Feeds:
Posts
Comments

COTW winner is Leonard D Neubache, extracting a source of the love women have for jerkboys, and holding it aloft like the 17th Poon Commandment.

Women don’t like jerkboys because they call them out on their bullshit. That’s just the expression of what’s truly valuable about the jerkboy.

The actual substance of value is his will to power.

If he has no will to power then how will he protect her or her children? If he has no will to power then who will protect and provide when things get tough?

The conformist nice guy is humanity’s dodo. He survives in good times but when things get bad (and they inevitably do) he is worthless.

Women are fundamentally hardwired to accept this, no matter what they say. Look at the state of white men and look at how many white women are welcoming foreign conquerors.

The will to power is the only imperative worth a damn.

Hard times create jerkboys.
Jerkboys create good times.
Good times create niceguys.
Niceguys create hard times.

We’re at Stage Four now. Over the horizon, Generation Jerkboy shimmers into view. Shit’s about to get interesting.

***

Comment of the Week runner-up is gunslingergregi, with this oldie but goodie from 2009,

Problem with american woman they treat their job like they should treat their man and treat their job like they should there man.

Problem with american men. They treat there woman like their boss instead of like their subordinate.

A person who does not have enough expected of them at work will quit.
American men are not expecting enough out of their woman.

I left GSG’s original syntactical and linguistic collage as is, because it’s a part of his persona and if you have the dedication to puzzle together the full, intended meaning of his comments, consider yourself a learned man. Rearrange and swap a few words above, and you are staring at a scintillating gem of wisdom.

Inner And Outer Hajnalia

Jayman writes in a comment to this post,

Hajnal line. It’s all about late vs early marriage. Northwestern Europeans married late (average age for women 23) for centuries. Eastern and Southern Europeans married much earlier (often in early teens for Russians, for example). This is a pattern that continues to this day, albeit at later ages across the board (the rank order remains fairly unchanged).

Right, and the Hajnal Line is now colloquially associated with differences in a bunch of other inter-european characteristics, such as clannishness, familism, nationalism, passivity, and fondness for watching from the corner stool. (Paradoxically, fertility rate is unusually low in Outer Hajnalia.) Anyhow, I wonder when the trend of Inner Hajnalia late marriages will bang up against the biological reality of the Wall. That is, given a choice, men aren’t really happy about marrying women with only a few years left of supple fuckability in them. Preference for younger virginal women is universal among men. And there are many biological reasons men prefer virgins over road worn sluts who’ve spent the better part of their salad decade warming up for their ludicrously ostentatious wedding day.

At some point the raw Darwinian calculus will re-emerge and there will be a pendulum swing back toward younger marriages with hotter, tighter babes who have oodles of residual reproductive value left.

The Schizophrenic Sh*tlib

Via. (direct link)

Shitlibs are children. Emotionally stunted, psychologically scarred, and physically androgynous, the schizoid shitlib deserves nothing more than dismissive contempt or sadistic trolling (Trump’s specialty). They are best treated the same way a parent would treat a misbehaving brat: with firm paternal discipline and withholding of their allowance.

Shitlibs aren’t really schizoid…not all of them, anyhow. I’m taking artistic license. They’d like to be called schizo, because it would excuse them of any personal responsibility for their elemental dishonesty. What they are is more sinister: unprincipled, disingenuous, double-talking sophists who will say anything, however self-contradictory or hypocritical, if it hurts their enemies.

Why bother reasoning with these emotionally incontinent headcases? They won’t argue in good faith, ever. The winning response to shitlibcanery is mockery and public shaming, until they crawl away to impotently fume with their fellow losers.

Urbanization And Female Hypergamy

Urbanization and the accompanying social disconnection have the effect of pathologizing female hypergamy, turning it from a useful Darwinian selection mechanism to an auto-immune disorder that robs women of their prime child-bearing years and elevates their risk of spinsterhood.

De-urbanization will throw a monkey wrench in the gears of the cock carousel and corral runaway female hypergamy. If you want to improve the romantic and marital prospects of beta males….that is, if you want more beta males to have access to relatively unsullied feminine women who forsake gogrrl careerism and avoid emotional pollution by shitlib hivemind propaganda in favor of family formation and hearth duties…you’ll support de-urbanization.

A de-urbanization program (aka a Heritage America Renewal Project — HARP) plus an immigration moratorium for a couple of generations are together the only long-term solution to feminist dysgenics. Federal and state incentives should be structured to support small city and town development, antitrust to break up megacorps…basically decentralization and de-scaling.

Infrastructure projects will help revitalize the US interior, making it more attractive for businesses and locals, which will limit the brain drain from rural regions to the coastal megacities. Ending immigration and thwarting the menace of Diversitopia will make good districts more widely available and thus more affordable.

Now if we can only solve the existential problem of female obesity in the heartland, we’ll truly have made America great again!

Confounding The Cocktease

If you’ve been around enough women in your life, you’ll have come across a most frustrating subspecies of the sex: the manipulative exhibitionist, aka the cocktease. Anonymous writes,

Happened to a friend of mine. She let him touch her everywhere but nothing more. When he gave up, she lured him back, only to play the same game again, for months. Don’t waste your time with such women, or improve your game to prevent these games.

The worst reaction a man can have to the unique predations of the cocktease is gullibility. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football Lucy is holding for him, the cocktease will never let you make solid contact. Keep hoping for a different outcome with her, and keep getting stymied right at the moment your blue balls have hit maximum pressure.

You have to stop pulling her toward you, and start pushing away from her. Redoubling your efforts to get in her pantsuit will only lead to the same detente: her stringing you along by the short and curlies, and then giving you the Heisman when you think you’ve breached her perimeter defenses.

A few CH words of wisdom on the cocktease, which should help clear any man’s mind about the nature of his antagonist.

The worst of the Manipulative Exhibitionist girls are power-tripping narcissists who love inciting sexual arousal in men, but especially in men with whom they have no reciprocal romantic interest. I.e., the classic cocktease, on roids. This is important, because the ME girl’s feeling of control and power over men would be harder to sustain in the presence of a man who likewise aroused her own curiosity.

The Power Tripper ME girl loves the reaction of sex-struck beta males driven to catatonic impotence, but she loves even more the consequent opportunity to put those betas in their places. This is why more than a few Power Trippers are past-peak women in their late 20s and early 30s; she is the woman in dire need of reassurance that she still has the slut stuff to play bumbling betas for marionettes.

******

The cocktease’s ideal man would be someone she approaches first, but who doesn’t flirt back. He just stands there being amused by her antics, making her work harder and harder for his attention, until his value is outsized in her mind. One step forward, two steps back, is his motto for dealing with cockteases. And then when the time is ripe, he pushes hard for the close, leaving her little head space to rationalize yet another coquettish escape.

The cocktease doesn’t want you to chase her; that will only embolden her to greater depths of cockteasery. The only intervention that breaks the cocktease’s spell is non-intervention.

When she lures you back….don’t bite. Brush her off and later offer a rescheduled meeting on your timetable and at the place of your choosing. This will screen out the cockteases who truly have no interest in you and are just using you for ego thrills. What the cocktease least wants to do is make an effort, so if you have made her work a little for you she’s more likely to drop her act and get real.

When she lets you touch her….don’t bother. Your active disinterest will drive her crazy, and she’ll overcompensate by coming onto you harder to provoke a flirtatiously sloppy reaction from you. State control is your best friend when in the company of a cocktease.

When she’s coming onto you to provoke your ardor…..push her away. “Whoa, not so fast. I like to be wined and dined first.” Or, “What are you running here, a brothel?” You get the idea. You want to frame the situation as one in which you’re the prize and she’s the ho who can’t control herself around you.

The Confound the Cocktease strategy is basically flipping the seduction script. The better you are at psychologically manipulating a cocktease to believe she’s chasing you for your approval (and romantic interest), the quicker the cocktease will stop manipulating you for external validation.

Tell your friend to give it a go, and report back to us.

Rod Dreher, Über-Poseur Pussy-Pedestaler Christcuck Cuckstian Cuckstraordinaire and advocate for the Craft Brew Selfie Option, linked to a Free Northerner blog post (and tangentially to this rumble abode) to explore the reasons why young Christians have stopped meeting their potential spouses at Church.

I’ve discussed the same interesting dating market changes underlying the graphic Dreher featured at his blog and highlighted in this older CH post (with correct attribution along the margin of the graph, so the spergatroid dreher commenters can quit their bitchin’….and fyi, readers email unattributed jpegs to me all the time, so if I post a few without PROPERLY linking the source you can sleep soundly that the oversight wasn’t intentional).

Excerpted from that CH post, remarking on the sexual market changes to women and their place in it caused by the rise of bars and online dating as the primary mediums facilitating courtship:

Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy [ed: thirsty] men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.

This is coming at the change from the angle of women’s egos, and how their over-inflated and over-stroked egos will be a barrier to love and marriage. But there are other ominous portents in the major changes to the way men and women meet.

As you can see from the graph, every avenue for meeting the opposite sex is down over the last twenty years, except one. The percentage of couples who met through college is down (partly a result of college becoming 60% female-40% male). Couples who met through family is way down (continuing a long-term trend). Couples who met through Church is down (and almost near zero). Couples who met through work is way down (and likely to hit rock bottom after this #MeToo sex panic burns itself out).

The majority of couples still meet through friends, but that too is on a downward trend, set to be eclipsed soon, if the trajectory holds up, by restaurant/bar, which is the only meeting place that is upwardly trending. Couples who met through online dating appears to have leveled off. This might be a temporary lull as privacy and security issues are worked out, but I suspect it’s the calm before online dating takes a nosedive as a matchmaking facilitator. I predict this because it has dawned on women that men use online dating as a sex supplement to their “real” dating lives, and it has dawned on men that women use online dating to hide their physical flaws (fat) and to aggressively filter out any but the top 5% of men in looks (which is an unstable selection filter utterly divorced from the reality of what women want in men, and which means that exclusive online dating will end badly for women’s romantic hopes of commitment with a good man).

Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser.

What does the massive and radical change in the way men and women meet each other mean for Western society? Can we glimpse the ropey contours of our future Jizztopia?

Relevant, from that older CH post,

This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.

Church won’t be restored as a meeting place for singles any time soon, barring some unforeseen seismic shift in attitudes toward religiosity and patriarchy (the two go together when both are healthy).

Neither will college, as long as it remains a warehouse for aggrieved Diversity and intellectually mediocre but conscientious girls, and antagonistic to young White men. Feminist cuntsent culture is turning campuses into anhedonic deserts.

Family? Age of first marriage is later than ever, fertility is down, single mommery is way up, miscegenation is up, and families are geographically and socially atomized to the edge of becoming total strangers with a shared genealogy. Family will continue its downward slide as a matchmaker.

Meeting as coworkers? MEEEE TOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Nope, the days of the corporate office as informal imprimatur of marital proposals are past us. The future is the increasingly rare (and risky) after hours bang in the janitor closet.

Social media, video gaming, porn, and the attendant isolation are undermining the service of friends as the primary means of bringing people together for the making of loves. It’s possible friends can come back as the major matchmaking vector, but I wouldn’t count on it happening until Generation Zyklon matures, and by that time it will have assumed a much different pallor than what it has been for most of the last sixty years.

Online dating is stagnating. I predict it will crash further, for the reasons noted above.

Restaurant/Bar is the new Family/Church, and given that post-atomization friends mostly meet offline at bars nowadays, these venues will also be quasi-dating services run by close friends and acquaintances. The upward trend should continue.

Anything new on the whoreizon?

Clubs.

SWPL shitlibs shudder at the thought because clubs imply exclusivity (as well they should…no club is worth the membership that doesn’t have exclusionary practices), but they’ll have to get over it or just admit that their preferred venues are de facto exclusive clubs. How many blacks and browns do you see at craft breweries? Artisanal distilleries? Shooting ranges? Bowling alleys? Painting classes? Wineries? Art shows? You get the idea.

As Diversity scours at our communality and social bonds, expect to see implicitly White (or nonWhite) clubs re-emerge as forces of social glue and romantic promise. If Gen Zyklon is real, this movement will be helped along by a renewed support for the principle of free association.

One more possibility that I don’t think is a positive development: ideology will loom larger as a requirement for meeting the opposite sex. I hate this trend, because it elevates the abstract (pussyhattery) above the concrete (blood sugar sex passion). What this portends is a dire future in which ideologically oriented clubs and venues become the dominant medium by which people meet and pair off. After that happens, it won’t be long before Civil War 2.

I’ll end this post with a comment pulled from Dreher’s post, by Tex Austin:

Historians will one day seek to unravel the mystery of how, in our present unsustainable cultural moment — rife with contradictions as it is — a corner of the blogosphere intended to help hapless “betas” learn how to “bang HB 9’s” morphed into the source of the most convincing arguments for traditional sexual morality.

That said, I never thought I’d live to see Rod link to Heartiste!

Why wouldn’t he? I’ve had nothing but the moloko plus of love for Rod! Who was first to praise Rod for standing firm with Trump and for recognizing the yuge shift in the political and cultural landscape that Trump’s rise represented?

Rod is an hero to me. A true Instagram Christian. A man for the times.

Niceguys Lose, Nicegirls Win

The topic of this post comes via a 2014 study, so it’s possible it may have been written about already here at the Chateau. Regardless, it’s good enough to write about again and educate the newbs who are always stumbling into this coven of lovin’ and wondering with wide open eyes and whiplashed brains just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Often it is claimed by catastrophically bitter feminist cunts that men love bitches such as themselves as much as women love jerkboys. This is a bluehaired lie. And now ¡SCIENCE! has arrived on the scene to ONCE AGAIN (i will never tire of this) gorge on the CH knob and validate my anti-feminist worldview: men don’t like crazy bitches unless those crazy bitches are sexy and willing to go all the way right away. What men like when they have their choice of vixens are nicegirls. Nice, feminine, natural hair-colored girls.

Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men.

[…]

The study examined burgeoning sexual interest and the participants’ feelings on the possibility of long-term dating with their new “partners,” and how those connected to their perceptions of a personality trait the study calls “responsiveness.”

In the study, responsiveness is defined as a characteristic “that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship.”

Responsiveness, AKA appeasement. To put it a nicer way: approval seeking. To put it a psychotherapeutic way: External validation. To put it a PUA way: outcome dependence.

But it’s not as important of a factor when you first meet someone, according to the study. “Our findings show that this does not necessarily hold true in an initial encounter, because a responsive potential partner may convey opposite meanings to different people,” stated Birnbaum.

Overly responsive suitors can be perceived as manipulative suitors. Have you ever been creeped out by someone trying too hard to please you? That’s your mind-body axis telling you to distrust that person. This is particularly true for women and responsive men, because women have to be more on guard for men who just want to get them in the sack fast, and will tell those women whatever they think they want to hear to win their affection. Men, in contrast, don’t have to guard against responsive women because fast sex is an equally, if not more valuably, prized achievement as a committed relationship.

The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

Nicegirls are more feminine than crazy bitches, and men prefer feminine women. Why would men perceive nicegirls as more feminine? Maybe because those girls aren’t busting their balls for propping up the patriarchy. Also, the default posture of women toward unfamiliar men is one of neutrality bordering on contempt. The responsive nicegirl therefore stands out as a real romantic prospect in a sea of resting bitch faces. And niceness is just more estrogen-y, which looks, sounds, and smells SO MUCH BETTER to men than does the caustic testosterone-y gogrrlism of your typical urban slore.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

You have to attract women before you can have a relationship with women. Jerkboy attitude is necessary if not sufficient to lock down a quality (read: hot) nicebabe. The opposite is true for women: a bitchgirl attitude will make it harder for them to find a quality man.

The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.

Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable.

And yet every couples therapist in the degenerated West advises the opposite: that men should be MORE responsive and attentive to women. How many relationships would be saved, and lonely men and women rescued from romantic failure, if the Chateau was the only couples therapist in the world? I give and give and give, like the humanitarian I am, and yet all I get is grief from the gatekeepers of socially approved discourse. It wounds me deeply!

The third and final study presented in the paper sought to test specifically whether the mechanism by which “responsiveness” motivated individuals to pursue relationships was, in fact, sexual arousal. To do so, they replicated the second study, but added a specific measure of sexual attraction. They then found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal among men. That, in turn led to greater desire for a relationship.

The petaling pussy is always more enticing than the dormant pussy, all else about the pussies equal. Male arousal is primed for action when the pussy is within jizzing distance. (Female arousal is primed for action when the pussy has to close the jizzing distance.)

While the studies shed some light on why men find responsive women more sexually desirable, Birnbaum explains that researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.

“Women may perceive a responsive stranger as less desirable for different reasons,” said Birnbaum in a press release. “Women may perceive this person as inappropriately nice and manipulative (i.e., trying to obtain sexual favors) or eager to please, perhaps even as desperate, and therefore less sexually appealing. Alternatively, women may perceive a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.”

All of the above, but mostly for the reason I’ve described at this blog: responsive niceguys betray a lack of romantic options, and since female desire is holistic rather than primarily visual as it is for men, a man without romantic options is very unsexy to women, who will assume his desperation is evidence of weakness and deficient character. Chicks dig non-responsive jerks because any man who can afford to be a jerk with women must have his pick of the clitter. And every woman wants to be the one who snags the man who can have any woman. Not to mention, a man successful with women will pass on his pussy-smashing genes to her sons (sexy sons hypothesis).

The hierarchy, from most romantically valuable to least romantically valuable:

  • Jerkboys (desired by all women, for sex and love, rarely dumped)
  • Nicegirls (desired by all men, for missionary sex and love, not as rare as jerkboys)
  • Bitterbitches (desired by some men, for kinky sex, if she looks hot)
  • Niceguys (desired by no women, except Wall victims, cougars, and fugs. as common as cat dander)

***

Anonymous objects to one implication of this study:

Kind of disingenuous. Nice girls win IF they are attractive. When feminists or women in general complain of men liking crazy women, it’s usually in comparison to average/ugly women. I used to complain of this in high school. I used to say all the guys like the crazy/mental girls. The real issue was they liked them because they were hot. The craziness was just extra.

No doubt the crazy bitches who get a lot of men have to be very hot to compensate for their shitty personalities. But nicegirls win against bitches when matched for looks. I would bet nicegirls even win when they are one SMV point lower in looks. Bitches only “win” when they are significantly hotter and sluttier than their nicegirl competition, but since there are at least as many hot nicegirls as their are hot bitches the point is moot, and we’re back to the original conclusion: nicegirls win, bitches lose.

The one countervailing factor that bitches use to their advantage is sluttiness. Nicegirls don’t do slutty, so they will lose the men just looking for an easy lay. Bitches can compete more effectively against nicegirls by advertising their willingness to fuck without strings attached. This is a potent defensive tactic, and one reason why women are the primary slut shamers in society.

%d bloggers like this: