***

A is not fat and ugly.

Fat and ugly is actually beautiful.

I bet B is fat and ugly!

A got fat and ugly trying to be thin and beautiful.

No man likes anorexics.

***

And this same bizarro formula applies to other low sexual market value women and their nonsensical defenders. To wit:

Single momhood is not bad for my dating life.

The reason I’m not dating is because I’m careful about having men meet my bastard children.

Men don’t care that I have kids.

Men run when I tell them that I have kids because they are intimidated by confident single moms.

No, really, I’m OK with loveless one night stands.

***

I’m not a has-been cougar.

Men love sexually experienced older women.

I bet you can’t get anyone but has-been cougars!

Men who date younger women are intimidated by confident older women.

It’s good that I don’t have to play games anymore.

***

I’m not a slut.

Sluttiness is empowering.

Only low self-esteem sluts would fall for game.

All women are sluts by society’s impossible standards.

Girls don’t like judgmental men.

***

Self-deception: a renewable resource that actually increases the more you use it.