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.

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.

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.

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.

Imagine there’s a border
it’s easy if you try
No third world among us
around us only MPC Whytes

Imagine all the oligarchs
swinging from lampposts

Imagine there’s no deep state
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to run or hide from
And no NSA, too

Imagine all the cameras
Leaving you in peace

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And your land returned at once

Imagine no surveillance
I wonder if you can
No need for TOR or Tails
A mutual respect for citizens

Imagine all the oligarchs
Swinging till they’re limp

You, you may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And America will be reborn

***

The Rise of a Dissident Party

I predict this will happen. It will be bigger and stronger than previous third parties. The Dissident Party will swear no allegiance to the current Narrative pabulum. It will have almost as little in common with Republicans as it does with Democrats. It will spare no space in the tent for pussies whose first instinct is to bend over and take it up the pooper. It will be unabashedly RealTalk, but its best politicians will need to be silver-tongued devils who know how to triangulate from samizdat hatefact warriors pushing the Overton Window into Genghis territory.

The Dissident Party will have four planks, spelled out effectively by commenter JohnnyWalker123 at Steve Sailer’s:

There are 3-4 major issues that Americans should fight on.

1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.

2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.

3. “Deep State.” The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they’ve been too well entrenched. They’ve become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It’s also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.

4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country’s problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.

I don’t see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren’t especially favorable to us. For example, let’s say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What’s the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.

Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn’t it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn’t the masses trust their “cognitive elites”?

Most common sense policies don’t even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women (“1 and done” as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.

Repeat after me:

1. Immigration
2. Oligarchization
3. Surveillance State
4. Return to timeless norms

These are the four digestible, media-ready Dissident Party planks. Get the branding and the message down before delving into the details. This practice helps clarify the mind and gird the spirit.

Immigration

A 20-year immigration moratorium,  of legal and illegal migrants. When the borders are once again partly opened, immigrants from NW Europe are to be favored, followed by Immigrants from East and South Europe. The rest of the world may contribute a few percent, tops. A little seasoning can be good for the stew. Note: A LITTLE.

Oligarchization

Strip wealthy oligarchs of their power over policy and the composition of the nation’s citizens. Tariffs, big tax increases on the 0.1%, improved government oversight of their backroom dealings, very high minimum wages, and laws designed to limit the ability of the super wealthy to lobby for cheap labor.

Surveillance State

We’re living in Big Brother’s world, just as Orwell described. I continue to be amazed that the average American isn’t more incensed than he appears to be by the constant surveillance. Bottom line: It needs to end. No more marketing firms collecting reams of personal data. No more Facebook shenanigans. No government snoops reading your late night pervy sexts to plate number three. Triple layered encryption should be the default condition for all consumer electronics, built right into the firmware. Eyes in the sky should be ripped from their street corner perches. I don’t want to live in a surveillance state; I want to live in a cohesive society with high trust levels that obviates the need for mass surveillance.

Timeless Norms

Roll back gay marriage. Cremate the rotting corpse of feminism. Send the race equalists scurrying into dank hovels licking their wounds. The Gods of the Copybook Headings wasn’t just a snazzy riff on cultural decay; it was a guide to the Good Life. Press the point that individual rights will wilt without societal norms to scaffold them. If none of this is possible, seriously consider the option of splitting America into regional powers.

I’ll have more on the coming Dissident Party in future posts. For now, the clarion call…

 This is what separate countries are for.

Via My Whytening Career:

The superimposed quote says,

“I live in western oslo, the last white part of the city. This picture I took at 17 May 2014, Norway’s 200th National Day celebration.”

WELP.

PS Give this guy a Chateau VIP pass just for that knowing, shit-eating smirk alone.

Reader Donohoe notices that, contrary to popular perception, it’s hard for women to hide their sexual desire.

Does anyone else have exes that they accidentally hurt so much that the ex can’t even talk to them?

Strolling with some chick today and saw this kinda-ex fling thing today with her new boyfriend

Her eyes met mine from across the street and she body visibly coiled up, her face turned to that of bambi’s mother before being shot, the blood draining from her face.

I smirked and walked on.

The Smirk: Leaving her better than you found her, since 1995.

Raw sexual desire is one of the toughest emotions to conceal from view. (Jealousy is perhaps the toughest.) Men are actually better at hiding their sexual desire than are women, despite most people believing otherwise, and it’s easy to see why evolution equipped men with this ability to keep their horniness levels under wraps. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, a sexually desirous man wantonly displaying his eagerness courts the murderous glares of competitor males. A sexually desirous woman doing the same doesn’t risk her life (although she does risk her reputation and catching a slew of venereal diseases).

For men, as the sex that responds instantly to visual cues for mating opportunities, there is simply a lot more time in the day when the typical man will feel urges to fuck, these urges ranging from mild perturbations of the general body to intense conflagrations of the loins. Women, as the sex for whom attraction to men is less visual and more holistic in nature, feel urges to fuck far less frequently throughout the day.

So it is understandable that women would seem to have more control over manifestations of their sexual desire. Women don’t actually have more control; they just experience fewer moments when their sexual desire is roused from slumber.

Given the near-constant onslaught of limbic-generated horniness men must tame to function in a civilized society, it’s no wonder that as a sex, men are very good at controlling their sexual urges and carrying on as if that secretary with the heaving cleavage wasn’t setting their brains and balls aflame.

All this is to say that when you see a desire distress signal in a woman, (as opposed to the transparently fake come-ons of strippers and golddigging sluts) you know that what she’s feeling in that moment is real and powerful, and therefore not something which she can conceal very well.

The body coil is one of those recognizable signs of a woman’s racing desire thwarted by circumstance. Donohoe describes it well; the whole body tenses and she appears frozen in place. An ex-girlfriend (if she’s the dumpee, not the dumper) is the perfect candidate for a whole body coil, especially if she sees you with another woman.

Men experience the body coil too. Often, it’s the inexperienced beta males who show symptoms of waking rigor mortis when in the company of a beautiful young woman. Alpha men who do well with women and who have accrued years of confidence-boosting successes bedding women sometimes come to miss those days when their bodies betrayed their desire and the aroma of a sexually ripe woman would offer a rush to scrote and soul alike that no other enticement could duplicate.

Sweden is the flaccid tip of the rapidly deflating penis of Western civilization, so what happens there can be construed as portents of dire things to come to the rest of the West. Reader Jack Dorchol writes about his first vision upon landing at Sweden shores.

Last year I took a regular passenger ship line from Helsinki to Stockholm. It was to be my first time in Sweden. As I was disembarking the ship, the moment I put my feet on the Swedish soil I was “Welcomed to (new) Sweden” by the sight of East African multiple-wives freak show (the 4th one hid behind his back when she saw my camera.)

And this is just the first of many similar scenes playing out on the Swedish streets.

I felt the sick to my stomach the entire stay.

The suicidal tendencies of white Swedes (a qualifier one needs to employ nowadays) are breathtaking. So breathtaking, that it’s not possible to see a happy future for Sweden that doesn’t take a path first through an illuminating hellscape. I see two possibilities for the new Sweden:

1. Dissolution. Quickening cultural and economic deterioration, and absorption of white Swedes into a nonwhite polyglot via intercopulation and abysmally low native birth rates. Total demographic and cultural exhaustion.

2. Rupture. A formidable fraction of non-elite, sane-thinking white Swedes bring war home. Or this war is brought to them when a tipping point of foreign migrants utterly drain the Danegeld reserve.

Either way, Sweden is set to go through a trial by fire. What comes out the other end is disappearance, or destruction. What I don’t see happening is possibility #3: Swedish elites come to their senses, close the borders, kick out the alien squatters en masse, and reaffirm their northern white European identity. Ideological leftoids with a bad case of the non-reciprocated altruistic yips will never change their minds; the human ego is a cosmic force too powerful to defeat. They can only be removed from power and cast to the wastelands where their status-striving idiocy can’t threaten the very existence of their own nations.

Feminist quasiovums are crowing about a recent “”””social experiment“””” (via Cheap Chalupas, may the appellation forever stick to him), purporting to find that MEN ARE JUST LIKE WOMEN because a woman who went around asking random men for sex received a mere 30% positive replies, supposedly rebutting previous studies which found that upwards of 80-90% of men would agree to casual sex with an attractive female stranger while 0% of women would agree to casual sex with an attractive male stranger.

Feminists love to push any phony fake-out “social science” if it helps alleviate their pain of accepting that men and women are different in many important and crucial respects. The problem is that nearly every feminist-assuaging study they cite to buttress their twisted cause turns out later to be built atop a mound of bullshit. For instance, in this latest shrike salvo, can you spot the experiment design flaw?

Bill P, commenting on the strange circumstances surrounding the untimely death of Dave Goldberg, low-T house husband of überfeminist shrike and psychopathic liar, Sheryl “Lean Into The Pay Gap Myth” Manjawberg:

@charlie

Steve, it’s your blog, but I don’t think the line of inquiry is helping you.

Accidents happen. They probably could not determine whether it was the fall, head trauma, heart trouble, or a stroke that was fatal.

Evidently they could:

According to the Mexican medical report, it was head trauma and accompanying hypovolemic shock that caused Mr. Goldberg’s death.

This means he lost over 20% of his blood from a 4cm head wound, which was a severe, crushing wound that broke the skull. How you get that from falling off a treadmill beats me. That’s the kind of wound you’d expect someone who got hit full force on the head with rebar to have. Or perhaps hit with a dumbbell… The skull is pretty hard. Typically, if you fall and hit your head, it bounces, giving you a concussion. This can be deadly, but it doesn’t involve a “pool of blood” or open skull fracture. The kinds of impacts that create those wounds are seen in auto and occasionally bicycle accidents, which involve considerably more velocity and force than a fall off a treadmill, which operates at a maximum speed of only 10mph, and in Goldberg’s case probably more like four or five.

The details here, the reticence about revealing the cause of death, the sudden departure of the family and the crazy events in Puerto Vallarta on May 1 raise a lot of questions about Goldberg’s death.

He is also a private person — 99.995% of Americans don’t give a FF who the husband of the COO of facebook is.

No, he is not a “private person.” Sheryl Sandberg has used her family as the model for the contemporary American woman, pushing her “lean in” concept all over the country. She has sponsored events for girls and served as the public female face of Facebook. She calls herself a feminist. She actively pushes her ideals on the rest of us. Goldberg was a part of that package. He was no recluse, but rather very much a part of the debate about the role of the contemporary husband and wife.

Whenever public figures seem to be hiding something, it’s worth following up on it to see why.

Maybe he did die in an accident. Maybe the treadmill really did fling him headfirst into some corner at a high velocity, breaking his skull. If that’s the case, shouldn’t we know how on earth treadmills can do that so as to prevent more of these accidents?

And if he was murdered, shouldn’t that inform Americans’ decisions when it comes to travel destinations? Shouldn’t it give us more reason to monitor our border for potential criminal fugitives from Mexico?

Eenterestink. This story has legs.

Gina blast from the past:

She still loves him to this day, deeply, truly. He still wistfully recalls her soft young lips wrapped around his cock. And, I bet he loved her too, then.

His haggard wife will run for President in 2016.

Recalling that feminist “””social experiment””” video which triggered millions of androgynous Millennials to ecstatic retweeting, commenter “anonymous” hit upon the primary design flaw which renders the feminist-friendly result absolutely worthless:

Experimenter bias

In social science, especially in an experiment like this, the experimenter interacting with subjects should be blind to the hypothesis being tested.

The 1989 Clark and Hatfield study mentioned in the page linked to had it right. Asking a random sample of unwitting subjects to proposition other random subjects of the opposite sex. 70 percent seems about right to me with that methodology.

With what was done in this video, the experimenter can give all kinds of subtle cues pushing the guys to give the answer they want. In addition they can exhibit selection bias- choosing guys that seem likely to give the answer they want. You should notice there were more yes answers in the beginning and more no answers later. She gradually got better at getting the answer she wanted later. (The video seemed to be in chronological order). I skipped around and didn’t watch the whole thing, but I also noticed a larger proportion of guys saying they were gay (or that came across as really obviously gay without saying it) than exist in the general population. To me that is a red flag as to the biases (either conscious or not) of those making the video. By the way the real proportion of gays is between 2 and 3 percent; the 10% number that gets repeated a lot is bullshit.

In a nutshell, if they wanted an answer of 0/100 or an answer of 100/100 she (and the people working with her) could “discover” whatever they wanted to discover. It’s not science with this methodology.

She looks good by the way. I would sleep with her. As a woman of course that’s the only thing she’s here on this planet for. Just a reminder

There were, in fact, multiple biases at work in that “girl asks men for sex” femcunt troll job, but experimenter bias is… as a mewling ankle-biter might say… the most “problematic”. Read the CH commenters to learn which other biases corrupted the 30% result.

(Another problem with the experiment design was what I call the “incredulity factor”. The girl gradually learned to deliberately hit on the kinds of men who are least likely to garner the attention of young attractive women, and these men probably surmised as a result that she was part of an underage solicitation sting operation, or she was taking the piss with them.)

Men and women are so completely different in the realm of sexual psychology that it’s not much of a surprise to discover that some men, when openly propositioned by a semi-cute stranger, will immediately doubt her motives. The real surprise is how many men are willing to cast aside their rational doubts and throw caution to the wind; that’s a powerful demonstration of a serious sex difference in predilection for the pleasures of casual sex; men are simply wired to want it, and to avail themselves of it, far more often and with more intensity than are women. But of course, your grandma would be able to tell you this without a stack of social science studies to back her up.

It won’t be long before we’ll have to amend that last clause to specify “great-grandma”, with the way this country is accelerating past timeless truths.

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

Her approach induces a mass raising of red flags, it’s sooooo fake. Her body language is not that of a horny chick, quite the contrary (look for crossed arms, backward leaning, etc): it oozes revulsion. Her voice tonality is also incongruent with the message. No sane woman proposes directly and that fast (compare how often did your fuckbuddy/girlfriend /wife do that?). A horny girl would compliment first, chit chat for a minute at least and then would propose to look for an intimate location with a BS pretext, the subject of sex would at best be alluded to.

Most of the men refusing her offer could tell she was insincere. The 30% figure is thus looking like an incredibly high number of positive responses given all the negative body language signals she was sending out.

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

Here’s a choice quote from Sheryl Sandberg (h/t commenter Derzu Uzala) on the occasion of her husband’s death:

Dave was my rock. When I got upset, he stayed calm. When I was worried, he said it would be ok. When I wasn’t sure what to do, he figured it out.

That doesn’t sound very feminist. It sounds, instead, a lot like she loved a man who adhered to Chateau Heartiste Poon Commandment XV:

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

Lean in? More like Sheryl “leaned on” her husband when she was having emotional swings, as is the wont of the female human.

Dirty leetle secret: Raging feminist soldierettes are often the women who fall hardest for men who have some game. It’s almost as if their caustic man-hating is a subconscious cry for an alpha male who isn’t a supplicating yes-beta.

Update

GBFM reveals the secret Sandberg tapes,

“While Dave was my rock, da GBFM was my cock. When I got upset, he stayed hard. When I was worried, he splooooooged in my facsccaeaz. When I wasn’t sure what to do, he figured it out in da gina hozlzlzolzozo.”

There are two shiv-shimmering lines in this scene from the underrated Tom Cruise movie “Cocktail”.

“I can’t see a thing without my contacts” is a fantastic neg, delivered with lighthearted insouciance and complete state control its teasing jab is quite subtle and therefore quite effective. It’s the kind of line you want to learn how to master when a woman gives you shit.

(Ask yourself as part of a self-improvement mental exercise: What would a beta male have done when so directly and acridly challenged by a hot broad?

Woman: “Excuse me, do I have ‘fuck me’ written on my forehead?”

Beta: *stammering* “Uh no, not at all, I was just…”)

But as good as that line is, the next game-savvy line Cruise’s character utters is better.

Woman: “You’re just full of compliments, aren’t you?”

Game-aware man: “Yeah… it kinda makes you curious, don’t it?”

What elevates that cocky riposte from great game to killer game? In a phrase: Script flipping. He has implied she is chasing him, not the other way around as it’s normally presumed to go in the realm of courtship. The man who co-opts a woman’s sexual prerogatives earns her curiosity.

You say a line like that, and you are ASSUMING THE SALE, which is a powerful game technique. It’s overconfidence on steroids. and chicks dig a man who’s full of himself. It’s also, in another sense, a nuanced disqualification of the woman as a potential lover. The subtext assaults her: “He risks my wrath and rejection. This guy can take or leave me. What’s he got going on?”

PA drives the shank into the flanks of both bitter feminists and white knight game-haters.

CH, he’s right. Hang it up and delete all your game posts. As any woman can tell you, real men don’t need game. Just be attractive and don’t be unattractive.

I help coach a youth league. Think I’m gonna stop teaching these kids any techniques and just tell them to be awesome and the W column will take care of itself.

Heh. For that matter, since it’s all predetermined and outside personal control, why bother with schooling? Just pop out enough kids who will grow up to pay the government levy, and the economy will hum along without the dead weight of teaching the three Rs.

Anyone get the sense that the reason bitter cunts and indignant tradcons hate game is because they secretly believe it works and don’t like the thought that women can be actively seduced into love? Or maybe they find the whole idea of working at something and achieving goals irritating, because it introduces the notion that those who don’t work at something can be harshly judged for falling short of universal ideals.

***

Gotta hand a SOTW runner-up award to GBFM, whose lifted shiv gleams with pregnant possibility against the bright blue sky.

After da GBFM got dones with her, Sheryll Sandberg wrote, “I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys who don’t fall off the treadmill, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers until dey fallz offf lzozozozzzol.”

Sandberg did say that, in so many words. I wonder how Dave Goldberg felt when he read those words his wife wrote? Like he was second- or third-rate betaboy, diaper-changing material? I’m sure he sucked it up and put on a happy face, like an obedient male feminist would.

Reader walawala points out that one of the men approached for sex by a feminist humorist (contradiction in terms noted) in the “social experiment” video set forth as proof that men are 30% more interested in casual sex than are women had, himself, some serviceable game, which he used on his phony solicitor to amusing effect.

This is what prostitutes do…also she sounds insincere…I’d be creeped out. What this does show is the power of game.

Check out how the third [ed: fourth] guy in the Paul Bunyan shirt starts gaming her: “That’s a very weird proposition…” and flips the script so she’s now qualifying herself.

He appears at 1:10.

I can’t make out what she says to him after he says “and that’s very strange”, but it does sound by the tone of her voice that she is qualifying herself to him. Also notice that she drops her arms down to her sides, which indicates an openness to further conversation, unlike the repulsing crossed-arm pose she maintained with a lot of the men.

So yes, game can work on women, even when those women are feminist agitators on a mission of attention whoring.

The whole spectacle does raise an interesting (if unrealistic) game-centered thought experiment. What would you do if a bangable female stranger walked up to you and solicited you for sex? I mean, no fluff, no guff, just a straight-up proposition out of the gate?

If the girl was truly interested in sex — I have been cold approached a few times in my life by girls saying they wanted sex, once I translated their womanese into recognizable English (e.g., “do you want to leave and have a drink at your place?” –> “do you want to go to your place to fuck?”) — and her query was absolutely sincere (easy to tell), then the only game you need is “sure”, (if that). The less you say, the better, because more words can only increase the chance of jarring her out of her already maximally horny mood. KISS. Keep It Succinct, Stupid.

But, assuming that any girl who cold-twats you is a prankster having some fun, then you’ll need some game if you want a shot at turning her clown act into a love pact.

I can think of three charismatic responses that are better than the groinotypical replies most men would knee-jerk fall back on:

1. Call her bluff.

The black guy right at the beginning of the video goes direct on her (how about that? a black guy dispensing with the subtler arts of seduction!), and peppers it with a strong dose of Agree&Amplify. Go over the top. “Yeah, let’s go. Wait’ll you experience the pleasure of my ribbed condoms. By the way, do I have to stay the full night?” Why does calling her bluff work? It communicates all the right mate cues: “Here’s a man who must be accustomed to women’s sexual favors if he so boldly takes me at my whorish word.”

2. Disqualify her.

This is Paul Bunyan shirt guy’s preferred angle of parry. The advantage of initiating with DQ game is its shock value. That temptress will be thrown on her wobbly heels wondering if she has BO or something.

3. Amuse yourself.

To be flank, I think the Asian-ish guy (appearing at 1:24 in the video) has the best game for this weird situation. “Let me get some gatorade first”, spoken in a measured, steady cadence, anchored (presumably) by a dead-pan expression. Think about it… if you suspect a girl is fucking with you, wouldn’t you want to let her know you’re in on it? Have some fun, turn it around on her, and if she laughs (which she did), you might just make her rethink her reason for approaching you.

Whatever you do, DON’T say “R u srs?” That’s the kind of unconscious blurt that beta males find a comfy verbal fit. When you answer a girl’s sexual interest with “are you serious?” all you’re doing is influencing her perception of you in a negative direction. She’ll think you’re the kind of man who doesn’t get much action if he reflexively assumes a girl coming onto him is a cosmic impossibility.

One other take-home lesson from this video: Very few men have game. I’d put the number at three out of one hundred. With those odds, it’s no wonder game packs more punch per minute of conversation than any other male mate value attribute.

UPDATE

Commenter theasdgamer whips out the heavy semantic artillery and provides a very funny reply to a theoretical girl soliciting him for sex,

Maybe…do you do anal?

It is required.

This scorched-id ashvomit from a bitter, unattractive androgyne is representative of a lot of spoiled word salad written by emotionally shattered Millennials. It’s featured on the hallowed screen of the Chateau because it encapsulates just about every psychological disorder afflicting the inhabitants of the currently operative mating market.

See if you can spot the try-hard misappropriation of Heartistian ideas in her snarkbark.

My Tinder match decisions had grown more rapid and decisive. Handsome but no bio and all shirtless gym selfies? Dick is abundant and low value. Lists only an Instagram as a bio? Dick is abundant and low value. Quotes Jack Kerouac’s “The only ones for me are the mad ones…” Dick is abundant and low value. Went to Burning Man…twice? Dick is abundant and low value. Member of an improv troop? Dick is abundant and low value.

Technically, she’s right. Dick is abundant (aka sperm is cheap) and, therefore, low value. But if she were to finish her thought — she wouldn’t dare — she’d have to admit that high value dick is scarce, in fact scarcer than is high value pussy, and that her real problem is getting too much attention from loser men and not enough attention from the winner men she wants who aren’t desperate enough to momentarily flatter her self-conception as part of a low investment strategy for an easy lay with a rancid skank.

Dick is abundant and low value. I had gotten my new motto amidst the worst break-up of my life.

Break-ups are especially hard on women when they are the ones getting dumped. Women in their sexual prime are rarely cast off outright. Usually, when a man tires of his girlfriend, he strings her along and starts to check out while keeping his eye open for new possibilities. A man would have to be completely fed up with his girl to dump her cold before having another plate in his cabinet.

Shaken to my core by the degrading insults my ex had hurled at me but also mourning the permanent departure of some poetically good dick,

A frequent semantic ploy of Millennial chicks is their straining to ape the sexual prerogatives inherent to men, or their claiming to do so to an audience of like-minded bitterbitches cheering them on. The urban warrioress wants the world to know she has the sexual appetite of the most promiscuous men, because it infuses her with a false sense of power in the face of personal crisis.

I was spending a day mindlessly refreshing Twitter and reading up on how to spot sociopaths.

Dead giveaway she loves her some sociopath schwing.

Send an unsolicited photo of your lower body in your laundry-day underwear with your hand suggestively but not sexily placed over your semi and not even bothering to crop out your poor cat? Dick is abundant and low value.

If you look weird and have an unfeminine personality, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the kinds of men contacting you are also weirdos with a poor grasp of of the concept of selling themselves.

Some will read my gleeful rejections on the many faces I encounter on Tinder as evidence of a disturbing uptick in malevolent, anti-male sentiments among single straight women. It is not. It is evidence of us arriving nearer to gender equilibrium where men can no longer happily judge the clear and abundant photos and carefully crafted profiles of women but become incensed when they take the opportunity to do the same.

This paragraph doesn’t make any sense. How does she reject on Tinder faces? With a vigorous clit flick? And how can men no longer judge the clear and abundant online dating photos of women? Are men blind, or just the men who contact her?

It was not always thus.

Painfully bad writing. If it weren’t for the internet, what would all these feminist Austen-wannabes do with their time?

I hoped that the obvious would become clear and that he’d do what I would do when faced with rejection: slink away to a remote cave and hope to find a sudden and merciful death. Instead, he flooded both my email and Facebook page with accusations of egregious superficiality and a sudden change of heart regarding my own attractiveness.

Note the subtle attractiveness-affirming humblebrag. Typical self-contradicting feminist. “I reject your patriarchal beauty standards, forthwith and egregiously. But not before I mention this one guy I rejected who acted like I wasn’t cute when it was so clear to both of us that he did think I was cute when he thought he had a chance.”

And, for all its faults, I still find Tinder delightful. […] No one can address me without my consent, which I can withdraw with an unceremonious “Unmatch” at any time. […] It is a special joy to left-swipe such profiles back into the bowels of Hades from whence they came.

Woman with low SMV imagines that a technology particularly suited to the insta-courtship, low investment preference of fly-by-night men is somehow a blow for female sexual empowerment.

When Tinder matches occurred, these men stormed into our messages with all the social grace of Steve fucking Urkel but none of his endearing sincerity with appeals like, “Sexy dress. Hook up?”

Men give women what they think women deserve. If you look like a good-to-go slut and you have a Tinder profile, most men will think you deserve little more than a dick pic.

They wore jerseys for teams that suck.

She’s got to pare down her 463-bullet point checklist by at least 462 bullet points.

And almost every last goddamn one of them found their whiskey habit absolutely fascinating.

Fascinating enough that she remembered them and wrote about them.

When these tactics repeatedly failed them,

Did the tactics fail them? This chick seems to have no comprehension of the appeal to men of the low investment, mass mailing seduction strategy. If 1 out of 100 drive-by “hey baby” Tinder come-ons work, that’s a roaring success considering the few seconds of effort it requires to put the plan in motion.

It would be sad that they inadvertently admitted that they actually just have no game if there wasn’t such a spiteful sense of entitlement in such sentiments.

Chicks dig entitled men.

Bless their blue-balled little hearts.

Alert: Unloved harridan enjoys visualizing herself in the role of temptress heartbreaker.

Meanwhile, a substantial number of other men guessed that women using Tinder might enjoy wild romantic gestures like using punctuation in sentences instead of winky faces, or asking which trains we lived off of to pick mutually convenient meeting places, or bringing their own condoms because safety is everyone’s responsibility. These men who care more about women’s realities than their own fantasies are the ones who still actually get laid on Tinder.

She’s yet to form a lasting bond with this kind of man. Mysteries of the universe.

While some women only use Tinder to seek long-term relationships, the assertion truth is that many of us are actively trying to find no-strings attached sex and even more are at least open to the possibility of it on an initial meeting.

Slut wants NSA sex, shocked to discover men who want same thing aren’t Prince Charming.

It is understandably non-negotiable for many women that this meeting take place in public because the law does not look kindly on us if we are assaulted after showing up at a new man’s home nor is it any kinder to women who welcome new men into theirs.

rapesthatwillneverhappen.txt

I am one of many women who has upgraded these initial encounters into sex and have grow increasingly skilled at selecting for only the most exceptional sex with every swipe.

David Fatrelle smiled knowingly.

One guy was 20 minutes late to our museum date and it turned out it was actually closed so we went to Ikea for our date instead. Ikea where love goes to die! Ikea. I carried his clunky-ass light fixtures across an industrial part of town in August heat wearing skinny jeans and still let him see me naked that day.

Well, that’s the kind of thing desperate LSMV women who love entitled jerks do.

I halfway had sex with an investment banker who insisted on bringing his shitty little dog into my pristine cat’s lair.

What you are witnessing is the raw, uncensored id of a loveless and unloveable shrike having a mental breakdown online as she recollects with exquisite detail and simmering rage all the badboys who dumped her after they squared away a few jackhammer sessions with her shredded snatch before moving on to less crazy pastures.

The truth is,

Autonomic female verbal tic meaning “the truth is not”.

sluts like me are everywhere on Tinder but we aren’t impressed by men who are positively beleaguered by the prospect of having to put effort into getting laid,

Funny, if you aren’t impressed by these men, why did you fuck so many of them that you were able to recall and write up a compendium of them as part of your mental health rehabilitation?

nor do we like it when they mock the boundaries of our girlfriends who want to use Tinder only for traditional dating.

Strange non sequitur. I’ll leave it as a challenge for the readers to parse its hidden meaning. My guess: She’s been used a few too many times by men as a pivot to score with her hotter girl friends.

But I’ve found enough value on Tinder to keep going, swiping and unmatching bad profiles out of my life at the first sign of unreasonable expectations.

Power Swiper. With any luck, Tinder will still be around when she’s really old (and not just old-looking), and she can assuage her butthurt spinsterhood by swiping away randos who love her as much as they love the other 100,000 Tinder ladies they’ve gallantly wooed.

Their corner of Tinder is a dark place, dense with hapless souls who didn’t realize that the centuries-long period of dick overvaluation is over.

Yet there she is, in the dark place with these hapless souls. So that makes her…?

The writer — and I use the term loosely — of this soul-scarred confessional is Alana Massey. You can follow her on Twatter here.

Esteemed winner of the CH Attention Whore of the Month award:

29-year old Millennial, or 50-year-old meth addict? If she’s the slut she says she is, she’s a great PSA for women to lay off the cock carousel.

(My shiv needs sharpening after this carving.)

The UMB (Urban Millennial Bitterbitch) wants you to know she’s a tankgrrl rolling over your male privilege and patriarchal assumptions.

Don’t they know it’s different for men?

Best advice CH could give women like her: Get off this:

Related: Sexual consent is implicit in the marriage contract.

There’s a lot of confusion about the functioning of the sexual market among normally clear-thinking denizens of Realtalkland.

free pizzas will lead to the next wave of MRAs

WOMEN ARE HEARTLESS BITCHES WHO JUST USE ME FOR FREE MEALS, TEACH ME HOW TO PUMP AND DUMP THEM, SENSEI

the thing about beta losers is they have an uncanny knack for finding women who will manipulate them, and they assume this is what all women are like because all the women they get ensnared by do this to them

we’ve all known guys who end up with one crazy or manipulative bitch after another…I always figure this is a mommy issue and when I’ve been able to verify it, it is

All women are capable of exploiting men for emotional and financial provider services. What separates the manipulative woman from the endearing sweetheart is something more than simply differences in innate characteristics: It’s the exploitability of the men they meet and date.

Beta males don’t have an “uncanny knack” for finding manipulative women. What beta male niceguys have is an uncanny lack of astuteness about the nature of women. A niceguy with no game riding a heady romantic idealism into every interaction with women opens himself up to exploitation. The sort of doofus who buys pizza for a chick on Tinder he’s never met in the hopes of sexual favors is… to use a phrase that drives feminist cranks wild with rage… asking for it.

Women love sexy men, and part of being a sexy man is playing the courtship game with enough skill and keenness that you’ll never be mistaken for an anhedonic sucker.

Related: The mainstream media have been reading CH. “Men should play hard to get.” Glad to see the Rude Word of Game is finally penetrating block-like skulls.

A study (lovingly, via Cheap Chalupas) examining people’s changing impressions of wine quality when they believe the wine they’re drinking is expensive, provides, in a roundabout way, confirming evidence for the game concept of “fake it till you make it”, or what CH has more accurately restated, “fake it till you create it”.

From the SCIENCE ❤️ GAME files,

When consumers taste cheap wine and rate it highly because they believe it is expensive, is it because prejudice has blinded them to the actual taste, or has prejudice actually changed their brain function, causing them to experience the cheap wine in the same physical way as the expensive wine? Research in the Journal of Marketing Research has shown that preconceived beliefs may create a placebo effect so strong that the actual chemistry of the brain changes.

The science of biomechanical feedback loops is in its infancy, but it’s already uncovering some very eeeenteresting facets of human behavior. The brain-body connection, and how willful changes in the one can subconsciously alter manifestations of the other, has big implications for the study of seduction, aka game.

At this point I hardly need to spell it out for the regular readers. Preconceived beliefs, firmly adhered, can gradually alter the chemistry of the brain. In Game terms: Preconceived belief in one’s allure to women — aka sexy overconfidence — can create brain changes which turn the inner belief into outer reality.

It’s the same phenomenon we see with deliberate changes in body language, where assuming the posture and mien of a charming alpha male will increase your subjective feelings of well-being and even your testosterone level! This will, in turn, increase your attractiveness to better-looking women.

Granted, these effects are sometimes temporary and fleeting, but even a temporary boost in “alpha maleness” can mean the difference between a desiccated “you’re such a nice guy” brush-off and a fiery dance floor twirl leading to a night of debauchery.

And, temporary improvements in your sexy masculine vibe will, given enough of them accumulated over a long enough period of time, eventually become permanent fixtures of your being. Success with women builds upon itself, just as failure with women compounds the problems that drive women away. For this reason, it’s so important to get your son or friend up and running with Game while they’re open to self-improvement, before bad habits, self-pitying defeatism, negative female feedback, or tradconism consign them to a fate worse than death: settling for a fat wife.

Update

Via Randall Parker, a study found that mildly intoxicated people look more attractive to the opposite sex. Alcohol gives you a relaxed, confident, happy glow. Chicks dig it.