Game And Life Trajectory

Game is, above all, about options. It is a toolkit and a psychological mindset that increases the number and quality of women available to you, and strengthens the attachment that women feel toward you. For the keepers of the societal cog assembly line, this is very bad news indeed, because men with options are men willing and able to put off or even entirely forego marriage and kids.

Options = Instability

For the typical man, game is probably the most powerful weapon in his arsenal of seduction that he has at his disposal. Few lifestyle changes can expand the pool of available and willing women as definitively as a concerted effort to learn game. A sudden infusion of wealth or fame, or a miracle of plastic surgery for the uglier men, would have a greater immediate impact than game, but for most men most of the time for whom fame and wealth are out of reach or would require decades of hard work to achieve, nothing gives a bigger bang for the bang than game.

This increase in sexual market leverage does come with a cost, depending on your philosophical view of the inherent tension between individual aggrandizement and societal well-being. As new vistas of poon open wide to the man who accepts the carnal word of game into his life, the context for the choices he makes and the big stages of life he is expected — worse, obligated and duty-bound according to some whiny women — to navigate are irrevocably altered. He no longer feels the pressure to accede to custom, to accept his lot like a good provider beta gear in the machine, or to join the herd of those corralled in claustrophobic pens of restricted options.

Such a man who possesses facility with attracting the opposite sex subconsciously regards his girlfriend (or girlfriends) with a utilitarian eye. He knows that should something go wrong, should she grow — heaven forfend! — bored with him, or he with her, he can find a replacement woman of equal or better quality with a few weeks effort. This self-awareness of his options, based in the reality of his experience, colors every choice he makes. And, more importantly, it instills in him a discreet take-it-or-leave-it demeanor that is unmistakeable, and unmistakably alluring, to women. It is the attitude of sex panther.

The man with options often decides, with justification, to say fuck it to marriage and all that soul-sucking suburban indentured servitude. Thus, knowledge of game and the larger selection of women it offers to the practitioner play a substantial role in the direction his life takes.

Reader Rum comments:

Getting a good grasp of game DOES disrupt the (supposedly) normal progression of life events. Indeed, it makes it dramatically more likely that you at 47 will get lascivious attention from “in-appropriately young” women. But, the thing is, with ordinary luck, you will be getting the same kind of vibes from that same chicks mother. (Its weird the way they smell the same).

So you will have to make a definite choice. Choose without thinking too much. Then pretend the mom thing never really happened. It might work.

This is no doubt true, as any man who has reaped the benefits of game will tell you. The socially-approved timetable of life stages is simply wiped clean, conventional expectations are brought to heel, and the horizon of choice pussy extends along every compass point.

The normal, 21st century progression of life events for the average beta bear who knows nothing of game looks like this:

– hit puberty
– masturbate for ten years
– attend sex ratio-skewed college full of slutty women and get lucky once or twice, despite social awkwardness
– enlist in cubicle farm, ogle sexy co-workers at sexual harassment seminar
– manage to land a 4 or 5 girlfriend through drunken social circle
– date her for two years until she dumps him
– drown sorrows for one full year torturing self with repeated viewings of ex’s Facebook relationship status updates, (“Currently in a harem!”), including make-out pics with new biker boyfriend
– meet an “amazing” 5.5 chubby girl with “more to love”
– propose 1.2 years later
– get married, have kids
– watch as his soul drains away from enforced monogamy and ingrate spawn
– surprise divorcebuttsecks!
– pay half for the lingerie ex-wife buys to titillate her new succession of fly-by-night lovers
– contemplate killing self
– work self to bone for a corporate behemoth’s bottom line
– after ten years being single and paying alimony, meet a 45 year old divorcée lawyer with saggy tits and flat ass
– “court” her, or a reasonable facsimile thereof
– suffer the indignity of pretending to enjoy kissing her as her hot daughter traipses around the house in short shorts
– live out waning days accompanying hag second wife to arts and crafts boutiques
– get sent to nursing home by “compassionate” children for sweet deliverance from the prison of wrecked flesh that holds the last vestige of his faintly man-like soul

Ok, now here’s the 21st century progression of life events for the man who knows game and uses it to successfully meet women:

– hit puberty. If a born natural, begin fucking “underage” (it’s all relative) high school girls. If not a born natural, learn from naturals, mimic them, and discover the crimson arts
– have a sweet sixteen girlfriend (or two) he will never forget, and who he will always compare, usually favorably, to future lovers, to keep those future lovers off any pedestals he may be inspired to erect in their names
– fuck like a rabbit in college if early start. Otherwise, fuck like a rabbit for the next twenty years after college
– somewhere along that timeline, meet a great girl who he rationally tells himself would make a good wife
– reminds himself that marriage is an irrational choice. Then reminds himself that he loves flirting with the cashier at the supermarket, and he marvels how easy it would be to snag her number
– laughs to himself at thought of proposing. (“Bended knee, my ass!”)
– good girl dumps him for wasting her prime years. In his sorrow, he responds by traveling and banging a couple of international hotties
– his divorced and financially raped male friends glom onto him. His harried married male friends secretly envy him
– work is just another word for lifestyle enabler
– spend waning years dating relatively younger and younger women, watching the age gap widen and his married chump friends waking up to the realization that they are shackled by law to wrinkly old bags
– society hates him. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t give a shit
– die post-coitus from a heart attack. Leave the world alone to enter a void of nothingness, no different than all those married schlubs who toiled for years to nurture and raise a legacy of strippers and delinquents

Any questions?

Oh, yeah, there is one question I have. I understand the Chateau has been mentioned as an outpost of loathsome, bowel-shaking truth in Kay Hymowitz’s new book Manning Up. Dearest Kay, please tell the Chateau readership…

What exactly does marriage offer to guys like us who have the tools to meet, fuck and love women?

It’s not like marriage by its very nature isn’t a raw deal for men. Even the supposed health benefits of marriage for men are a lie. Assuming the law was fair and not the man-hating femcunt swamp of legalistic ass-rogering that it is today, marriage would still be a bigger sacrifice for men than it is for women, simply because men are more naturally promiscuous than women and thus have more to lose by cuffing themselves to a legally enforced institution of monogamy. But now throw in the divorce industrial complex, the house, the kids, alimony, a washed up pussy distended from riding the cock carousel during her lean years and all the rest and that just makes the case against marriage even more airtight than it was before.

PS: Any appeals to nobility or honor will not count as a valid answer. Instead, they will be seen for what they are: a flagrant, flailing attempt to shame men into making choices that further feminists’ interests while undermining men’s interests.

Emotional Pornography

Occasionally even a feminist manages a swiping glance at the truth. Naomi Wolf has a track record of immersing herself in a stinking pile of pretty lies, but her contention that widespread porn availability numbs men to the pleasures of “real women”* might have some merit.

(*Translating from the femcuntspeak, “real women” = aging, slovenly lardasses.)

A whole generation (or two) of men has grown up watching hot chicks have sex on the internet. Most of the girls in porn are better looking than the average fat American woman who couldn’t throw her cankles behind her ears if she tried. It’s not a stretch to think that such mass wanking to the top 10% in tight female bodies desensitizes men to sex with the rapidly dumpifying plain janes they meet in real life. Result: more pump and dumps as men feel less incentive to invest in these entitled shambling mounds.

So a reasonable argument could be made that hardcore porn has raised men’s expectations beyond practicality. Or that it has sated their desire to the point that men lack the motivation to aggressively pursue real life shit-testing women.

Ah, but as with so many theories propounded by feminists and family values conservatives, they utterly neglect to mention the role of female hypergamy and the effect that hypergamy has on women’s choices in the dating market. Remember the fundamental law of the sexual market: As the gatekeepers to sex, women get the men they deserve. If women are rewarding assholes and players with sex, then assholes and players are what men will emulate.

But thankfully the world is blessed with the wit and wisdom — and the sadism to tell it like it is — of the Chateau. So you come here for the full truth, because you think you can handle it. And the truth is that modern women have been gluttonously absorbing their own version of expectation-raising and niceguy-desensitizing porn…

Emotional pornography.

A commenter writes:

Women do have problems with false expectations of romance. Emotional pornography has really screwed with their heads.

Think Lifetime channel movies.

Bingo. Biologically, women don’t get off on visual porn the way men do. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own outlets for electrifying the beaver, or that they don’t avail themselves of these female-centric outlets with the same gusto that men do of theirs.

Let’s get right to it. Women masturbate to words. To stories. Stories as told in movies, books and TV. These stories share common themes, often featuring the hard-to-get, aloof alpha male preselected by tons of attractive women, and the maladroit beta male to play the foil. The alpha male in women’s fantasies is outsized. His kind exists in extraordinarily tiny numbers in the real world. Which makes his grudgingly surrendered love that much the sweeter.

Do not for a minute think men’s visual porn and women’s emotional porn aren’t comparable. They are exactly the same in purpose, and in function. Men jack off to YouPorn and women jack off to daydreams of Edward Cullen or Dr. McDreamy from Grey’s Anatomy. One inconsequential difference is that men’s jacking off is typically more physical in nature, with an unmistakeable denouement in ejaculation. Women, having a baseline hormonal horniness somewhat below that of men and being not quite as groin focused in their sexuality, express their jacking off in wistful, emotional mental journeys that occasionally culminate in vulval self-administration under the bedsheets late at night.

The end result of all this jacking off to ideal virtual lovers is the same for women and men: raised expectations and disappointment with the real life alternatives.

As most men are game-less herbs and provider betas, the explosion of emotional porn for women has indirectly caused the betas’ dating market value to drop, in the same way that YouPorn has caused the dating market value of average-looking, out of shape women to drop. The drop isn’t precipitous, because for most people bland but real sex still beats exciting but virtual sex. But the drop is enough to make a difference in the zeitgeist of the mating market, as well as within the quasi-confines of marriage.

Naomi Wolf and Kay Hymowitz think they get a free pass to shame men for watching porn to the detriment of relationships with real women. *cracks knuckles* Here’s a roll call of the leading outlets of emotional porn numbing our nation’s women to sex and relationships with real, normal, niceguys:

Grey’s Anatomy
Gossip Girl
The Bachelorette
Desperate Housewives
Sex and the City
Anything on Lifetime Channel or WeTV
Pretty much everything on the major networks in primetime
Any big studio rom-com
Twilight (books and movies)
Any and all pulp romance novels
Academy awards shows
Tabloids
The entirety of the insipid celebrity culture

American women, it’s time for you to woman up. Put down the celebrity rags and stop diddling the bean to the latest news about Jake Gyllenhaal’s love life. The future of your country rests on bringing your unrealistic ballooning expectations back down to earth, in line with what your flabby bodies, unfeminine personalities, galling sluttiness and crow’s feet actually offers men.

The Creativity Stagnation

Jason Malloy, one of the more perceptive presences on the web, had this to say about creativity in the comments section at The Inductivist:

There are two different kinds of creativity … or rather there are two distinctive wells of creativity.

The first well is simply an extension of general intelligence. Smarter people can make more interesting and complex connections. They also have lower time preference which permits gradual elaboration of their raw creative abilities through craft.

The second (and probably more vital) well is an extension of male sexual drive, and should be thought of as “insight” or extemporaneous creativity. It is hormonally mediated which explains why men are more creatively accomplished than women, and, more importantly, why male creative accomplishment occurs primarily when men are in their 20s and then declines with age. Female creative accomplishment does not show this aging pattern because females are drawing from the former well of creativity but not the latter.

East Asians have plenty of the former kind of creativity but are deficient in the latter because they are biologically calibrated for low male mating effort. Blacks are the opposite. They have high extemporaneous creativity because they are calibrated for high mating effort.

This vital creativity has declined over time as men have become biologically pacified (e.g. the dramatic centuries-long decline in violence — violence being another extension of male mating effort). Most recently Millennials are both less violent and less creative than previous generations.

So contrary to received concerns, I believe creative stagnation should be viewed as a symptom of civilizational progress.

The racial angle is very interesting here, and comports with what I observe in daily life. Also, I have noticed when I’m oversexed by a girlfriend’s insatiable appetite (yes, it is possible to be oversexed), I start to feel claustrophobic and mentally lethargic. I feel a pressing need to get away so that my creativity batteries can be recharged. Maybe this is why I deny women the closure of marriage and kids — I know what it means for my free man’s soul.

Next question: Does ethnic and racial diversity increase or decrease creativity? I suspect, contrary to received wisdom, that diversity above a certain minimum threshold decreases creative output. America clearly was more creative when it was 85-90% white.

So… safe dullness or violent creativity? Pick one or the other. Safe dullness is the end game of a feminized society, while violent creativity is the hallmark of a masculinized society. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck between the two, but today we are clearly too far over into the malaise and soul-suckery of feminization. The Chateau will do its part to correct this historical transgression.

An Alpha Reply To A Woman’s Rejection

Submitted for your edification. walawala writes:

I was chatting with a girl on an online website.

At some point, she says “You’re just not my cup of tea…”

I pause….

Then I replied…

Me: “Glad you said that…”

Her: “Why?”

Me: “I just saw your age, 35, actually I’m looking for someone younger, good luck”.

Her: Where you from?

Me: Sorry, I generally don’t chat with women over 29.

Her: Maybe if I knew you better

Me: silence…

End of conversation….

Flip the switch.

A few simple sentences is all it takes to psychologically move a woman from rejection (“you’re not my cup of tea”) to blossoming attraction (“maybe if I knew you better”). The power of game should never be underestimated.

Notice how walawala preps the woman for his reframe. He doesn’t immediately jump into the soulkilling age disqualification. He softens it first by saying “glad you said that”. This is a neurolinguistic trick that works by the effect of demonstrating composed indifference in the face of an ego assault, and by implicitly flattering the woman’s perspicacity, thus making her more receptive to the ensuing disqualification.

Well played, walawala.

Egypt

Let’s get this straight. The Egyptian people power revolution will likely usher in a government run by antediluvian Islamists.

And exporting democracy to every corner of the globe is a good thing… why, again?

Related: Then-and-now photos tell the tale. Female graduates of Cairo University in 1959 wear modern, Western-style dress. In 2004, they are wearing the hijab. Only a fool, or a liberal, contends progress is always forward. This century is going to be one of a return to religion, nationalism and tribalism. Human nature can be suppressed for only so long.

File Under Science: Love At First Same Night Lay

We here at the Chateau have in the past written that it is just as easy — in fact, may even be easier — to fall in love and begin a healthy long term relationship with a woman after having sex with her on the first date as it is with a woman who has made you wait for weeks or months before having sex.

Well, now science once again hearts Chateau with a new study proving exactly our contention.

Relationships that start with a spark and not much else aren’t necessarily doomed from the get-go, new University of Iowa research suggests.

In an analysis of relationship surveys, UI sociologist Anthony Paik found that average relationship quality was higher for individuals who waited until things were serious to have sex compared to those who became sexually involved in “hookups,” “friends with benefits,” or casual dating relationships.

But having sex early on wasn’t to blame for the disparity. When Paik factored out people who weren’t interested in getting serious, he found no real difference in relationship quality. That is, couples who became sexually involved as friends or acquaintances and were open to a serious relationship ended up just as happy as those who dated and waited.

Abstinence counselors, prudes and Promise Keepers wept.

“We didn’t see much evidence that relationships were lower quality because they started off as hookups,” said Paik, an assistant professor in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. “The study suggests that rewarding relationships are possible for those who delay sex. But it’s also possible for true love to emerge if things start off with a more ‘Sex and the City’ approach, when people spot each other across the room, become sexually involved and then build a relationship.”

Pure, feral lust is a necessary prerequisite to romantic love. A love not undergirded by animal lust is not a romantic love at all. It is, at best, a companionate love, or an affectionate love, or a phony love that two losers convince themselves to feel when no other options are available. So why delay the inevitable? If you feel hot for each other, go ahead and consummate on the first date! You won’t poison any budding relationship that might follow.

So if not the context of sexual involvement, what is behind the lower quality scores for relationships initiated as hookups? Paik points to selection: Certain people are prone to finding relationships unrewarding, and those individuals are more likely to form hookups.

“The question is whether it’s the type of relationship that causes lower quality or whether it’s the people,” he said. “The finding is that it’s something about the people.”

In other words, genes trump culture. Again. Can a blank slatist read a science article these days without having an ulcer attack?

The study has a few choice things to say about sluts, implying that they make poor wife and girlfriend material:

People with higher numbers of past sexual partners were more likely to form hookups, and to report lower relationship quality. Through the acquisition of partners, Paik said, they begin to favor short-term relationships and find the long-term ones less rewarding.

It’s also likely that people who are predisposed to short-term relationships are screened out of serious ones because they don’t invest the time and energy to develop long-term ties, Paik said.

Why bother investing when the sexual horizon beckons with illimitable choice?

“While hookups or friends with benefits can turn into true love, both parties typically enter the relationship for sex and the expectations are fairly low,” Paik said. “In the casual dating category, some people think they’re headed for a long-term relationship, but there are also people who are only in it for sex. It basically brings ‘players’ and ‘non-players’ together. As a consequence, it raises the question of whether casual dating is a useful institution. This paper would suggest not really, because it doesn’t screen out the non-romantic types.”

Re-read the above paragraph for clarity. That pretty much describes modern dating in a nutsack. Casual dating is dead, replaced by one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of Don Juans; a system of neverending seduction designed to maximize the scramble for mating opportunities, to indulgently reward the winners, and to mercilessly punish the losers. We are living in the Reign of Replicators.

And who do you think comes out on the top and bottom in this system, based on relationship quality?

In conducting the study, Paik controlled for several factors known to influence relationship quality, such as marital status, children and social embeddedness. Consistent with prior research, he found that unmarried couples and those with children had lower relationship quality, but couples with positive ties to each other’s relatives had higher relationship quality.

Losers: Single moms, women in an alpha male’s rotation.
Winners: Couples formed from close-knit (read: non-diverse) communities.

There was one final interesting coda to the study:

In a study of Chicago-area adults published earlier this year, Paik reported that being involved with a friend increased the likelihood of non-monogamy by 44 percent for women and 25 percent for men. Involvement with an acquaintance or stranger increased the odds by 30 percent for women and 43 percent for men.

Note that sex disparity. When a woman eventually spreads her legs for a male friend (read: orbiter) she is more likely than the man to cheat. In contrast, when a man has sex with a mere acquaintance or a stranger he is the one more likely to cheat. This tells us something very revealing about the evolutionarily molded mental processes of men and women. Judged by their relative increased propensity to cheat, women are more prone than men to consider a converted LJBF an unsatisfactory sexual partner. And men are more prone than women to cheat on a lover who was a stranger or loose acquaintance at first meeting.

Lesson: If you want a faithful girl as a lover, you’re better off starting fresh with a new woman than trying to convert a long-time female friend to a lover.

And if you are a woman who wants a faithful man as a lover, you’re better off having a relationship with a man from your family or community circle.

Another way to look at this: Women get stronger tingles for strange and mysterious cock than they do for familiar and friendly cock. And men feel more fidelity to familiar and friendly former LJBFs whom they have finally bedded than they do for random hookups.

How To Respond To A Girl Who Dumps You Over Facebook

Many commenters ran with yesterday’s post about a girl who dumps a beta over Facebook and then reads his pitiful reply to a group of people at a house party who relish the opportunity to cruelly twist the knife. While the post was only meant as a report from the trenches of the modern mating scene, the commenters wisely treated it as if it were a test of their game, trying to figure out how best to answer a hypothetical email from a girl dumping them. I have looked at some of the suggestions and made a decision which are the best replies.

#1: No response. (Credit: Gorbachev)

90% of the time, and in 90% of situations, this will be your best option. Radio silence is a failsafe method for causing reckless hamster spin in a woman’s headspace. You have got to understand a couple of things about women and breaking up.

One, women initiate most breakups. I have read it is on the order of 75-85% of all breakups. Women also initiate 2/3rds to 3/4ths or more of all divorces.

Two, women secretly get a thrill out of the power they wield as society’s de facto hypergamous dumpers. When a woman dumps a man, she wants to know she got to him. Though she will never admit it, the act of gettting to a man is a blissful ego massage for the typical woman. Men are not like this (at least most of them). Talk to any man who has dumped women in the past for shallow reasons and he will tell you it was a distinctly uncomfortable experience, and he would have rather just kept her in his rotation, stringing her along forever instead of cutting the cord.

Knowing these two salient points about women and breaking up, it is in your interest as a man to deny any woman dumping you the satisfaction of your butthurt reaction. Why? Because reaction = beta. The alpha male with options galore doesn’t sweat any one break-up. Since women subconsciously know this about alpha males, they get flustered when their break-up messages to men they deemed beta generate nothing but indifference. They begin to wonder what is up, if perhaps they made a mistake in judgement of the man’s character.

I am now addressing the male readers of this blog who have experience dating three or more women at once. I have done it many times. Look back at those times and recall your reaction when one of the women tried to break up with you over a voicemail message or email. You grabbed your phone to read the heartfelt break-up text or listen to the pained vmail and, if you were like me, you muttered “yeah yeah yeah…” and deleted the message, never bothering to reply. You did this because YOU REALLY DID NOT CARE if one of your ladies fell through the cracks.

To my beta readers: THAT is the attitude you must strive to incorporate into every fiber of your manly essence. You really DO NOT CARE. And what does an utterly indifferent man do when he gets a long-winded overly dramatic break-up text from a chick in his rotation?

Nothing.

#2: “ok” (Credit: itsme)

This is a more proactive way to signal indifference, compared to the no reply option. Note the lack of punctuation. “ok” and no reply will both get under a woman’s skin, the thought of which will put a smile on your face. Send it immediately, so that she does not have reason to think you are trying to out-game her.

#3: “gay” (Credit: el guapo? el chief?)

Indifference expressed through humor can also work, if the context is right. “gay” (again, note lack of punctuation) is a great reply to a girl who has sent a long-winded break-up email filled with phony drama. It’s basically saying “I can’t believe you’re taking this whole thing so seriously”. It’s a subtle way to impugn her presumptive status as the dumper. The cutting “gay” reply insinuates to a girl who is melodramatically dumping you that she secretly thinks about you a lot as judged by the ridiculous amount of effort she put into her break-up email.

#4: “Breakup??? 3 dates. LMAO. drama.”, “drama queen!”, or “Srsly? It was three dates, lol” (credit: Evil Alpha/Ben Runkle)

Similar to the “gay” reply above, an insinuation that she is making a mountain out of a mole hill is a good way to get her ego invested in reclaiming lost battlefield ground. It’s a funny reply, and funny replies can work. But generally, you should follow the informal rule that any replies to a break-up message from a girl never exceed three letters in length.

And don’t expect sarcastic replies to make her come running back to you. This is strictly for the pleasure of inflicting emotional frustration.

#5: “nigga please!” (Credit: Josef Jonze)

Hey, that made me laugh.

#6: “8===D” (Credit: Ben Runkle)

Is there any pistols-at-high-noon dating situation where the ASCII penis won’t work? I’m having a hard time thinking of one.

***

Addendum: Do NOT send anything that could be construed as bitter, spiteful or the aforementioned butthurt, even if you think you are being sarcastically nonchalant. Her hamster will spin anything REMOTELY resembling bitterness as a victory for her ego. Examples of this school of thought include:

“yeah, know what you mean”

“good”

“don’t care”

“later”

“thanks. now I can go for a girl I really like.”

“Do I know you?”

etc.

The above mistakes illustrate the perils of thinking like a man instead of thinking like a woman. A manly maneuver is like a club wildly swinging in the direction of her head, bound to result in allies rushing to her side. But if you want to eviscerate her with scalpel-like precision, and excise her emotional organs for dissection upon your operating table of sadistic cruelty, then you must put yourself into the mind of a woman. Think like a woman to seduce her, and to vex her. They are two sides of the same coin.

Now some of you may be thinking, what can I do to bring her back into my orbit of indulgence? After all, wasn’t there a post here about winning back one’s ex-girlfriend? None of the excellent replies offered above guarantee she will come back to you. But they are a necessary if not sufficient tactic in any overall strategy to re-attract her. If you want a shot at converting a lost prospect, you don’t want to shoot yourself in the foot with a needy beta reply as seen in yesterday’s post. A nontrivial number of women who receive no reply or “gay” to their break-up emails are going to be so flustered and ego-bound to extracting a reaction from you that they will text, email or even call you again a day or two later asking if you got her message.

And once she has done that, she’s buzzed straight into your sticky spider web. Now she, and her invested ego, is yours to entwine. The rules of the game have decidedly shifted in your favor.