Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In my years of living, dating, and loving across these United Plates, I’ve come to certain conclusions about women drawn from a wellspring of eagle-eyed observations and red raw experiences. One of my personal observations is that smarter women tend, for various reasons among which female hypergamy must surely loom prominent, to have more difficulty locking down a long-term boyfriend, and to stay single far longer in between relationship bouts, than do women of less Hollywood-sized prefrontal-pectorals. And this romantic failure is worse the smarter the woman.

But, I didn’t have the benefit of ¡scientifical! studies to confirm my observations, so I guess I should have washed my brain of any pattern recognition inputs and waited the requisite fifty years for the scientific consensus to come to a prevailing view.

As I’ve always said, if you keep your eyes open and live not by pretty lies, 80% of the patterns you observe about human nature will eventually be proven true by laboratory analysis (or at least recognized as a real phenomenon by cultural gatekeepers). (15% of the remaining 20% are too difficult to properly measure by social scientists, and the last 5% of your observations can be grouped under conventional wisdom that science manages to overturn, usually by data-twisting legerdemain.)

From the article relevant to this post, the quotes that make feminists choke:

A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic.

Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable. […]

Why don’t men want women with whom they can converse and who challenge them? [ed: spot the false premise] When did the aversion to strong and intelligent women become a code orange? When did everyone just want to go to the Bahamas and lie around?

In an article by “The Wire,” financial reporter, John Carney, gives one explanation for this phenomenon, deducing, “successful men date less successful women not because they want ‘women to be dumb’ but rather because they want ‘someone who prioritizes their life in a way that’s compatible with how you prioritize yours.’”

Basically, they want someone who isn’t ever going to let her career come before making dinner and pleasing them first.

My take is that men, especially smart men, instinctively recoil from very smart and/or educated women (in the same way women instinctively recoil from needy niceguys) because men know that a woman of equal or greater brainpower or academic achievement is a high risk for future relationship instability and a latent threat to paternity assurance. Men are aware, consciously perhaps, subconsciously definitely, that female hypergamy is real and therefore it’s personally advantageous to find women who aren’t too much more gifted in traits that double as male mate fitness cues.

In short, it pays men to date up in looks and date down in everything else.

The inverse is also true. It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.

Everyone’s happier all around if they abide the above two Heartistian precepts.

A reader contemptuously adds,

Nearly schizophrenic incoherence, self-loathing, generalized rage, sexual frustration, pride that she can’t admit that a life has been spent believing pretty, stupid lies and making irretrievable mistakes, contempt and hatred for men on one hand, yet demands and pangs of hopeless desire for their attention and affection and love on the other hand, unabashed hatred for women who are young and attractive and willing to make love and devotion to a man a priority in their lives.

This hamster wheel is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second. The axle is going red-hot from the friction.  The spinning wheel is making a sharp, high-pitched, painful screeching sound, which sets your teeth on edge. If you listen carefully millions just like it are audible all over America.

This can’t go on much longer.  10 years, maybe. But not 50. Probably not another entire generation.

Future generations will look back on the women of this era with disgusted amazement.

Before then they are going to spend the second 50 years of their medically extended lives alone and filled with a despair and a hatred for their own lives and for the lives of those around them who have managed to be happy which is going to poison our society for many years to come.

If they weren’t so vicious and destructive you could almost feel sorry for them.

I do think we Americans are living through a period (heh) when women are at their absolute worst. Porn addicted manlet men aren’t much better, but this dystopia is largely a female-centered implosion.

There’s a gene-culture co-evolution process that describes how groups have self-balancing mechanisms, so that when one type of organism within the group becomes too numerous, a competing type will start to have greater reproductive success to “bring balance to the force”. I forget the term for it, but the classic case is the “cheater-cooperator” evolutionary strategies, in which cheaters prosper (and hence reproductively prosper) in cooperative societies, but then lose ground to cooperators when cheaters become too numerous and start poaching each other.

Well, a similar thing could be happening with SMRT women. The more smart over-educated over-credentialed women a society has, the less reproductively fit they become at the same time women with average smarts become more reproductively fit. The group shifts its evolutionary strategy toward smarter or dumber women as each becomes prominent. Maybe this is why human IQ hasn’t continued upward into the stratosphere…. smart men get tired of the haranguing from smart women and smart women get locked out of the dating market because there aren’t very many men smarter than them who can satisfy their hypergamous urgings, and they resist settling for dumber men.

Related, the supply of beta males in a group could also fluctuate according to some cosmic balancing mechanism that favors or disfavors betas depending on their numbers. The rise of pathologically altruistic white beta males in the West is producing blowback as their ranks swell with self-abnegating ankle-biters. Ultra violent thugs or ultra charming cads are starting to increase in impression, if not yet in number, and women are turning to them for relief from the effete beta male masses.

It’s a spitball, I know, but maybe it’s high time for the patented CH BOSSS strategy to invigorate our culture to take center stage? Maybe it already has and we’re just now waking up to the fact?

PS Really smart women fuck like demonesses. They love their contraceptively-enabled fucking as much as any sub-mensa slut.

Low-T Manlets For Hillary

Heh.

Any straight white man who votes for Grandma Hillary, aka the wife of Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend, in 2016 for any reasons other than as a principled objection to the current GOP de Meximerica ideological configuration or to hasten the end of Poz-Americana needs to have his balls extracted from their nesting spot against his ovaries.

In the meantime, smearing leftoid men with the “low-T” label is effective COPROP that could, at the margins, convince a few pansy-assed equalists to rethink their self-immolation and even more to slink away in embarrassed silence. The virtue of this low-T slander strategy is that it’s true, which means you don’t need a supplicant media machine to help elevate your charges to accepted wisdom. Your targets will autonomically wince with self-aware pain, because they’ve been living with their effeminacy for decades, and are all too familiar with their personal shortcomings in the testicular department.

Prediction: If Hillary Rodham is the nominee, she will receive the lowest percentage of white male votes in the history of the Democrat party. And it won’t matter. Election outcome will be the same. Madam President.

Recently, I saw a woman from behind who, when she turned in my direction, displayed a full beard. A real beard meticulously trimmed to glamour mag perfection. Not two minutes after that encounter, I saw a thing whose sexuality I could not for the life of me accurately discern. When it turned to face me, I saw that it had the faint countenance of a male face, and humongous swinging manboobs that slapped against its kegerator belly. The worst part? The thing’s nipples were huge. I could see the dark outline of islet areolae and jutting teat tips stretching the fabric of its silky t-shirt.

Now, normally, I don’t like giving these freaks the satisfaction of my gawking attention, but some of them are so outlandish that the eye can’t help but try to make sense of what it’s seeing. Normally, the best way to treat freaks is to look right through them, as if they make no more impression than the air around you. Deny them what they want, which is attention, good or bad.

(Ed: Correction: the best way to treat freaks is to cast them to the icy wastelands, alone with their degeneracy, but that is not an option anymore. Too bad.)

Anyhow, the crooked rise of these shambling mounds has got me to thinking about a potential upside. If you’re a well-groomed, healthy, trim, normal looking man with no obvious psychological or sexual identity issues manifested in any body “art” or strange fashion choices, the world of the Degenerate Freak Mafia is your oyster. Waltz into a job interview or client meeting with your head held high and your chest projecting an invincible aura of confidence, because everyone will breathe a sigh of welcome relief that they’re in the company of a genetically and psychologically superior human. In the land of the disfigured, the abnormally normal man is king.

The seduction process can be viewed through the lens of validation: how much you give to the girl, how often you give it to her, and how adeptly you retract it when warranted.

Validation is an important part of the social hierarchy and how each individual within a tribe receives feedback relative to their position within that tribe. One might argue that an alpha male is simply the member of the tribe that receives the most social validation.

Validation is an umbrella term for a whole bunch of game concepts, like push-pull, hot-cold, takeaways and freeze-outs. The basic premise is simple: External validation is important to women (arguably more sought after by women than by men), and a man can manipulate a woman’s desire through adjustments to the amount or intensity of ego validation he gives to or withholds from her.

VERY generally:
Alpha males get more social validation than give it.
Beta males give more social validation than get it.
Alpha females receive almost total social validation and give very little, at least intentionally (they give it unintentionally when they accompany men into social settings).
Beta females give and receive an equal amount of sex-specific validation (give to alpha females, receive from beta males).

Beta females (those girls in the 4-7 looks range) are the trickiest subjects to devalidate, because it’s a fine line between delightfully maddening them and antagonistically saddening them.

There are important exceptions to the above generalizations about validation. For instance, an apex alpha male will occasionally give unmistakable social validation to subordinates (including girlfriends), who of course will eat it up and glow for a week thereafter. Giving validation can, in certain contexts, increase a man’s alphaness, because it signals that the man giving it can afford to “share the social status wealth”, so to speak.

Anyhow, validation, if used correctly (i.e., seductively), will require summoned energies from both your Light and Dark sides. The dark side of validation is called devalidation. YaReally explains it well:

@Sentient: I backed off of negs because on 6/7’s I kept running into “nice” girls [who] just got hurt by them, not in a bitchy way but in a “i like him and he’s making fun of me” way. But this caused me to fail to build attraction on the 7/8 range… so still having trouble calibrating the neg. Any resources etc appreciated here.

RSD Julien’s PIMP product. Specifically the Outer Game sections, very specifically the Vibe section of it. Very specifically the stuff on qualifying a girl and combining it into stacking devalidation (halfway thru the first vid)…complicated subject until you hear it explained, but it’s basically a turbo-charged version of negging that goes way beyond what Mystery was doing.

A buddy and I have been experimenting with it and the reactions we’ve been getting are ridiculous. I know everyone thinks I’m an RSD shill lol, but I only recommend legit useful shit (and Tyler doesn’t care if people pirate Foundations, Blueprint, etc.) and PIMP is legit useful. If you aren’t rolling in $ you won’t have a problem finding it through “other” means.

Try to ignore the crazy “I’ve just snorted a line of coke” mannerisms he has going on, listen to what he’s saying and watch the infield stuff he shows to demonstrate it and look where he’s using it and how they react. He does it to an extreme level for the sake of demonstrating how far you can take it, but toning it down to a less harsh level while keeping the structure he uses is still insane powerful. He’s taken a bunch of PUA concepts that everyone knows already work and combined them then streamlined the result…first time I’ve been legitimately impressed by new information in a few years of checking out pickup products that just rehash old knowledge.

I’ll try to explain it better at some point and after I’ve played with it some more myself, but Julien’s explanation is flawless and in-depth. The easiest way to describe it is that he devalidates the girl, then changes conversation threads before giving her a chance to qualify herself, and then he stacks that multiple times like Mystery’s multiple threading conversation technique and gets her extremely invested in trying to qualify herself to you and then after a while smoothly allows her to “win him over”, creating HUGE investment on her part which triggers a chain reaction back to her hamster that says “if I’m chasing him this hard he must be high value”. It’s brilliantly devious. [ed: indeed.]

Would send anyone to this resource instead of traditional “negging” resources, this is like Neg 2.0 evolved/enhanced as far as I’m concerned. And for anyone who missed it, here’s a bunch of vids to watch.

I highlighted the bold part, because that’s the take-home point. Have you ever, in so many words, told a girl she wasn’t up to your exacting standards, and then just flitted to a new topic before she could insist otherwise?

Devil’s Activist: Oh, man you are so high maintenance, I’m surprised you don’t come with an instruction manual.
Her: I’m not….
Devil’s Activist: Hey, that guy over there is drinking an appletini. Sign of the times. You into men comfortable with their femininity? Figures.

If you’ve had this sort of conversation with a girl, you’ll know how infuriating, and thus arousing, it can be for her. Devalidating a girl, then closing off any chance for her to revalidate herself, and repeating as necessary, can drive a girl into paroxysms of desperate self-qualification. And that’s the primrose path to poon. A man can DHV directly, or he can do it indirectly by… seducing… a girl into selling herself to him. When she’s selling herself, she’ll perceive you as an upscale buyer, because who else can afford her pricey product?

As always, flipping the biomechanical courtship script is pussy fire. Just know when to pull her toward you, or she’ll break in defeat when she thinks you’re unattainable or uninterested.

The Shitlib Face

Pleasureshivvers draw copious blood in an entertaining thread titled “Shitlib-faces.png“. Do shitlibs — aka leftoids (the CH nomenclature crafted to draw attention to the essential anti-human ideology of SJWs) — have a distinguishing “look”? Why, yes, they do.

It’s physiognomies all the way down.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the shitlibbiest face of all time. Here’s my contribution:

I think I just lost five years worth of boners.

Although CH prefers the more direct means of measuring a man’s degree of alphatude, there are proxy methods for coming up with a ballpark figure for the Alpha Within. One such proxy is the amount of shit a woman will put up with from her man. The more crap she happily tolerates, the higher her man’s alpha male rating.

As commenter WillBest explains,

Women are far and away more pragmatic about men’s affairs. I know of several couples that have survived a man’s affair and none that have survived a woman’s affair.

You could probably plot your relative alphaness against what your wife will tolerate.

brothel outside country < … < discrete mistress < rumored affair < open mistress < claiming bastards < having your wife assist in selection of your harem (as seen on Marco Polo).

It’s funny ’cause it’s cruel.

A marriage can survive a husband’s infidelity because the real risk, from the wife’s gene’s POV, is the redistribution of his resources (of which love is a proxy indicator) to the other woman. As long as the husband remains primarily devoted to his immediate family’s finances, his oat-sowing won’t much affect the future of his children or the guarantee of the mother’s “maternity assurance”.

But a wife’s infidelity is much more dangerous to her family’s cohesion. She could get pregnant on one of her slutcations, and saddle her husband with another man’s spawn. (And this would’ve been more likely in the contraception-free environment of evolutionary adaptation.) This is the worst thing that can befall a husband from his genes’ POV. And if he finds out, the whole family may be nuked from orbit.

Naturally, a man’s affair isn’t automatically forgivable. Women aren’t totally inhuman; they will feel the sting of romantic rejection. But it’s true that the more alpha the man, the more tractable his woman. Hell hath no fury like a scorned wife… if her husband is a beta male. Heaven hath no angelic forgiveness like a scorned wife of an alpha male.

This post cries out for a handy dandy chart.

There’s a reason for the exponential trajectory. Observe closely, and you’ll notice most married men are betas whose wives won’t even tolerate their wandering eye without stirring up a storm of martyrdom. But once a man begins taking on the penumbras and emanations of alphaness, his woman’s toleration curve skyrockets. Each increment of alphatude results in a drastic expansion of the scope of caddish misbehavior that a wife or girlfriend will tolerate. At the extremes of male alphatude, their women are complicit in helping their men achieve the limits of sexual and romantic pleasure that are particular to the male domain of desire.

I hope this post has been instructive. May it guide you to better days in your own relationships.

Courtesy of commenter mendozatorres, a quote from Mary Haweis, authoress, who sounds spookily prescient about our current state of marriage as she reminds her readers that marriage sans concessions is a boon for women and a raw deal for men.

Alas, when people complain of men not marrying (even they who are able), they forget how little women offer in exchange for all they get by marriage. Girls are so seldom taught to be of any use whatever to a man that I am only astonished at the numbers of men who do marry! [ed: we all are, mary.] Many girls do not even try to be agreeable to look at, much less to live with. They forget how numerous they are, and the small absolute need men have of wives; but, nevertheless, men do still marry, and would oftener marry could they find mates – women who are either helpful to them, or amusing, or pleasing to their eye.

–The Art of Beauty by Mary Eliza Haweis, published in 1878.

I wonder what the prime fertility years sex ratio was in 1878?

Mary Eliza Haweis is a friend of the Chateau. She understands — more nobly, she admits — that men must necessarily sacrifice to marry, while women enjoy lavish gains and the fulfillment of lifelong dreams when they marry. This inherent marital risk bias favoring women implies that the institution should be structured to supply men with some up front guarantees of return on investment or indulgences to fulfill, at least occasionally, their own male-specific romantic prerogatives.

Not surprisingly, Mary looks to be a fairly attractive woman by the standards of her time. It’s not quite an ironclad rule, but the way to bet is that attractive women are likelier than homely women to have familiarity with the basic truths governing the behavior of the sexes. After all, what kind of woman will be more in need of soothing platitudes to make it through the day without pondering the existential release of the razor blade poised lengthwise?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,248 other followers

%d bloggers like this: