A peculiar trend I’ve noticed in the past few years is the emergence of old-skool Americana on the walls and atop the furniture of various upscale shops and restaurants in urban blue elite-capture islands. It started with SWPL hipsters wearing ironic American eagle and American flag t-shirts, which became less ironic and more sincere over time, culminating in spontaneous outbursts of liberal patriotism on American holidays like July 4th. Recently, the trend appears to be picking up speed. Paintings of the stars and stripes adorn überwhite tapas eateries. Norman Rockwell-ish art lines the halls of globalist corporate elite headquarters.

Have liberal Americans suddenly begun believing in the idea of America, now that it’s a race cuck depot? No. This is fear speaking. The elite and striver SWPL class sense the nation is fraying, and may come undone in their lifetimes. The top-down patriotism is a frantic gesture of unity when division rules the day.

The gesture is too late, too feeble. America will break apart into regional powers within the next fifty years, probably sooner. Mark these words.

Reader duderino stumbles upon an excellent jerkboy opener.

I was standing behind a hot girl at the grocery store a while back. She was fit and wore tight yoga pants. She was waffling over which sugar free energy drink to buy. I’d pulled an all nighter studying, and was beginning to feel sick. I unintentionally cleared my throat in a way that made it sound like I was telling her to gtfo of my way. She started apologizing and sheepishly grinned as I grabbed whatever had the most caffeine. I was barraged with questions about which drink was best and how she wanted something to give her energy without getting fat. Throat clearing must be an underrated opener.

I was too grumpy and caught off guard to follow through. I’ve been gaining muscle lately and aren’t used to cute girls opening me. Anyone with experience talking to girls at grocery stores?

A real man demands a woman’s attention. He doesn’t wait for her attention to fall in his lap. This reader accidentally learned the value of this truth, so next time he might try a deliberate throat clearing opener to startle and arouse a cute girl turned instantly submissive to the aural attack of his jerky, guttural impudence.

Coaxer of Shy Clits: [loudly clears throat] *hmmMMMmmm*

Little Red Clitoral Hood: Oh! I’m sorry. *sheepish grin* You looking for en energy drink? Which drink is best?

Coaxer of Shy Clits: Well, Red Bull gives you flings. I mean, wings.

Whatever you do after your throat clearing opener, don’t do beta. That means don’t give in to instinct and apologize for disturbing the girl’s tranquility.

More than a few readers have offered anecdotes in which they stoked a girl’s curiosity and feminine deference as a result of unintentionally mimicking alpha male jerkboy behavior in her company. This is interesting, because the results proceeding from accidental Game speak more forcefully to the efficacy of Game than do the results from deliberate application of Game.

When we set out on self-improvement, there is a natural human tendency to affirm the benefits of that which we have invested much effort to learn and apply. But those same benefits accrued by unintentional implementation of a behavioral change — that is, accrued without conscious apprehension of the behavioral process until after the fact, when a surprised appraisal is made — is a powerful clue that the change in behavior works as predicted.

The heart of the matter is quite disturbing to dewy-eyed and trembling-lipp’d romantic idealists when you really grasp its significance:

Maxim #65: The accidental alpha trumps the intentional beta.

The shiv withdraws, glistening with viscera.

PS There are illimitable ways to hit on girls standing in front of you at the supermarket checkout. One I’ve employed is making a comment about one of her odder choices of food items on the conveyor belt. Try to structure your comment so that it’s open-ended, leading her to invest a bit in the conversation, and possibly continuing it past the store doors. For example, “I guess I’m not the only one who eats durian fruit. What makes you think you can handle that bad boy?”

Lena Dunham — or as Vox Day calls her, the Dunham Horror — is back in the news, attention whoring on social media in her new lingerie fat folds hammock. (WARNING: You are about to see what cannot be unseen. The faint of heart should look away now.)

.

.

.

.

Until Lena, never in the history of womankind has an attention whore been less aware of the nature of the attention she receives, or of the mismatch between what she offers and the kind of attention she demands for her offerings.

Which manboob does Lena’s nottie bod most resemble?

I’ll have to go with “sidewinders”.

Lena’s personal philosophy and her behaviors which manifest from her beliefs are a cancer on the world. A grotesquerie like her should spend less time flaunting her repulsive ugliness on the internet and more time in the gym and away from the grease trucks kicking her body into a reasonably feminine shape that she can then proudly save for the pleasure of her gay husband in the privacy of their home. Growing out her hair so she looks less like David Fatrelle would help, too.

But, she will never do this. Find a husband, that is.

But even with their visible admiration for one another, this pair has no plans to say “I Do” anytime soon. It’s not that they aren’t ready. They just wish everyone [ed: gays] would be given the same opportunity in all 50 states.

This post is cruel. I’m in a giving mood, so I’ll leave youze guys with some oculation material.

It’s biomechanical feedback loops all the way down.

Reader chris forwards a study that examined the relationship between testosterone levels and mating success.

Fulfilling desire: Evidence for negative feedback between men’s testosterone, sociosexual psychology, and sexual partner number

Men who achieve what, for them, represents a successful pattern of mating, whether through committed relationships or uncommitted sex, should lower these costs by decreasing T production. The present results thus point to negative feedback in which T promotes copulatory success, and copulatory success in turn down-regulates T production.

So I’m guessing the inference from this is that abstaining from mating while still desiring to mate produces highest testosterone levels.

Testosterone must be costly to the male to produce and sustain at high levels, otherwise the body-brain axis wouldn’t shift to down-regulating T production once reproductive success was achieved. And note that the use of contraception wouldn’t attenuate this down-regulation: The brain-endocrine system has not evolved to keep up with modern procreation-thwarting technologies. (Evolution never takes a break, so it’s possible people, and particularly secular Westerners, are presently evolving in unforeseen ways to accommodate the reality of cheap, widely available contraception.)

This study jives with Mangan’s writings on hormesis — the idea that low level stresses (e.g., weightlifting and eating mildly toxic vegetables like broccoli) on the body and brain promote the health of an organism — as it would seem copulatory denial causes a man’s body to ramp up testosterone production, resulting in more vigor and initiative. Temporary bouts of incel may, in fact, do a man’s body good.

So maybe the No-Fappers are onto something. Hardcore porn may trick the male brain into recognizing that solitary onanistic spurt arced over the flicker of a sexy 2D babe as the culmination of a real life reproductive success. Hardcore porn, like the Pill and condom, is an evolutionary shock for which the human brain and its underlying genetic imperative are ill-equipped to make sense of. Relative to the timeline of human evolution, Tab 31 may as well be a Toba event.

And when we look around at American men, especially Millennials raised on a diet of internet porn (and high fructose corn), we behold a ghastly churn of manboobs, psychological faggotry, poz, and Scalzied male feminists bleating like tender lambs about their daughters’ ability to bench press more than they can.

What does this all mean for the inveterate player? Getting into a relationship with one of your plates will make you soft, figuratively and literally. So you’d better choose wisely which girl you allow to tame you.

Finally, if you’re looking for a way around this T down-regulation caused by the curse of your own sexual success, take up weightlifting. It’s been shown to increase resting testosterone in both the short- and long-terms.

UPDATE

Commenter Anti-Citizen demurs,

Meh, I just know that if I don’t fap for 3 days I start considering banging fat chicks. Not worth it.

There are two legit pro-fap arguments to be made. This one, and the idea that a pre-date fap will relax and imbue a man with that aloof and indifferent alpha male aura chicks dig (as explored in Something About Mary).

Although, tbh, fat chicks are so visually and pungently disgusting to the majority of (white and asian) men that even a semen backup of Hoover Dam proportions wouldn’t convince them to do a triple lindy into the deep end of the back boobs.

Compare and contrast.

America, then:

America, now:

America the Beautiful to America the Beastly in eighty years. You think this is frivolous, if amusing, griping. Ugliness in body and of spirit, and the crooked celebration thereof, is a defining feature of exhausted, declining cultures. Pampered softness has made Americans, and especially American women, ugly, crass, and teetering on the brink of mass insanity.

What do I mean by ugliness of spirit?

This, for example…

The nation has taken a wholesale turn away from beauty and toward ugliness. We embrace the ugly, castigate those “beauty bitter clingers”, and rejoice at the death of judgement. All the while our spirits and our bodies turn into formless pulp, manifesting our new beliefs, and we become ripe for defeat by more vital outsiders.

A little bit of hardship is good for a civilization’s, as well as a person’s, soul. Hardship will likely return to us, but when that time comes the difference then will be that we won’t be prepared to meet it head on.

First, we had the Disingenuous Shitlib. Meet his right-hand woman, the Sophistic Shitlib.

Another one of those UGH THE RIGHT WING outrage articles dropped in the CH combox. Every time I permit myself to wade through a frothy feminist menstruation, I can’t help but get the feeling the implied bogeyman in these articles is none other than yours truly. But they never come at CH directly, even though I’m certain they have stopped by here to get a taste of my meaty instruction. I wonder why they’re so reticent…

Anyhow, this particular article is worth flaying scalp to sole because it’s written in that quintessential sophistic shitlib style, sounding superficially plausible but full of moving goalposts. straw men, evasions, and red herrings. It will be my pleasure to detox this cunt’s id box.

The Right-Wing War on Lena Dunham

Author: Amy Zimmerman

The right-wingers obsessively document and chastise her every move.

…unlike the lefty feminists who obsessively document and chastise the Realtalkers shitting on their icons.

Why are conservatives so threatened by a 29-year-old TV showrunner and author?

“Threatened by” is shitlib smoke and mirrors for “disgusted by”, a classic, and by now ineffectual, leftoid reframe. Dunham despisers, aka normal well-adjusted people, aren’t threatened by her any more than they’re threatened by a steaming wet pile of dog shit they almost stepped in. But they’re still gonna make a face and demand that the dog owner clean up the mess.

But isn’t this a major mental block with leftoids, always confusing disgust for fear? Their grasp of basic human emotions isn’t very… nuanced.

In honor of Memorial Day, Lena Dunham Instagrammed herself in a lacy bra and panty set, and captioned the sultry snap

The only thing snapping in that photo is Dunham’s bra strap, and not for the right reason. You can tell a feminist coven is about to begin their occult clitual when one of them salutes the “sultriness” of the homeliest skank in the group.

Dunham clearly presents her exhibitionism as a celebration of personal and political freedoms

Clearly a strained defense of mundane attention whoring.

but certain fringe elements of the right-wing media have taken the peaceful photo

“Peaceful photo”. What a weird turn of phrase. Is she celebrating in her duties as a State Department liaison a historic accord between Israel and Palestine? Yet again, we see the dullard feminist, utterly lacking in self-awareness, contradict herself within the span of two sentences. Is Dunham in peaceful repose, or is she stridently celebrating her personal and political freedoms?

as further evidence of Dunham’s personal war on male retinas, Republican values, and the American Dream.

Dunham is ugly, so, yeah, “male retinas” will suffer the sight of her, especially since she loves shoving her near-naked ugliness in everyone’s faces. And then acting all aghast when men sensibly recoil at her misshapen figure.

As you read, you’ll start to notice the aversion feminists have to using the word “men”.

The friendly folks over at Breitbart even took it upon themselves to share the photo on Facebook along with a PSA: “DISCLAIMER: Breitbart News is not responsible for any emotional, spiritual, or psychological damage that might occur as a result of viewing this article.” Because trigger warnings are a liberal tool used to infantilize and over-coddle—unless they’re giving big, strong men ample warning that the nude woman they’re about to ogle and objectify is not a piece of eye candy constructed exclusively out of the world’s most physically arousing, dude-approved lady parts.

Amy Zimmerman agrees with horrible right wing males that some women are more physically arousing than others. Amy, I am deeply… deeply… triggered. Warm up the breaking wheel!

While hating on Lena Dunham is, at this point, an odd national pastime, conservative Dunham demonization is particularly widespread and cruel.

Cruel to be kind… to impressionable younger women who might be tempted to follow Dunham’s path to premature spinsterhood. Dunham could always stifle her exhibitionist urges, remove herself from the internet, and lead a reasonably private life like most women do, if she doesn’t like the negative attention.

It’s also strange—for all the fuss Breitbart & Co. made about Lena in her lingerie, you would think Instagram had published a picture of Obama’s REAL birth certificate.

We’ve got a snarklord here. So edgy, so gotcha!

But the far right has been picking on Lena Dunham her entire career, for various slights ranging from her insistence on sharing her personal narrative to her insistence on not walking around in a potato sack with a paper bag over her head.

This is her leftoid straw man. “Lena Dunham doesn’t wear a paper bag over her head, and this infuriates RIGHT WINGERS.” Of course, Dunham sans paper bag isn’t the problem for Dunham haters; it’s Dunham pinching a loaf granny panties bunched around her cankles; Dunham flaunting her undulating fat rolls on everything but a Wheaties box; Dunham sharing the narratives of her endless feminist cunt lies, her sexual perversions, and her antagonism toward normal male sexuality. It’s all that, and her grating, sanctimonious shitlib personality hitched to her bulbous fat man physique, that inspires her enemies.

Not that a potato sack and paper bag wouldn’t be an improvement.

In 2012, Dunham appeared in an Obama campaign ad about her “first time” voting for the Democratic nominee. In the ad, Dunham quipped, “You want to do it with a great guy…somebody who really cares about and understands women.”

Like her gay boyfriend.

Republicans were shocked and irate

FUCK YOU DAD

both by Dunham’s political affiliations as well as her insinuation that she knew what sex was.

No, I think pretty much everyone knew Dunham was an empty-headed leftoid from the get-go. And obviously the consternation of the Core wasn’t directed at her familiarity with sex, but at her insinuation that President Butt Naked would actually be interested in sex with a woman.

Imagine the backlash when this “over-sexed starlet” actually started to use her celebrity to campaign on behalf of Planned Parenthood, in keeping with her pro-choice beliefs.

Her mother disappointed the world by letting Xenomorph Dunham burst past the third trimester deadline.

While Dunham’s ideological deviances from the conservative value system were well-documented from the start

So were Rethuglicans shocked and irate by Dunham’s political affiliations, or were Dunham’s ideological deviances well-documented from the start? Surprisingly, it took four sentences this time before Amy Zimmerman, Feminist Esq., contradicted herself. Progress!

they hardly justify the ensuing right-wing witch hunt.

Criticism is not a witch hunt, dingbat. Now for examples of modern inquisitions suited to the witch hunt metaphor, check out the latest fashion trend among your SJW ilk for getting people fired for crimethinks against humanity.

The outcry surrounding Dunham’s 2014 memoir Not That Kind of Girl illustrates some of these fringe conservatives’ cruelest tactics.

So fringe, she had to compose a passionate, lengthy comeback.

In the memoir, Dunham details a sexual encounter she had as a college student, which she now identifies as an assault.

“Dunham details”. “she now identifies”. “assault”.

Mind-blowing journalistic standards by Mz Zimmerman. So clarifying. For the record, Dunham completely made up her rape story. That is, it was a lie. A lie… meaning the opposite of the truth. She nearly fucked over an innocent man’s life to feed her insatiable, egomaniacal appetite for attention, and to suture whatever cunt-shaped ego wound bleeds out her sense of self-worth.

She later explained her reasoning for going public with the story, citing the bravery of other survivors who have spoken out and asserting, “I don’t believe any of us who have been raped and/or assaulted are to blame.”

She explained her reasoning for going public with her big lie, so that makes everything A-Ok. A good lawyer might make the defense work for a murderer. “Ladies and trannies of the jury, my client is innocent! He explained his reasoning for going public with his story about blowing a man’s head off with a shotgun, and cited the bravery of other killers who have spoken out as victims of a system prejudiced against the hot-tempered.”

Does it sometimes feel like America has entered a parallel universe where all the laws of logic and coherent argument have been turned upside down? Forgive me, I’ll try to explain this without using the word “logic”, which is clearly alienating to many women.

Does it sometimes feel like America has entered a parallel universe where babbling nonsense has substituted for any kind of remotely human-like communication?

Although the number of men and women who have been bold enough to challenge the patriarchal and silencing culture surrounding sexual assault does appear to be rising, the far right never fears.

Define patriarchal. Define silencing culture. Points will be deducted for use of academese poopytalk and tautology. Whatever “silencing culture” exists, it obviously sucks at its job, because Dunham’s gums haven’t stopped flapping. And her advocates sure aren’t shutting up about her.

Got a troublemaking young woman using her visibility to encourage empowerment?

Got an emotionally broken, sociopathic liar using her equally broken fan base of urban millennial bitterbitches and their manlet lapdogs to encourage more lying?

Just dim the lights, put Fox News on mute, and blast the greatest hits: victim blaming, reputation trashing, and an insistence on false rape accusations.

Behold wit!

Two points: Dunham actually made a false rape accusation and therefore trashed her own reputation, and Amy Zimmerman writes like an idiot.

Keep playing these classics on loop and eventually someone will have to issue a statement!

Damaged fatties just wanna be free to smear, libel, and slander men without consequence.

In Lena Dunham’s case, the conservative reckoning was perpetrated by

Translation: She was called out on her lying.

Of course, if Dunham hadn’t insisted on being raped by a Republican (and telling the world about it), the conservative right might have been a little less ardent about insisting that she had made the whole thing up.

Amy Zimmerman agrees with Rethuglicans that Lena Dunham made the whole thing up.

Naturally, they would protect a perceived member of their own tribe by attacking her story—she was practically asking for it!

Tribe projection.

In the National Review, Kevin D. Williamson published a now-infamous review that culled two passages from Dunham’s memoir, asserting that they were proof that Dunham molested her younger sister. Dunham took to Twitter to offer a number of choice replies, including, “I told a story about being a weird 7 year old. I bet you have some too, old men, that I’d rather not hear.”

“weird 7 year old” = “i shoved stuff up my sister’s vagina”. You know, just the sort of weird thing all 7 year olds do. But hey, it’s a choice reply, so Dunham wins.

While sexual assault and child abuse are two thorny, nuanced issues,

Like rape is a thorny, nuanced issue, right, Amy?

the conservative vendetta against Lena Dunham is as uncomplicated as it is undeniable.

Deep. Profound. I read in awe as insight after insight illuminates my world.

More troubling is the manner in which she is so utterly dismissed, an ignorant misreading that’s got everything to do with Dunham’s political views and, more importantly, her gender.

And her vapidity, crassness, banality, and penchant for lying about rapes that never happened.

Lena Dunham was not accepted as a survivor in the same way that so many young women aren’t.

Survivor of what? Diabetic shock? Herpes Simplex 1, 2, and 50? Self-empowered public embarrassment? A malicious fantasy rape concocted in her melonhead? Her dignity?

Similarly, her tales of sexual exploration could never be read as such by a conservative culture that actively denies the sexuality of young women in favor of their sexualization.

Shitlib semantics. I’ve red this line three times and I still can’t make sense of it. Deny women’s sexuality while approving their sexualization? Every word is unintelligible and unfalsifiable in context.

To these right-wing critics, Lena Dunham’s every-woman sexuality

“every-woman sexuality”. :lol: How many women get a thrill from pummeling viewing audiences of them taking a dump, or waddling around the kitchen naked, pretending their carb-fueled gunts are brimming with the gift of new life?

isn’t just disgusting, it’s downright threatening

There’s that assertion against all the available evidence. Amy, toots, no man is “threatened” by the Dumpham Pork Roll, unless he happens to be one of those unfortunate men about to get anally rammed by the dildo she used on her sister. Precision in language, dearie. Muslim terrorists are threatening. Baltimore wildings are threatening. Lena Dunham’s impersonation of a shawarma spit is just revolting.

According to conservatives,

According to normal, psychologically sound people,

Lena Dunham isn’t hot enough for Vogue,

True.

and she isn’t even hot enough for her own Instagram account.

Truer.

She’s a liar, a molester, and an all-around vulgar chick.

True^3.

From challenging standards of beauty

Sisyphus wept.

to acknowledging her sex life

Why does Dumpham need to publicly acknowledge her sex life? Is she afraid people will think she’s a nun?

from standing up for survivors

of public exposure of their false rape accusations.

to speaking out against victim blaming

Why are you blaming conservatives for being victimized by Dunham’s exhibitionism and celebration of child incest, Amy?

Lena Dunham isn’t afraid of much.

Oh, I think her self-imposed disgrace is starting to get to her.

Meanwhile radical right-wingers

Paging 1995, Amy. “Radical right wingers” is no longer the height of edgy labeling.

when faced with change in the form of a lady who talks too much and wears too little

I thought Lena was being silenced by a silencing culture?

are almost comically frightened.

You don’t sound like you’re laughing, Amy.

Maybe they’re afraid that their wives and daughters will join the revolt, or maybe they’re just really not attracted to empowered women.

Or maybe… just maybe!… Dumpham is the antithesis of an attractive, feminine woman that appeals to the vast majority of men.

Whatever the reason, Lena Dunham has a message for the conservatives who have endlessly mocked and maligned her: I probably wouldn’t fuck you either.

“Dick is abundant and low value.”

Is The Daily Beast the bottom of the journolister barrel? That was some of the worst-written, incoherent, callow garbage I’ve read coming out of fevered feminist fantasyland in a while. And that’s saying something.

The propaganda arms in charge of disseminating Narrative agitprop are falling prey to a bad combination of incompetence and self-admiration. I wonder how much lower media organs will debase themselves before their undying shame compels radical change in their occupation? Will that shame ever come, or will they have to be forced off the plantation for sins against their ethical code of conduct?

A field report from reader Sentient nicely illustrates the importance of a fundamental game concept: kino.

From a sporting event…

Lots of outside bars in tents etc. Lots of women milling about, lots of drinking. Was with a white knight buddy. great guy but white knight to the core – even though he is pretty alpha in a lot of ways.

White knights span the male SMV spectrum, from sniveling sidekick-hopeful omega to brawling bodyguard-for-hire alpha, although most of them bunch up in the back-middle of the SMV geld curve, where lesser beta males dominate.

They all share one thing in common: Toolbaggery.

So I am in a good mood, but have to keep flirtation on a low boil with him around babysitting me. some flirting with women, at one point I am laughing and joking with a 7 and I put my arm on her bare shoulder. she is laughing.. we stroll off. He later says “man you assaulted that girl”. I’m like you can’t be serious, he says, “you touched her”. I cracked up and rolled my eyes.

Later he is busy doing something, I am getting a drink. 21 YO bartender, 5’5 and maybe 105 lbs. Very slim. My type for sure. We are bantering. I see her wrist has a tattoo on it and she sees me look. she goes into “oh you saw that, it was a mistake”. I look at her and pull her skinny arm over and look at her wrist, tracing the outline of her quarter size tattoo, “what the hell is this supposed to be?” I ask her. she laughs and says a friend did it, it was a rebellious phase. I keep tracing it and laser eyeing. Then break contact. we chat – blah blah. She is in town for the event and new job she just travels from event to event with this company. So I tease her about a young girl on the road stuff. she comes from deep backwoods OH.

So I notice the vibe is growing and she keeps coming out from behind the bar and walking 15 feet or so past me to a garbage bin to do stuff like throw out a single napkin, or a single can of beer.

Women will happily inconvenience themselves for a man who intrigues them.

So I know she is doing this for my benefit, so I can look at her. I comment on her build and ask if she dances as she walks by me again. she gives me the over the shoulder look and says no but everyone asks that. So as she comes back to me i say “come here” and put my hand out. she gives me her hand and I give her the PUA spin LOL and she lights up “whoa!” and laughs and I say she moves pretty good even though she is not a dancer, while pulling her in closer. she giggles and scurries behind the bar again. Between the infrequent customers we continue to banter.

She comes over close over the bar, I have both hands spread out past shoulder width on the bar, laser eyeing. she puts her head down but lifts her eyes to mine, a very submissive and alluring posture and then motions with her eyes to my left hand… “soooooo… Is your wife here?” I laugh and say “Oh you noticed my jewelry” and say “nah she is home” and now she is more coyly saying, “well what would she say about us talking…” I say “that doesn’t concern her now does it” and move to try and set something up for later with her. It becomes clear though that she is a No Married Guys girl and I realize I am negotiating with her about meeting up later. So I cut it off, lightheartedly, say I need to go catch up with my buddy. She says well come back she has this same spot all weekend.. blah blah.

I need to get some better game on these no married guys girls… More preparation, because 50% of the time they don’t care or ask, 25% of the time it’s a straight up turn on and that 25% of the time where they are interested but won’t budge… that surprises me and I fumble…

Thoughts?

First, your field report is a great example of the critical importance of early, boundary-crossing touch to the seduction process. Grabbing the arm of a female stranger, tracing her tattoo… these are actions almost incomprehensible to the beta male/white knight mind. If you obeyed social convention, cultural signals, and instinct, you would never touch a girl you’ve just met in this manner. And that is why you would fail.

Touching a girl throws her cognitive dissonance about courtship into stark relief. If you were to ask, most girls would assert that they would never want any man to touch them. If you were to watch them being seduced, nearly every girl would be stricken with aroused smiles as the man’s hands investigated parts of her body.

Second, your game question. If you want those 25% of girls averse to sleeping with married men, why not just remove your ring? It’s not like that additional deception atop the other deception of giving life to your extramarital licentiousness will be the one to break your moral bank.

Reader tsparks156 refutes the “men love smart women as much as or more than they love hot women” pretty lie by use of a simple observational technique,

Look at who are the most popular/highly rated women among men of all ages. Then check what percentage are hot and what percentage are successful in business and academia and compare. The results are predictably obvious. Rachel Riley is a popular academic woman because she is hot and the only interest men have in her brains is fucking them out of her.

No smart woman in the history of the world has given a man a boner by waving her grad school degree over his crotch or breathily whispering in his ear about the space-time continuum.

***

Sentient adds his two cents for runner-up COTW,

Ask any woman what she would rather have… a perfect SAT score or a perfect body? Do you think the millions of pages of Self, Glamour, Cosmo et al shed any light on the answer?

A poll of this nature would suffer from the problem that it would never be answered truthfully by women. Social expectation bias would be much too strong. Perhaps an airtight anonymous poll might get us closer to women’s real feelings about the matter, but in the end what counts is revealed preference, and for that we see women spending years of their lives in energetic pursuit of improving their bodies and appearances…. not their SAT acumen. Super heh.

To answer this post title’s question — women’s brains, what are they good for? — I believe female smarts are a vestigial trait resulting from women choosing smarter men as mates over the millennia, sort of similar to the idea of the clitoris as a vestigial organ of the dominant male penis.

I’m only half-kidding. Another reason for the existence of female smarts is that men with options, when choosing a long-term partner to raise their future kids, will choose less dumb women only after all the other more important mate criteria are met (specifically, youth and beauty and feminine disposition).

Men without options will take what they can get.

To put it another way, men have a lot more tolerance for underpowered IQ in romantic partners than they have for underpowered beauty.

Steve Sailer contemplates the riddle of women and their whoring for handbag status. It’s a worthy topic, because handbags appear to confer no sexual market advantage to women, and yet women spend inordinate time and money acquiring the latest trendy makeup container. “Hey, sexy mama, I noticed your Birkin handbag, and it is turning me on!”… said no straight man ever.

“But, CH…” you ask, “if, as you claim, the sexual market is the one market to rule them all, how do you explain women and handbags?”

Easy there, brosephus. I think the best explanation is the one Steve gave: Women use handbags as a signal they can carry with them everywhere to advertise the alpha male-ness of their husbands/lovers, and the women’s ability to secure commitment from their alpha men. Since most people will presume the burn money for the handbag came from a soulmate wealthy male donor, the pricey handbag serves as a relatively inoffensive proxy for a woman’s own SMV.

Why the connection between alpha males and HSMV women? Because we subconsciously know in our ape-shaped brains that the more attractive a woman, the better able she will be to land herself a high status man who, himself, will have the options open to him to capture the interest of beautiful women.

Why doesn’t the kept woman just flaunt her pretty face and sexy body to send the same signal more directly? Because in the world of alpha males with sexual market options and the women who circle them like hawks, that is a little too threatening to other HSMV women in her social milieu. She risks total social ostracism from other women if she sluts it up beyond the acceptable norm for her group.

I have another theory about women and handbags that parsimoniously bridges their behavior to the primary demands of the sexual market: Handbags are a sort of runaway sexual selection module gone haywire, similar to brawn on men, a secondary sexual display in men that is still attractive to Western women despite the environmental conditions having radically changed so that male muscularity is no longer needed for survival. But some men take it too far, bulking up in the gym well beyond the point of usefulness, and most women don’t have any special preference for men with bloated roid muscles.

The handbag, under the female inverse of this theory, is just an extension of a sexy, hip-hugging cocktail dress and beautifying makeup. The former do increase a woman’s sexual appeal to men, and women, knowing this on a deep limbic level, have evolved to maximize their efforts at improving their appearance. This evolution for female self-beautification has “spun out of orbit”, resulting in the modern predilection for collecting and showcasing feminine accessories like handbags, despite male indifference to them.

***

Philomathean adds some heft to the sexual market primacy theory of female handbag collection,

Handbagism is a signal of aggression females employ to communicate the accumulation of tangible and intangible resources.

This is a good point. Women can be aggressive with one another, but their particular brand of aggression doesn’t make headlines or rouse moral umbrage because it isn’t delivered through fists and projectile weapons. “Handbagism” is aggressive signaling to other women who could be potential poachers of husbands and boyfriends. An expensive handbag is one way a woman intimidates her competition from entering the arena. It says, “Hey, my man is fully committed to me, and deeply in love with me, as you can see by all the stuff he lavishes me with, so you’d be wasting your time trying to seduce him away from me.”

Remember, sexual infidelity is a man’s worst fear, while love and resource infidelity are a woman’s worst fear.

Are white male Millennials the most craven American generation ever? Is the white male Millennial the new “nigger of the world“? Reader PA encounters evidence for the proposition.

Slice of life observation. A young (maybe 23 y.o.) white man is sitting in a public waiting area. He is tall, sportingly dressed, athletic, good looking. I’m standing nearby. A middle aged black man returns to that seat to pick up a small item he left there. Seeing him approach, the young white guy apparently thinks he wants that seat he’s sitting in. So he jumps up and in apologetic voice starts to say something but the black guy in a friendly manner tells him he’s just grabbing something he forgot. The young white guy stammer some some apology and says “thanks man” submissively and the older black guy goes away.

I thought about telling the young man something along the lines of “I understand its a reflex but there was no need to be this obsequious.” But then I decided not to. You know how when a pussy whipped boyfriend can cower before his girlfriend but will go defcon 5 on a third party male who discreetly suggests to him that he shouldn’t take that kind of crap from a woman? It’s likely that the young man in my anecdote may also get in my grill or tell me to fuck off, a compensation for his submissiveness to the black guy. [ed: yup. that’d be my bet.]

Millennials. I can’t relate to having been taught white guilt since birth.

The white male faggotry is nearing an epic meltdown.

In eras when cultures change much quicker than genes, the gene-culture co-evolution process is amplified. We are in one of those eras now, (and have been since, oh, 1960). What new breed of white American male is about to be set upon the world? Or, rather, set upon the world’s lubed strap-on?

It seems hard to believe, immersed as we are currently in a miasma of equalist lies, that there were ever times in America’s rapidly receding past when people shared a generally realistic appraisal of the sexes. But there were. And America’s fruited plains were once populated with Realtalkers. A reader forwards a link to Realtalk, 1920s-style. The subject is “Petting Parties”, which were all the rage during that time.

Soon the lovey-dovey wingdings were popping up all across the country. Southerners sometimes called them necking parties. They were called mushing parties in the West; fussing parties in the Midwest and spooning everywhere, the United Press noted later in 1921. Eventually some flappers began referring to party-petting as snugglepupping.

It’s almost weird to read about a time when America was so culturally unified, and this despite massive waves of Eastern European immigration happening then.

A game-aware nugget of Realtalk is tucked into the story:

“Girls like to be called snuggle-puppies,” one school administrator told the reporter. “They grant the boys liberties. Encourage them to take them and if the young chaps do not, they are called ‘sissies’, ‘poor boobs’ or ‘flat tire.’ ”

Heartiste Poon Commandment XIII: Better to err on the side of too much boldness rather than too little.

The beta male orbiter was known to women long before our time. He was that “sissy” — an apt description — who couldn’t bustamove when it most counted. That 1920s beta male stumbled and fumbled and waited patiently for unmistakeable signals from the girl until she grew bored with him and alighted for a better man who knew how to travel the landscape of her hindbrain.

Related: Fat women were never attractive to men. The “perfect woman”, according to an 1890s leaflet, was slender and feminine, not a hint of fupa or manjaw on her. America the Beautiful, where have ye gone?

What kind of economy do women prop up, and propagate? A reader forwards an unintentionally funny, and portentous, chart.

Women in their 20s, 30s, and beyond flock to nonprofits for work. There are three reasons for this:

1. Women are psychologically much different than men and have a sex-based preference for work in the “helping” and “schoolmarm” industries. If a woman gets to tell you what to do, and also gets to enjoy a sanctimonious glow from the thought that she’s bettering the world, she is a happy clam.

2. Nonprofits are post-scarcity economy work that appeals to people who want to “self-actualize”, the preponderance of these people being women. Profit maximizing and corporate ladder climbing are icky to women, unless that greed and self-aggrandizement occurs in the context of a do-goodism NGO.

3. Nonprofit work requires little to no UGH MATH CLASS IS HARD education or skills. Women have both less mathematical acumen than men (on the whole), and less desire to do work which involves the rigors of logic and maths.

A job that lets a white woman write jargony word salad all day, get paid for it, AND status whore about uplifting Africa’s women and children (men? what men?)? Hole-y twat tingles, sign her up!

Most nonprofits are a waste of human capital. 99% of them do nothing for their causes, or actively harm their clients and the donors duped into believing the equalist PR. The growth of nonprofits — and the rush of women into their ranks — is a hallmark of a pre-implosion empire.

You may think, “Aren’t nonprofits a luxury, and therefore proof that the society which can accommodate them is a wealthy and self-confident society able to afford a grandiose (and futile) amount of charitable giving?”

Yes, but no. Nonprofits are a luxury, but luxuries often foretell coming hardships. Pride cometh before the fall, and so do nonprofits. A tired, self-doubting, enervated culture will, contrary conventional liberal wisdom, often turn en masse to helping outsiders because, one, it has lost the will to enrich itself materially and spiritually and two, turning one’s energies outward can serve as a psychological balm for personal failings. Nonprofit work functions as a kind of palimpsest, underneath the veneer of which we spy scribblings of social unrest.

Then:

Now:

This comparison was too juicy to pass up. The symbolism works on so many levels. LITERAL GELDED NATION.

Two photos, side by side, both of men tossed out by their irate girlfriends. We don’t see the men (very clearly) or their women, but we do see the ways in which each was ceremoniously dumped.

Couples counselors and people who read too much Jezebel would think that the man dumped by a very angry girl in dramatic style is despised more than the man calmly shown the door, and that this would mean the former is less likely to enjoy a reconciliation with his jilted woman.

Chateau guests know better. A woman’s indifference, not her hatred, is the opposite of her love.

Beta males are often perplexed by how quickly their ex-girlfriends are able to put them out of mind once the poon party’s over. That is because women never really “imprint” that strongly on dutiful beta male partners. So when the reckoning comes, the women of beta boyfriends are almost giddy with the anticipation of striking out again for alpha male pastures.

Alpha males, in contrast, are rarely perplexed or grief-stricken when dumped, because they know from experience that the odds are very high that the women they royally piss off will come back to them, meekly begging for more of their inscrutably ambivalent attention. An angry outburst from a woman is as good a sign there is that she’s still in love, and won’t stand to be away from the tormentor she loves for long.

It’s a good idea to avoid the temptation to ask a girl out on a public stage, especially if you don’t know for certain that the girl likes you “that way”. But leave it to beta males to endorse hope over (lack of) experience. A viral video of a teenager prompositioning his lust object to be his prom date ended with what must have felt like the ne plus ultra of humiliating rejections.

She was, naturally, “already seeing someone”.

The beta orbiter’s lament is always being the guy who arrives at his decision for romance too late. And when he does arrive there, his mountaintop announcement is maladroit and swiftly dismissed.

Why is the beta orbiter so clueless about the feelings of the girl he orbits? I’ll tell you what’s likely happening behind the scenes of these public spectacles of romantic rejection.

Stage One Beta Orbiter: He “hangs around” this girl he really likes, but only peripherally. Her proximity, however unattached and fleeting, strengthens his feelings for her. She, of course, is oblivious to his feelings.

Stage Two Beta Orbiter: As his love grows beyond the bounds of possible reciprocation, he projects his passion onto the girl he orbits, actively fantasizing and even beginning to imagine real indications that she is as interested in him as he is in her. She remains oblivious to his feelings.

Stage Three Beta Orbiter: Time definitely does not heal blue balls. The beta orbiter now envisions a day not too far in the future when his p will enter her v. He starts to act weirdly (more weird than usual) around her planetary trap zone, and it is at this point that she suspects his romantic interest, leaving her grappling with feelings of discomfort, but also of manipulative promise. It will be hard for her now to resist her subconscious impulse to use her beta orbiter toolbag for emotional and practical provisioning. Even the sweetest girls can give in to the lure of exploiting loyal, lovestruck beta males for asexual profit.

Stage Four Beta Orbiter: He is so infatuated and hypnotized by her platonic company, he can’t see that jerkboy pinching her on the ass as he walks by and her turning red-faced with aroused embarrassment. All the real life signals are red, and all his fantasy life signals are green. He ignores the obvious lack of interest from her and pays attention only to what he has concocted in his fevered mental masturbatorium. A collision is coming.

Stage Five Beta Orbiter: He can’t contain his feelings any more. The time is ripe! Public proposition, because it can’t fail and he wants the world to know his good fortune, or because he nurses a seed of doubt and thinks a crowd of sympathetic allies will exert just the right amount of pressure on the girl of his dreams. Horrible rejection ensues, hug from mom, lesson learned? Not always. Not often.

A beta orbiter can be rescued by a wise male buddy or mentor, and by learning game, sometime around or before Stage Three. By Stage Four, he’s a lost cause, and he’ll have to endure Stage Five humiliation to snap out of his delirium. That’s what happened to the teenager in the above story. That’s what had to happen.

If the data and personal observation are accurate and America is filling up with sociopaths and psychopaths, then the best advice a person could get is how to spot psychopaths and either avoid them or defend oneself against their charming predations.

As a recipient of the wicked love of one or two suprasexy sociopath chicks, I can tell you that unless your state control is rock-ribbed and your sexual market options plentiful, you’ll get shredded to ribbons under the stiletto shiv of a femme fatale.

And having had the distinct displeasure to work and socialize alongside one or two male psychopaths, the danger to your well-being is a hundredfold worse.

You could say, “It takes one to know one, right CH?” Eh, maybe. Or maybe my keenness is a gift from the forces of Light, and the wisdom gathered from my experiences meant for bestowal upon the benighted as part of a pay it forward karmic redemption. Yeah, I’ll go with that.

Good news for people with functioning empathy centers of the brain: Psychopaths (and their lesser cousins, sociopaths) have tells, just like sluts have tells. If spaths (socio- + psychopath) unintentionally announce their evil disorder before they get their hooks in you, avoidance is possible.

Here’s a “psychopathy checklist” of twenty traits that are common in psychopaths. The biggest spath tells are lying, charm, and self-entitlement.

In essence, psychopathic predators can come across as socially adept, likable – at least at first – and the life of the party. Even after getting to know them, normal people often have the sense that something is wrong, but they don’t know what, because they aren’t use to thinking in terms of predatory behavior that will never change. Psychopaths, 99% of the time, are not reformable, and normal people who get in their way often spend considerable effort and energy into reforming them, which makes the normal person all the more vulnerable. […]

Glibly charming people who lie pathologically or who have been caught stealing should be like a flashing red warning light.

Perusing that psychopath trait list, I can’t help but notice at least a few of those traits are distinctive of successful, and psychologically healthy, womanizers who simply love the romantic company of (a variety) women. There’s a fair amount of overlap between psychopathy and tight Game. For instance:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation

As any good player knows, chicks dig overconfident, charming men with exciting lives.

cunning and manipulativeness

Players can be manipulative, but so can women in their own ways. It’s fair to say a little bit of manipulation is normal and healthy in seduction. Legit psychopaths take that talent for manipulation to levels that would dismay even lifelong womanizers.

A spath red flag I’ve encountered is when a person (usually a man) puts his hand on your shoulder anytime he punctuates a joke he told or an opinion he delivered unsolicited. This is a domination move that forces a fast-tracked intimacy, a classic psycho charm+power offensive. If anyone pulls this on you, physically remove their hand while keeping eye contact. They won’t do it again.

Another red flag that will help you distinguish spaths from regular guy charmers: A charming, normal man will piecemeal his charm during a conversation, delivering doses of his charisma at opportune moments. A spath will come right at you with both charm guns a-blazing, even before he’s shaken your hand and gotten to know your name. The quick draw spath is employing one of his domination moves, attempting to lead and monopolize the sympathies of the social group. If you suspect you’ve got one of these psychos in your mixed company, (and you recognize the threat that he’ll captivate the women in your group), the best defense is a good offense. Treat the spath like an AMOG and tease him for his try-hard efforts to win everyone over.

What awaits the typical beta male? Reader FrTedCrilly makes a bloodsport of vivisecting the beta male id.

Sure Game can save a beta orbiter.

Only problem is that beta orbiters often are the most vehement opponents of the sweet science of pick-up, pre- or post-humiliation.

They’ll play the waiting game. And the payoff, if they’re really “lucky”, after years of watching their princess get dumped by Skrillex clones, is a 60,000 dollar wedding and a blank-eyed speech about her soulmate and best friend. And a sexless honeymoon.

The sharpest shiv cuts the cleanest line.

On a less serious note, I do wonder, given the trend to later and fewer marriages, how long sexual market optimists think beta males will put up with being sloppy sixths to carousel-worn vagina switched into semi-arid settling mode? Do honorary Realtalkers believe there won’t be blowback from such an unsustainable societal condition? CH loves the pointillistic details best when framed by the big picture.

Meet a girl, charm a girl, love a girl. Beautiful, you found a soulmate. But, there will come a time, sooner than you’d like, when a girl will want something “more” out of her relationship with you. That “more” can be gifts, giving up your skeet shooting hobby, moving in together, or, usually, marriage. If you’re dating a green card whore lovely foreign girl overstaying her visa, (say, an au pair), “more” means cold hard cash to pay her immigration lawyer.

There’s a simple solution to this problem. Enjoy your time banging that cute foreigner, and when she thinks you’re putty in her hands and feels brave enough to ask you for money, walk.

WALK.

It’s a wonder more men don’t avail themselves of this option. All it requires is the confidence to know that replacement pussy is within easy reach.

Emma Sulkowicz, that psychocunt NB4 who lied about being raped and still carries on as if her lie hadn’t been exposed, is back for more hard shivving (quite literally). She made a porno “””documenting””” her fake, totally made-up ordeal. Reader Pepe alerts the CH audience,

Remember mattress girl? Well, she made a porno *reenacting* her struggles:

http://www.cecinestpasunviol.com/

This woman has unlocked a new level of crazy. Like you can’t be this ugly and crazy at the same time.

Yes, ugly and crazy, that’s one unattractive combo. The upside is that not many men will be tempted to stick their dick in ugly, so they don’t have to worry about sticking it in her crazy either.

From the rape fantasist’s website:

Do not watch this video if your motives would upset me, my desires are unclear to you, or my nuances are indecipherable.

This is a Nimitz Class Attention Whore (and Control Freak; she wants to shove her smelly snatch in men’s faces and sadistically deny their male sexuality by demanding their desexualized consideration). And there’s no doubt she’s the type of chick (there are an uncomfortably large number of them) who gets off dreaming about a rapist having his way with her.

In the past, attention whores of this magnitude would violate only a handful of people’s lives… those closest to them. And they would be discarded once their friends and family caught on to their sickness and gave up showering them with the sympathetic ardor they crave. We see with the rise of the internet and social media that the insufferable attention whore has a new lease on her vampiric, emotion-sucking malevolence. The online world has enabled her like no BFF or doting mother could; it has not created a monster, but turned a monster into a contagion, devouring cultures whole.

America will fall like Rome did, but it will be much quicker, and more cataclysmic, thanks in no small part to social media and the rise of a night army of attention whores.

PS Eskimo.

The Chateau has been a destination for Crimson Pill pilgrims a long time, yet confusion about the functioning of the sexual market continues bedeviling a fair number of click-by readers. And not just at CH, but at other ostensibly Realtalk outposts. A recent example of this entrenched ignorance comes from a commenter at Alpha Game, who is under the impression that a woman’s looks are *less* important to marriage-minded men than to fling-favoring men.

It is probably a bit true that men will make some trade offs in favor of intelligence and other factors against looks in a long term partner relative to a short term one.

But that would be like choosing hot but crazy for a weekend but putting for a bit less hot but sane for a wife.

Of course looks are less important in a wife than in a one night stand. But only in a holistic sense. You don’t really care if a one night stand can read or count past 10 without taking her shoes off. You probably would care the mother of your children can.

“Of course” looks are less important in a wife? Da’Fuc? I don’t know how one could hold this opinion when the real world evidence points in the complete opposite direction. Take a tally of all your married male friends. If you’ve been friends a while, you’ll be able to compare their ex-girlfriends to their current wives. I bet nine out of ten of them have wives considerably hotter than the average of their ex-girlfriends.

The reason why this is so is simple: When a man is seeking to settle down with a lifelong lover and mother of his future children, he wants the BEST DEAL HE CAN GET. If he plans to invest everything in one woman, you bet he’ll make sure he’s getting good return on investment.

It’s similar to buying perishable goods versus durable goods. Toilet paper? Yeah, you don’t want it tearing apart in your ass forest, but you won’t care much about the advantages of 10-ply over 9-ply. You’ll buy a good value TP, a brand that’ll do the job but won’t cost more than a decent cheesesteak.

But a more durable good, like a car? You will care about every detail of that purchase — looks, power, efficiency, reliability… “leg” room. You’ll spend a lot more time mulling over your auto options than you will your TP options.

It goes the same with women. A one night stand or a short fling? Sure, you want the hottest girl you can get, but you’ll make sacrifices if she’s good to go. Maybe you allow yourself to tolerate a one point beauty deduction for a two point increase in sexual availability.

But a potential wife… ah, that’s serious business. Now you definitely want the whole package — beauty, youth, femininity, dependability, fidelity, and smarts that are in the ballpark of your own intelligence. Emphasis on beauty and youth.

Christ, people, use your heads. Do you really think the typical man would be LESS concerned about the looks of a woman he’ll be staring at for YEARS?!

Oh, but you know a man who married poorly. Yes, those men exist… they’re called betas with no options. Men with options are VERY discerning about the women they will bless with their full devotion. You can bet that uglier women, fatter women, sluttier women, and crazier single moms have as much, and likely more, trouble finding a marriage-minded man who isn’t a total loser, as charmless beta males with nothing to offer but their wallets and sympathy hugs have finding a merger-minded girl who just wants to have fun.