Feeds:
Posts
Comments

A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.

1. More sexualized women.

Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?

In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.

2. Less sexual dimorphism.

It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.

Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.

In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.

3. More feminism.

Recall the CH maxim regarding feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.

4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.

A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.

Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.

5. Hatred of beta provider males.

Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.

6. More aggressive sexual signaling.

A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.

Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.

7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.

A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)

A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:

Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).

8. More women acting out like men.

Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.

Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?

9. More men acting out like women.

This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?

Spite. Bitterness. Resentment. Contempt. Decivilization.

The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.

Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.

But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.

Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.

So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?

The ironic misuse of the “creepy” slander by women toward men is in part a case of psychological projection by the unfairer sex. Commenter “Not Thought Police” explains:

Ahh “Creep”

Never attribute to internal failing that which can be explained by a woman’s inherent need to emotionally project.

Do not pass go. Do not validate. Do not entertain her musings until projection is ruled out first.

This holds true for many facets of femininity but i think in no other place does it hold more weight than the concept of male creepiness:

A woman, in vetting a man, will:

Gossip with friends, look through his private stuff, his books, his music, find out his political leanings to the n’th-degree (from his feminist sensibilities right down to how he feels about trade agreements n shit), how he feels toward his mother, how much he earns, is he carrying a mental illness, can he provide?, does he look and act like Gosling? Can he sing like that dude from Coldplay or at least do something notable so she doesn’t look like she’s just dating Dave, the accountant? Is he strong..but not so strong that he cannot be controlled? Is he intelligent..but not so intelligent that he might win in an argument? Is he confident, but not so much that he might attract the attentions of other girls (not that she’d be jealous or anything because women aren’t creepy like that) Is he articulate but not so much that he might outshine her beaming personality? Is he cool but not so cool that he’d make her look uncool. That’d never do!

Contrast this to the creepy, rapey Man: What’s her rack like? Is she kinda half normal?

Tell me who is really the creepy one here?

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: The Surveillance State is women’s natural operating procedure. But we autonomically give women a pass for being precociously creepy toward men within the field of view of the female Eye of Ovum because… well, read about the Fundamental Premise.

Of course, women have good evo-bio reasons for being creepier than men (and equally good reasons for fooling themselves about their own creepster instincts), but that doesn’t mean men have to roll over and play the women’s game the way women want it played. Correction… the way women “””want””” it played; triple-quoted to indicate that women may consciously want obeisance to their rules from men, but subconsciously, where messages are sent direct to the vagina, women want men who don’t do what they “””want”””.

America, Then And Now

Then, 1925:

Now, 2014:

(h/t peterike) At least the fattest one kept her dress down and spared us all an episode of PTSD.

UPDATE

It seems no commenters got the underlying message of this edition of “America, Then and Now”. The 1920s were a high (or low) water mark of sexual licentiousness and decadence in the US. There are those who argue that these decadence periods follow historical cycles. We may be at another peak (or trough) of sexual licentiousness and decadence now, in 2015 America. (The previous being the late 60s-early 70s.) Yet, the contrast between the 1925 photo and the 2014 photo couldn’t be starker. If the former is decadent, the latter is gutter filth.

Clearly, if there’s a poz cycle that operates on say, a forty-year cycle, the long-term trend over the accumulated poz cycles is towards ever-greater vulgarity. When some deep nadir in the poz cycle is achieved, the system will probably break into parts, rather than swing the poz pendulum back into anti-poz.

Disgust, more than fear, dampens women’s sexual arousal. As a devoted skirt chaser, it’s better to make a girl a little afraid of you than it is to disgust her.

(Any connection between wives’ growing disgust for their beta hubbies and their frequency of headaches is purely coincidental.)

This female hindbrain reality explains why women are so quick to label men they don’t like with terms that evoke disgust, (e.g., “creepy”, “strange”, “weird”), and why men, in turn, are so careful to avoid being labeled as such, and to feel the sting harder when they are the recipient.

But it is also true, as any man with extensive field experience will attest, that women tend to throw around the “creep” smear with scattershot profligacy, as a means of “dramatizing” an incipient seduction as often as a means of communicating outright rejection of their suitors. In other words, the “creepy” label is a semantic shit test, and like any female shit test, if successfully passed your attractiveness to the girl will markedly increase.

There are counter-semantic measures a man can take to power down the empowerment a girl feels when she drops the “creep” bomb.

GIRL: “Ew, you’re being soooo creepy/such a creep!”

YOU:

Agree&Amplify

“Please, you haven’t seen anything yet. Wait’ll I put on my clown make-up.”

Preemptive DQ

Basically, light-heartedly call the girl out as a creep before she gets a chance to do it to you. It’s a great preemptive reframe of a courtship that constantly forces the girl back on her heels, in the defensive crouch (where tingles are born!)

Ambiguous Accusation

“Oh, you’re one of *those* girls.”

Amused Dismissal

“Do you eat with that mouth?”

Reverse Shit Test

“BOOORR-ING!”

Straight-up DQ

“Classy.”

Assume The Sale

“Look, this is my final offer. After this, I have to cut you loose.”

Ignore&Plow

This might be the best option for newbies. Just change the topic and “reset” the convo as if she hadn’t said anything of note.

Playground Challenge

“It takes one to know one.”

Redirection

“You got something caught in your teeth.”

Dramatic Flair

“I bet you say that to all the boys.”

Jerkboy Charisma

“There’s no accounting for taste.”

Style’s Attraction Amplifier

“I’m taken.”

Bring Da Movies Game

“Gay.”

***

As always, when engaged in the business of applied charisma, avoiding the pitfall of sounding defensive is paramount. This is not so hard as it seems, if you mentally groom yourself to be prepared for anything a girl might say in the course of a courtship. If you enter every pregnant-ly romantic interaction with a girl expecting to hear the unexpected from her, the crass from her, the bitchy from her, you likely never will be surprised by whatever she says, and this is the secret to building a personal defense against your own proclivity to butthurt defensiveness.

You needn’t be a cynic; you merely need to be accepting of the full behavioral spectrum of female privilege. You won’t always be able to predict what a girl will say to you, but you can predict how you’ll respond when she throws a monkey wrench into your laid-best plans: Unflustered, because you know this is how women are, how they have been for millennia, and how it is your job as a man to joyously pluck and eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and women. If you don’t pluck it, some other man will. Or, tragically, it will rot and fall to the ground, to be eaten by scavenging house cats.

The title of this study arrests you.

How your brain reacts to emotional information is influenced by your genes.

Hoo boy, loaded for bear. Are we talking about the intrinsic ability to sympathize with others, and are we talking about genes controlling this ability, and are we talking about these controlling genes varying across race? Mmmmm…. could be!

Your genes may influence how sensitive you are to emotional information, according to new research by a neuroscientist. The study found that carriers of a certain genetic variation perceived positive and negative images more vividly, and had heightened activity in certain brain regions.

Inverse: There are people who are more aloof toward pleasure, or distress, signals from others. Like psychopaths.

The gene in question is ADRA2b, which influences the neurotransmitter norepinephrine. Previous research by Todd found that carriers of a deletion variant of this gene showed greater attention to negative words. Her latest research is the first to use brain imaging to find out how the gene affects how vividly people perceive the world around them, and the results were startling, even to Todd.

“We thought, from our previous research, that people with the deletion variant would probably show this emotionally enhanced vividness, and they did more than we would even have predicted,” says Todd, who scanned the brains of 39 participants, 21 of whom were carriers of the genetic variation.

Researchers once again shocked by the degree of behavioral influence exerted by genes, news on the hour every hour.

Carriers of the gene variation showed significantly more activity in a region of the brain responsible for regulating emotions and evaluating both pleasure and threat.

“regulating emotions” = innate impulsiveness. I prefer the stronger definitional formulations. Helps focus the mind.

Todd points out there are also benefits to carrying the gene variant. “People who have the deletion variant are drawing on an additional network in their brains important for calculating the emotional relevance of things in the world,” she says. “In any situation where noticing what’s relevant in the environment is important, this gene variation would be a positive.”

“emotional relevance of things” = how other people feel. Empathy, and its feelings handmaiden, sympathy, have a genetic basis.

Land ho!, here comes the money shot…

The ADRA2b deletion variant appears in varying degrees across different ethnicities. Although roughly 50 per cent of the Caucasian population studied by these researchers in Canada carry the genetic variation, it has been found to be prevalent in other ethnicities. For example, one study found that just 10 per cent of Rwandans carried the ADRA2b gene variant.

Mic dropped. 50% of white Canadians have an empathy-boosting genetic variant which only 10% of black Rwandans possess.

The writers of this article must’ve been so shaken to their equalist cores by that hatefact which slipped through the cracks that they hastily flubbed the second to last line, resulting in a humorous contradiction between “prevalent” and “just 10%”.

CH has a big post coming soon which delves more deeply into the darkest of dark truths about racial differences in the empathy response. There are studies out there which the Hivemind won’t touch even obliquely, or through professional grade distortion filters. Ignorance is mind control.

Politicians know European-Americans are more diverse in their voting habits, often splitting their votes 50-50 between the two parties (or 40-30-30 between three parties). They also know blacks and mestizos are less ideologically and psychologically diverse, the former going 90+% Democrat and the latter 65-70% Democrat every time.

This is why all European-Americans must cast a wary eye toward legislation or legal rulings that attempt to curtail gerrymandering, the practice of dividing districts along racial lines to create “voting blocs”. Simple math illustrates why anti-gerrymandering disfavors European-Americans.

In a perfectly gerrymandered state, District 9 is 100% black, and District 8 is 100% white. From this partly-artificial (but only partly) political arrangement, we can expect District 9 to reliably vote Democrat nearly 100% of the time, and District 8 to vote GOP 52% of the time and Democrat 48% of the time.

Let’s also assume for the sake of clarity that the populations of both districts are the same.

Now this is what happens when anti-gerrymandering is forced on the districts, and they are redrawn so that, say, 25% of the blacks have moved (representationally) into the white district, and 25% of whites have moved (representationally) into the black district.

Those 25% of blacks continue voting 100% Democrat, while those 25% of whites continue splitting their votes 52-48% GOP-Dem. What is the end result? Well, where before (in the gerrymandered scenario) District 9 enjoyed the benefits of Democrat local governance and District 8 the benefits of Republican local governance, now District 9 still votes Democrat while District 8 has started to vote Democrat more as well.

The 25% of GOP-leaning whites have barely budged the Democrat advantage in District 9, lowering the Dem vote total from 100% to 87%.

[(o.75×1.00DEM) + (0.25×0.48DEM)] = 0.87DEM

But here’s what happens to the slight GOP advantage in all-white District 8 with the population shift to 25% black:

[(0.75×0.48DEM) + (0.25×1.00DEM)] = 0.61DEM

Did you see that? Don’t look away, because it happened quick as lightning. All-European-American District 8 went from voting for Democrats 48% of the time to voting for Democrats 61% of the time after their population was forced to politically accommodate 25% blacks.

End game: Both District 9 and District 8 become, for all practical purposes, Democrat strongholds.

And the Dem grip on those districts only becomes more pronounced as Diversity™ increases and the share of European-Americans, and the districts they control, decreases.

Now some of you are principled sorts and therefore are repulsed by the anti-democratic notion of gerrymandering as a way to “keep the peace” by making Dindugeld payments, and their consequences, more centrally located and removed from European-American scrutiny.

But we don’t live in an American Utopia of 90% European-American demographics (that time passed somewhere around mid-20th Century), when such a principled stance against gerrymandering could work in practice. We live in Diversity World™, and in this world high-falutin’ White Man privileged principles bow deeply to the blood-fueled pragmatism of tribalism. In Diversity World™, we don’t get the luxury of ideologically diverse whites arguing about street widths and weekend park rules; we get instead Everyone Not White driving drunk and shitting in the parks while ganging up on the few remaining Whites to fork over ever larger taxed remittances from their paychecks.

The elite know all this, which is why, next time you hear them lamenting gerrymandering, what they’re really opposing is a place where BadWhites enjoy the blessings of self-determination.

If you didn’t already know, #LoveWins is a Twitter hashtag celebrating hatred for people who don’t agree with the gay marriage SCROTUS dicktat.

As CH #Loves to do, we find opportunity for romantic pleasure in the detritus of a disintegrating nation. One such opportunity was discovered by reader newlyaloof:

I’m thinking that #LoveWins would be a great pickup line:

Guy sees girl, just walks up to her and tries to kiss her.
If you’re a charming bastard, the girl just may kiss you.
If not:
Girl: “What are you doing?”
You “Love Wins!” and go for it again. Or tease her and accuse her of being against love.

Heh. Ballsy, but has broad and deep potential. This tactic doesn’t have a short shelf life, either. It can work well after every ADD-suffering American girl has forgotten why there’s a rainbow sticker on her butthexed bungholelllzlzllol. I could see this opener easily parlayed into an extended, disqualifying, teasing riff on a girl’s numerous character flaws.

GIRL: “What are you doing?”

LOVE’S PENETRATING GAZE: “Are you against being in love?”

GIRL: “No.”

LOVE’S PENETRATING GAZE: “Next thing you’ll tel me you hate puppies.”

GIRL: “I don’t hate puppies either.”

LOVE’S PENETRATING GAZE: “You seem like the type to hate on cute things.”

etc. Anyone willing to try it out? Do I have to be the only one here to go into the breach?

If you don’t want to risk kissing a girl you just met, you could try a toned-down version of the above. Instead of kissing, place your hand gently on her shoulder and, longingly staring into her eyes, say with mock seriousness, “You and I, there’s magic between us. Can you feel it?” When she balks, segue into the “Love Wins!” riposte. The goal is to go for the tension-releasing taunting humor, which will set you up nicely for a more profound seduction.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,300 other followers

%d bloggers like this: