A long, long time ago, in a pleasure dome far away, CH introduced the idea that the West is currently besieged by the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse.

So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.

Later, CH expanded on the Four Sirens theme.

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

Two secondary Sirens were added to round out the list:

• Penicillin (reduced the cost of contracting STDs)
• Widely available hardcore porn.

Probably of all the CH scribblings on this subject of Western Decline, this passage gets to the meatiest heart of it:

So, a crib sheet of quippy replies if you ever need it to send a feminist or manboob howling with indignation:

1. The Pill
2. No-fault divorce
3. Working women
4. Man-hating feminism
5. Penicillin
6. Porn

Toss into a social salad bowl already brimming with an influx of non-European immigrants thanks to the 1965 soft genocide act, mix thoroughly, and voila!: a huge, inexorable, relentless leftward shift in American politics, an explosion of single moms, wage stagnation, government growth, upper class childlessness, lower class dysgenics, and a creaking, slow deterioration in the foundational vigor of the nation and the gutting of the pride of her people.

Into this pot pie of portent throw in the Skittles Man, Bring the Movies Man, Nah Man, and Disappeared Again Man, for whom girls have always swooned but who now, thanks to relaxed pressure from women themselves requiring men to put a ring on it before getting any huggy or kissy, and the incentivizing of risky sexual behavior by government policy and contraceptive technology, could enjoy sex without the entanglement of marriage or gainful employment.

Game, for all the shit it gets from the usual suspects, was just a rational response to a radically altered playing field. It didn’t cause this calamity; it just profited from it.

Meanwhile, beta males are left scratching their block-like skulls, wondering what the fuck just happened.

All well and good, says the reader, but where is the ¡SCIENCE! buttressing all this speculation and real world observation to satisfy sperg demands? How about right here. (Via The Cheapest of Chalupas)

Family structure in the United States has shifted substantially over the last three decades, [HBDer: MUH GENETICS] yet the causes and implications of these changes for the well-being of family members remains unclear. This paper exploits task-based shifts in demand as an exogenous shock to sex-specific wages to demonstrate the role of the relative female to male wage in the family and labor market outcomes of women. I show that increases in the relative wage lead to a decline in the likelihood of marriage for those on the margin of a first marriage, and present suggestive evidence that these effects are concentrated among less-desirable matches. A higher relative wage also causes women to increase their hours of work, reduce their dependence on a male earner, and increase the likelihood of taking guardianship over their children. These findings indicate that improvements in the relative wage have facilitated women’s independence by reducing the monetary incentive for marriage, and can account for 20% of the decline in marriage between 1980 and 2010.

BOOM THERE IT IS. CH WAS RIGHT. Female economic self-sufficiency decreases the marriage rate and increases urban slut factory churn, because self-sufficient women need beta male bux less and therefore can indulge the chasing of alpha male fux more.

SCIENCE! has confirmed the existence of Le Chateau Heartiste’s Third Siren of the Sexual Apocalypse.

It’s like some people think I make this shit up outta thin air. No, I’ve just spent a lot of time in the trenches of the dating market. I have seen much. I have learned much. And my wisdom is infinite. YUGE, even.

You only had to listen.

***

“Ok, enough crowing. How about a solution?”

Sure. Here it is:

Repeal the 19th Amendment.

Maybe slightly more realistically, get rid of Title IX and the rest of the man-hating, human nature denying, legal fictions shoved down our throats in the last sixty odd years by rancid feminist cunts and their lackey low T manlets. Culturally, real progress can be made by simply ending the GRRLPOWER propaganda and returning to teaching the virtues of the masculine ideal. Too many boys in STEM? Great! That’s what boys are good at. Too many girls preferring marriage and stay-at-home mohterhood? Great! That’s what girls are good at.

Simple truths and simple beauties have more power than labyrinthine lies and grotesque ugliness, as long as you hold them close to a heart that has banished cowardice.

A naive beta male wonders why there’s a dearth of single men willing to marry the aging spinsters he knows.

why don’t I know any single men who could be fixed up with a well-educated woman in her late 30s?

Smart people say the stupidest shit sometimes.

This seems to be a common situation among our friends. We know single women whom we believe would be wonderful companions and mothers, but none of the single men whom they are seeking as partners.

Wonderful companions and motherhood potential don’t make dicks hard.

A friend in D.C. says “Single women nearing 40 have spent decades perfecting their adult selves.

That’s their problem, right there. Instead of spending decades perfecting their adult selves, they should have spent some time getting serious with a man while their bodies were still perfect.

Men of the same age are still stuck in their teenage personality.”

Bitterbitch snark for normal, natural male sexual desire for younger, hotter, tighter women.

What is the explanation for this phenomenon?

Hard-on heuristics.

…finding an unpartnered adult male who is in possession of said good stuff seems to be impossible.

For mangy cougars. But for spry springboks, not at all impossible.

Separately, I’m wondering if the large quantity of involuntarily single-and-childless women shows poor life-planning strategies.

That Pill-lubed, anonymous urban living-facilitated cock carousel isn’t gonna ride itself!

These women have advanced education, great job skills, and good careers compared to the American average.

Yeah but do they have clear skin, pert tits, firm asses, and pussies that smell of lavender?

Inadvertently, our plucky White Knight shilling for his starving cougars stumbles upon a payout system that likely incentivizes the pursuit of alpha fux over settling for beta bux.

we must observe that [women’s] after-tax income is in nearly every case lower than if they’d had sex with a dermatologist or dentist in Massachusetts and collected child support.

Note to dermatologists and dentists: if you’re gonna bang a desperate aging beauty, wear your own condom and dispose of it in the toilet.

(Most of these women want two children, which, if properly planned, could easily offer a tax-free cash yield of $200,000/year via child support (multiply by 23 years in Massachusetts).) See this from the Practical Tips chapter:

In most states, the potential child support profits from a one-night encounter are roughly the same as the profits from a short-term marriage. … “Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.”

All women can be mercenary given strong enough incentives, but luckily (for men) most women still strive to have children within a marriage. Single momhood is not (yet) a desired life outcome for psychologically healthy women, despite its inglorious rise over the past forty years. What this means is that for the typical man, the odds of getting fleeced by a woman pulling the ol’ gotcha pregnancy maneuver are low.

Rich men do have something to worry about, especially rich men with Game, because women will lose all sense around them (like men do around barely legal sexpots) and are liable to think pregnancy and child support entrapment are reasonable first date objectives.

From the point of view of having the children that they want prior to the exhaustion of their fertility and from the point of view of financial security, these women would have been better off spending their 18-22-year-old years having sex with married men rather than attending college. That’s not to suggest that 18-year-old child support profiteer is the optimum lifestyle for every American woman, but the fact that it would yield a better outcome measured against their own goals than what the women we know have accomplished suggests that they pursued a pretty bad life strategy.

Here’s a better idea that isn’t compiled in the abstracted kookland of the homo spergonomicus mind:

Women who want kids should get married in their early 20s and start having them by their mid-late 20s, then spend some years at home raising them, afterwards returning to their careers soulfully satisfied and serenely accepting of the fact that they can’t have it all and motherhood necessarily means the corner office won’t be a realistic option for them. No “child support profiteer” shenanigans needed. (Any woman who seriously follows such a cold, sociopathic blueprint deserves all the pain and suffering she will inevitably receive in the romance market.)

Readers: Looking at the 35-45 age group, and restricting to people who have a college degree, above-median earnings, agreeable personality, and responsible habits, what’s the ratio of single women to single men?

Who cares? It’s like asking what’s the ratio of garden slugs to single men. The one will have no influence on the behavior of the other.

The first commenter to the original author’s blog post gets to the heart of it:

Men select for beauty and fertility; both of which are on the decline in the women you mention. They also select for low-conflict behavior, kindness, etc., which may or may not be found among the women you mention.

Reality is, that any guy who is 40 and has his act together, is going to date younger; especially with the horrible economy -there are lots of 28yo women without a clear path to career at this point.

A 37yo with possibly 2 years of fertility left should be looking not for 40 or 42, but for someone about 50 to 54 who is in good shape and still wants to have 1 or 2 kids.

Satanic feminists have lied to women for so long that simple truths like “don’t wait too long to marry and have kids because your fertility window is short and men won’t be interested in you when you’re older and uglier” are willfully ignored or twisted into nostrums of oppression that should be fought against and actively denied through the alchemy of embracing gogrrl, leaned in, cock-hopping, careerist lifestyles that ironically will leave women more miserable than if they had just submitted to the patriarchy’s price of admission.

In Japan, a burgeoning “fake anime boyfriend” market is capturing the hearts of Japanese women and overseas American women.

Since the 90s, Japanese women have been playing otome (“maiden”) games, which allow the player to pursue virtual relationships with several virtual hunks. In the interest of journalism, I spent over $60 flirting with emotionally manipulative anime characters, and it fucking ruled.

So what kind of virtual boyfriends do nipply Nipponese and sassy statesiders prefer? Take one guess.

When I asked Gray which character types tend to perform best, she told me that the “sadistic but charismatic” archetype is beloved in both Japan and the US.

Chicks dig those charismatic jerkboys.

She pointed to Eisuke Ichinomiya, which she says is the most popular character in Kissed by the Baddest Bidder, Voltage’s top-grossing game in the US. […] On Eisuke’s character profile, he is billed in glittering pink and purple script as a “cold-hearted narcissist.” His quote is “I’m going to make you mine. And you don’t get to say no.”

What’s revealing about this dating simulation (aka female pornhub) is that it is essentially the female version of sex dolls for men. Women aren’t aroused as much by the visual and tactile inspection of men’s bodies as they are by the emotional and psychological inspection of men’s personalities. And when choosing male archetypes, the jerkboy narcissist is number one pulse amplifier in the arterial transverse between a woman’s heart and vagina. This is why real world feedback continually proves the efficacy of Game to the goal of seducing women: Game is the creation of sexier male personalities.

“Usually [this character is] sadistic and mean to you, but sometimes, when you and him are alone, he becomes so sweet and very kind to you,” Gray explained.

Vulnerability Game. A girl wants a challenging man (i.e., a man with a lot of poosy options) who can’t help but occasionally, and reluctantly, succumb to her erotic charms.

Also like Voltage’s millions of other customers worldwide, I was really only interested in the mean and sadistic gentlemen—which is weird, because I actively avoid mean and sadistic men in real life.

Fantasy is inward projection of outward sexual desire. We know this because no woman in the history of the world has ever fantasized about a reliable beta male in pleated khakis. Hence, the reason there’s a maxim stating “watch what women do and ignore what they say”. The details of female desire are quite disturbing to idealistic minds when seen up close, so much so that even women recoil from a cogent awareness of their own sexual urges. Which is why women are gifted with an ability to flim flam themselves whenever they are asked about what they want romantically.

This woman quoted above, when alone with her virtual tingle generator, chooses a badboy for her stimulus. “In real life”, she claims otherwise. But that’s the source of the fantasy’s power; in real life, most women don’t have the goods to attract and tame the badboys who turn them on, so in moments of introspection they fall back on sour grape-isms to rationalize the parade of dependable boring betas that is their lot in life. Or, oppositely, they have been burned by badboys so often in the past that avoiding them must be an “active” process rather than the more natural, unplanned pursuit that doesn’t require active effort typical of women who don’t have a dating history littered with alluring assholes.

Gray insisted that most of Voltage’s users “think that their real life and romance in our apps are totally different.” However, in the same response, she acknowledged that an elision between fantasy and reality does often take place. “The user who has a boyfriend plays our app to fill in the unsatisfied part of her boyfriend. Playing the app makes her happy and it helps to prevent fights with her boyfriend,” Gray told me.

Virtual alpha widows. Literally cucked by an anime lothario.

There is no bottom to the romantic humiliations that beta male boyfriends can suffer.

There’s nothing quite like a sharp semantic shiv that hits a vital. But did you know slurs evolved to serve a social purpose? And that there are sex-based differences in the perception of slurs?

We investigated the influence of the sex of the target and the sex of the sender on the judgment of slurs (verbal derogation). From previous research, we selected and clustered slurs into seven categories and respondents rated their degree of perceived insult in two consecutive questionnaire surveys (N = 281 and N = 224, respectively). Results confirm that slurs are generally judged as being more insulting when directed towards females than towards males.

The fundamental premise: Women are the reproductively more valuable sex, and this biological reality has downstream effects on human psychology. This is why Trump (PBUH) catches so much flak for insulting fat, caustic pig Rosie O’Donnell or slimy gotcha “reporter” Megyn Kelly, yet no one cares when he levels worse insults against the hundreds or even thousands of men who have landed in his target designation cross-hairs.

In comparison, differences in sex of sender were small. When directed towards females, slurs referring to “being loose” were rated as the most insulting.

That’s because it undermines the female prime directive to attract and keep a high value man with promises of fidelity (aka paternity assurance).

For both target sexes, remarks referring to homosexuality and physical unattractiveness were among those rated as the most insulting.

I guarantee you the homo slur was rated more insulting by men.

Least insulting were slurs referring to unethical acts, lack of intelligence and cowardliness.

This is why I usually favor a rhetorical attack on shitlibs that hits them where it hurts: their sexual androgyny and circus freak physiognomy. Although I don’t buy the finding that “stupid” isn’t an effective insult, especially when aimed subversively at the pencilnecks whose only source of pride is their MENSA membership.

A sex of respondent effect was found, suggesting that women rated slurs generally more insulting than men. The pattern of results showed considerable stability across surveys attesting for the reliability of the method for measuring the social evaluation of slurs.

Rank of slur effectiveness, least to most shivvy:

Character
->
Economic status (more effective against men)
->
Social status
->
Smarts
->
Looks (for women, less so for men)
->
Sexual worth (“slut”, “nerd”, “creep”)

The most vicious slurs circumvent the superego and ego, striking at the pith of the id, where the rawest measure of a man is contained: his (or her) worth as a mate.

From deep in the Le Chateau crypt (2007), a post about common beta male body language mistakes:

Closed body language

Guys who are confident that nothing in life can touch them have very open and smooth body language.  Nervous guys who are always afraid of fights, of being sucker punched, of conflict, will defensively scrunch up their body as if they were psychologically warding off blows.  Guys who fear nothing open their arms, expose their chests, and generally project the look of someone who never worries about being caught off-guard.  In that vein, avoid shoving your hands in your pockets, crossing your arms, standing with a narrow stance, looking around the room with darting eyes, slouching, or grabbing one forearm with your hand.

Recently (2016), from an NPR broadcast,

To Catch Someone On Tinder, Stretch Your Arms Wide

[…]

In these experiments, the researchers compared young adults’ closed, slouched postures against open, or expanded, ones.

“An expansive, open posture involves widespread limbs, a stretched torso and general enlargement of occupied space,” says Tanya Vacharkulksemsuk, a social psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley and lead author on the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For the 144 speed daters, Vacharkulksemsuk says, “expansiveness nearly doubles chances of getting a yes [to see each other again.]” […]

Separately, she and her colleagues had three men and three women create two dating profiles each on a popular dating app. (All six participants were white and heterosexual). Their profiles were identical in every way except the pictures in one profile were all expanded postures, while its twin had all contracted poses.

The participants swiped yes on every potential suitor — 3,000 in total — for 48 hours. “Profiles that feature expansive photos were 27 percent more likely to get a yes,” Vacharkulksemsuk says. Expanding made both men and women more desirable during speed dating and in the dating app. The effect was more pronounced for men, however.

Bolded to twist the shiv in feminists’ spotted hides. Sorry, feminists, dominance displays benefit men more than women! (You can tell how badly this shiv hits the shitlib bone by the alacrity with which the NPR writer avoided deeper examination of this equalist narrative-busting caveat.)

These postures convey power and openness, says Vacharkulksemsuk. “The information packing in that nonverbal behavior is social dominance, and where that person stands in a hierarchy,” she says. And, presumably, the person high in the pecking order is sexy. Alphas are scarce and in demand.

The reader who forwarded the NPR link asks, “Do you ever get tired of being right?”

No.

Feminists bitch and moan and lie about a mythical “rape culture” that permeates America, but if you look at the numbers instead of wallowing in poopytalk it becomes clear that, in parts of the West at any rate, a far better case can be made that we live in a Cuckoldry Culture rather than a rape culture.

Britain has a fairly accessible data set on national rape and cuckoldry statistics, so we’ll examine the UK as a proxy for the larger Anglosphere.

(For those new to the Chateau and unfamiliar with some of our terms of enshivment, “cuck” is the colloquial term for men, usually married beta males, who unwittingly raise the bastard spawn of women who have cheated on them and gotten pregnant by another man, usually a jerkboy alpha male. The term is so descriptively brutalist that it was ported to the political arena as a hard-hitting insult — cuckservative — aimed at Republican pundits, pols, and voters who surrender to leftoid race equalism premises in order to curry favor with the gatekeepers of polite discourse. Rhetorically, cuckservatives sell out their children’s and their nation’s future, and their ancestors’ pasts, on the altar of liberal dogma, in practice “raising another man’s ideology”. And they do so oblivious to the humiliations they visit upon themselves.)

New research has shown that the cuckoldry rate in Britain is 2% — 1 in 50 British fathers are unknowingly (or without prior consent) raising the offspring of another man.

Researchers at Leuven University in Belgium said that they decided to conduct the first ever in-depth study after being surprised and intrigued to learn that the issue has received little serious scientific consideration, despite being a concern felt by many men.

That’s because, contrary to dumb feminist assertions about “the patriarchaaaaaahh”, women are treated as the more valuable sex in most societies, particularly in Western societies. This instinctual social, economic, cultural, and legal favoritism toward women is a psychological phenomenon which stems from the fact that, biologically, eggs are more expensive than sperm.

2% sounds like a blessedly low number, but if you take into account the absolute meta-extinction level event that cuckoldry represents to a man’s genetic and personal interests, 1 out of 50 is a rate that should give most men a little pause, and some men a lot of pause.

It’s an especially damning statistic when we compare that 2% cuckoldry rate to the UK rape rate for women.

The 2006–07 British Crime Survey reports that 1 in every 200 women suffered from rape in that period.

A 1-in-200 rape rate for UK women is 0.5%, or four times smaller than the cuckoldry rate for UK men.

Cuckoldry Culture is four times more likely than rape culture to be the operative paradigm.

But you won’t ever hear TheCunt or feminists or their Hivemind manlet lickspittles honestly broaching this ugly truth.

And note as well that the physical violation of rape last minutes, with recurrent bouts of psychological distress, but the physical and emotional violations of cuckoldry can last eighteen years, uninterrupted.

So maybe it’s time to discuss “the matriarchy” and “the cuckistocracy”, and how these social constructions amount to a “War on Men”.

PS Sparing a moment to pontificate abstractly, it might be somewhat eugenic in the long long term to permit, or at least to ignore, a low level of cuckoldry in an advanced White society. Unfortunately, while this may have been the case in the distant past, today it seems women will “cheat down” just as often with layabout badboys as they will “cheat up” with corner office kahunas, obviating any overall eugenic effect from cuckolding their wimpy beta hubbies.

PPS And let’s not forget that however eugenic a sexual market transaction (and any attendant social stigmas or sanctions), there are individual men who get caught on the wrong side of the sexual market equation and suffer immensely.

PPPS A real rape culture is emerging in Sweden, but the blame for that rests squarely on all the swarthy migrants GoodWhite Swedes have allowed into their country. Lying, cuntfaced feminists don’t have much to say about that, unless they have an opening provided by the leftoid media to (erroneously) blame White men.

Girls, bless their holistic hearts, aren’t keen on detailing the reasons why this or that man is unsuitable as a lover. Instead of a sober assessment of a man’s characteristics, girls prefer to render their judgments in all-encompassing terms like “creep” or “weirdo” or “loser” or “nice guy”. Many subconscious mate value calculations operate in the female hindbrain that are consciously concatenated into swift and sure slanders of dismissal.

If a girl thinks you’re “creepy”, console yourself that her assessment doesn’t necessarily mean you are a creep. All it means is that you failed to exhibit those behaviors and traits that trigger her arousal instinct. But you should still take the smear as an opportunity to improve how you sell yourself to women. The alternative is meta-death.

With that in mind, here’s an illuminating study about the male tics and mannerisms that women think qualifies as “creepy”.

On the nature of creepiness

Surprisingly, until now there has never been an empirical study of “creepiness.” An international sample of 1341 individuals responded to an online survey. Males were perceived as being more likely to be creepy than females, and females were more likely to associate sexual threat with creepiness. Unusual nonverbal behavior and characteristics associated with unpredictability were also predictors of creepiness, as were some occupations and hobbies. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that being “creeped out” is an evolved adaptive emotional response to ambiguity about the presence of threat that enables us to maintain vigilance during times of uncertainty.

The limbic “creep” burp is a distant early warning to a girl that the seed under consideration shall not penetrate her eggs’ perimeter defense.

Salon (fag bastion alert) does a halfway-decent job itemizing the primary creep factors.

One of the paper’s hypotheses states unpredictability in a person is associated with higher levels of creepiness. Because we’re already initially uncomfortable with being unable to assess a person’s motives, we become hyper-aware of their behavior while trying to size them up.

This claim should be read with a critical eye. Ambiguity and unpredictability (i.e., being a challenge) are actually quite arousing to women, so the risk of setting off her creep alarm should be balanced against the reward of turning on her snapper sprinkler. My impression is that when a woman is curious about a man, there always lurks in the back of her mind the potential for her curiosity to lurch into anti-creep defense mode. To put it another way, every successful seduction is accompanied by an element of danger.

Other things found to sound our creep-alarms are behaviors such as standing too close to a person, frequent and persistent lip smacking or licking, odd dress and relentlessly directing a conversation to one topic.

Touching girls early on in a pickup is a crucial step to advancing toward the bedroom. But a light forearm touch is a different beast than posting up a foot inside a girl’s personal space. The initial kino should barely be perceptible; standing nose tip to nose tip is a little too “on the nose” for most women.

As for lip smacking and licking, don’t do it. Obvious. You ever see a man who does well with women licking his lips like Marco Rubio after the foam party antics have dried out to a crusty glaze?

Odd dress… just means don’t dress poorly or too skewed from the norms for your culture. Wearing a Bedouin sheet in Chicago will freak out a lot of people.

The last creep factor is the most important one: conversational stubbornness. Girls love freewheeling convos full of breezy associations and delectable tangents. We all know that nerdo or spergo who can’t let go of a point he’s trying to make over the happy din of a socially-gelling mixed group. If there’s one piece of advice I would give to men on how to avoid being the creep chicks despise, it’s LET GO. Didn’t get your point across? No prob. Ride the wave. Swing at another pitch. Take the detour in good humor and with a sense of adventure. The best womanizers I have known all shared this trait in common; they were pros at both leading conversations and going with the conversational flow. You can do this, too, but it will demand that you get out of your head and become more situationally aware. The field  of seduction is no place for shutting out external catalysts.

Twatter tartlet @clairlemon passes along a study sure to get on the nerves of neckbeard atheists and secular anti-Christian (((feminists))). She writes,

Interesting paper suggests that monotheistic religion is a paternity-certainty facilitator.

With paternity certainty, comes paternal investment. Men who don’t know if the kid is theirs are less likely to stick around and support mom and child. The blowback from that is an exercise in imagination I leave for the readers.

From the abstract,

The sacred texts of five world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism) use similar belief systems to set limits on sexual behavior. We propose that this similarity is a shared cultural solution to a biological problem: namely male uncertainty over the paternity of offspring. Furthermore, we propose the hypothesis that religious practices that more strongly regulate female sexuality should be more successful at promoting paternity certainty. Using genetic data on 1,706 father–son pairs, we tested this hypothesis in a traditional African population in which multiple religions (Islam, Christianity, and indigenous) coexist in the same families and villages. We show that the indigenous religion enables males to achieve a significantly (P = 0.019) lower probability of cuckoldry (1.3% versus 2.9%) by enforcing the honest signaling of menstruation, but that all three religions share tenets aimed at the avoidance of extrapair copulation. Our findings provide evidence for high paternity certainty in a traditional African population, and they shed light on the reproductive agendas that underlie religious patriarchy.

The major world religions sprang from patriarchal societies in which the resources critical to reproduction, whether in the form of land or livestock, were inherited from father to son down the male line (1⇓–3). Consistent with patrilineal inheritance, the sacred texts set forth harsh penalties for adultery and other behaviors that lower the husband’s probability of paternity (4⇓⇓⇓–8) (SI Discussion). The scriptures also place greater emphasis on female than on male chastity, including the requirement of modest attire for women and the idealization of virginity for unmarried females (6, 8). Previous studies have considered the evolutionary biology of patriarchy, but have focused on primate antecedents or cultural factors rather than religion (2, 9⇓–11). Here we test the hypothesis that religions that more strongly regulate female sexuality are more successful at limiting the incidence of cuckoldry, defined as offspring sired by extrapair copulations (EPCs).

SCIENCE! lands another sloppy wet kiss on the Chateau’s turgid…ego. Female chastity and fidelity really are more valuable to men than male chastity and fidelity are to women. (Male chastity is actually a subtraction from women’s appraisals of men’s mate value.)

The study population is the Dogon of Mali, West Africa, who practice four religions: Evangelical Protestantism introduced by conservative American missionaries; Catholicism introduced by French Jesuits who focused on humanitarian projects; Islam; and the indigenous Dogon religion, which is monotheist. Our quantitative analysis supports the hypothesis that religious ideology serves the purpose of defense against EPCs.

CH is on record (check the archives) predicting that the wholesale abandonment of religion by Western societies will lead to higher rates of cheating and cuckoldry, by both men and women. Recent CDC data on infidelity supports the CH observation that cheating is up, especially (and critically) among women. And as I have argued, unrestricted female sexuality is FAR MORE dangerous to civilizational health than is unrestricted male sexuality, and this is why thousands-year-old religions have evolved to specifically curtail the existential threat of female infidelity.

Muh dik is the slogan of the black ghetto; muh muff is the dirge of the dying White West.

Discovery of the reproductive consequences of religious practices is helpful for understanding the interface between the sacred and the secular, a neglected terrain despite growing interest in the evolutionary biology of religion.

Atheists and other irreligious types nursing an exaggerated spite against (mostly) Christianity have no idea the forces of chaos they are working towards unleashing. If they can’t tolerate pious platitudes and Sunday Church services, they are gonna have a really hard time getting accustomed to the worldwide Zimbabwe that an areligious “state of nature” will portend for their sexdoll time. Once you kill paternity certainty, you have signed the death warrant on Western Civ.

We show that paternity certainty was higher in the indigenous religion than in Christianity, which we attribute to the abandonment of menstrual taboos by the Christians.

The liberalization and feminization of Christianity will mean its death, either through attrition or transmogrification.

Women in the traditional religion are exiled for five nights to uncomfortable places called menstrual huts; during the day menstruating women work in the fields (23, 24). The indigenous religion uses the ideology of menstrual pollution as the supernatural enforcement mechanism to coerce women to disclose their menses by going to the menstrual hut. Hormonal data showed that fear of breaking these religious taboos enforced honest signaling to the men of the husband’s family, who situate the menstrual huts in close proximity to the toguna, which is a shade shelter specific to the males of a given patrilineage.

“Modern” feminists balk, but there’s a good reason for the existence of these religious rituals that appear, superficially to the comically stunted shitlib mind, to be relics from an antediluvian past. Stupid shitlibs think they can ignore the wisdom of their ancestors without consequence.

These findings for an evolutionary purpose to religion are often hard to disentangle from the native traits of the people that constitute the major world religions. Maybe Africans and Arabs have a psychology that requires draconian religious strictures to ensure paternity? And maybe White European women are sufficiently swayed by less onerous religious dictums? However you approach the question of causality, it’s fair to be concerned that the rapid demise of Christianity, and the concomitant rise of feminism, in the West will have downstream effects on the basic reproduction structures of civilization, and that in the future atheism and agnosticism and secularism may even influence the process of sexual selection and change the genetic characteristics of the people to something that resembles the anti-civilization shitholes of today.

There is a theory to explain the origins of the core population of White cucks. (I use the term “cucks” in its shitlordy colloquial sense to mean White people who express more solidarity with antagonistic nonWhites than they do with their congenial racial kin.) This White cuck theory, associated with the writings of HBDChick, invokes two historical processes to account for the evolved psychological preferences of NW European Whites to feel altruistic urges and a moral duty toward strangers and particularly toward nonWhite strangers:

manorialism and non-kin marriage.

Basically, over a thousand-year period (or less) in the parts of Europe that today correspond to the Germanic nations, Scandinavia, and England, (aka core Europe), outbreeding (cousin marriage was prohibited by the Catholic Church) and circumstantial pressures (e.g., manorialism) that selected for more cooperative and docile individuals created a distinct type of people who are amusingly known by the acronym W.E.I.R.D.O. in social science circles — Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic, and Outbred.

I would add my personal theories to HBDchick’s emphasis on outbreeding and manorialism to explain the development of White universal altruism: the Buffer Zone Theory and The Culling. Core NW Europe, being a core, is surrounded by White nations and White tribes. Over millennia, this “ring of white” lands shielded core Europe from the worst depradations of the nonWhite world. This proto-NATO defense umbrella permitted the rapid selection for supranice Whites within the Bubblecuck region who had rarely had to confront violence on a regular basis from truly foreign-looking and -acting invaders. From other Whites, yes. But not so much from Vibrancy.

The Culling simply states that the great 20th century wars of White fratricide removed the hardiest and least cucked men from the gene pool. I don’t see how a continent’s character emerges unchanged by 80+ million premature deaths.

Whatever their provenance, altruistic WEIRDOS all have psychological traits in common, and one very noticeable commonality is their NICENESS. If you’re American, you’ll encounter this radical niceness in the Midwest and plains states, where White people of Core European lineage settled and multiplied. It’s practically the basis for the humor in the movie Fargo. Nice Germanics and Scandis and Anglos will have nary an unkind word to say about anyone, and warmly welcome any traveler who might wander into their lands. They are trusting (and trustworthy) and are just about the best kind of people to go to for a car repair, financial advice, or contract negotiation. They won’t screw you over, and they (perhaps naively) believe no one means to screw them over.

These are the people, not to put too fine a point on it, who practically built Western Civilization and modern society.

What can one possibly say about them that is less than fulsome praise? There is no end to the ways in which nice people are nicer than not-nice people…

except for one flaw in the WEIRDO algorithm.

One very big flaw.

Possibly an existential flaw that will negate every good thing achieved by these NiceWhites.

Their gullibility.

(Throw in a predilection for sanctimony, and you’ve got all the ingredients for supreme cuckitry.)

I agree with John Derbyshire that Midwestern NiceWhiteness “is America’s Achilles heel, and will bring down our civilization one day.” It’s becoming more apparent that these niceguy White cucks will go to their golly gee willikers graves dispensing unreciprocated niceness on the world’s ingrate riff raff, and in their misdirected zeal to be nice to the world’s 7 billion not-nice schemers and dirty dealers, they’ll take America down with them.

The Trumpening is illustrative. Twatter renegade @Ricky_Vaughn99 compiled a list of the state-by-state share of pro-Trump vs anti-Trump White ethnic groups that can be used to predict Trump wins.

The anti-Trump NiceWhites are mostly inside-the-Hajnal, core NW European ethnicities. (Keep in mind these are the cucks who happily voted for Marco Lubio, and who love open borders nutjob John Cucksich. Ironically, fake phony fraudulent slimeball Ted Cruz is a beneficiary of cuck love. Like I said, gullible.)

The pro-Trump Whites who love his fighting spirit, properly directed decency, and straight talk are borderlands, periphery, Southern, and Central/Eastern European ethnicities. These are the Whites who get, at least on a gut level, the danger posed to survival by the mass migration of alien peoples who have nothing in common with the White-centric heritage of America.

There might be an intervention which could save NiceWhites from themselves, and thereby save America and the West: forced integration with the blessings of Diversity™. You’ll note most NiceWhites live in very White states. And most RealWhites — Whites who are less gullible about the realities of the world and who prefer Realtalk over Poopytalk — live with or near nonWhite Diversity.

The hypothetical remedial emerges: expose the NiceWhites to those vibrant characters they claim represent “who we are”, let stew for a generation or two, and voila!… hardened shitlords speaking openly about the coming RaHoWa and assuming the aliases of ancestral Viking berserkers and Visigoth barbarians.

Forget the free market economy. The sexual market is the one market to rule them all. As if my preening weren’t already supremely ostentatious, here’s a recent SCIENCE! study confirming another Heartiste axiom: every human interaction and transaction is downstream from the existential struggle to find a quality mate, fuck, and procreate.

Fewer romantic prospects may lead to riskier investments

Encountering information suggesting that it may be tough to find a romantic partner shifts people’s decision making toward riskier options, according to new findings from a series of studies published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Environmental cues indicating that one will have a relatively difficult time finding a mate can drive people to concentrate their investment choices into a few high-risk, high-return options,” says psychological scientist Joshua Ackerman of the University of Michigan, lead author on the research. “This is true even when the decisions people are making are not explicitly relevant to romantic outcomes.”

I’ve received some scoffing from spergy types projecting their spergitude onto this ‘umble outpost of love concerning the assertion often made here that the sexual market governs, consciously or subconsciously it doesn’t really matter, the machinations and ultimately the outcomes of the more palpable activity that takes place in the economic market. But here we have a study proving the truth of the CH observation that ripples and undercurrents of sexual compulsion and romantic desperation are the “invisible loin” that guides all human behavior in the secondary market of the economy and its supporting markets (like academia).

“This is exactly opposite from the pattern of investing we would predict if we assumed people were using an economically ‘rational’ decision strategy,” Ackerman explains. “From an evolutionary perspective, if the options are to do whatever it takes to find a romantic partner or risk not finding one, the more rational choice may be to do whatever it takes.”

This is a stone cold truth that no libertardian like Alex Tabbarak or Cheap Chalupas will ever get. Humans aren’t rational actors; they’re rationalizing actors. And what they rationalize are choices, in all spheres of transaction, that directly or indirectly improve their chances of landing that alpha male or that hot babe.

In a second online study, 105 participants read a newspaper article discussing demographic trends in the U.S. They then evaluated stock packages with equivalent values (e.g., 100 shares in 8 companies, 200 shares in 4 companies, etc.) and chose which package they would invest in.

Again, the data showed that both male and female participants who read about unfavorable sex ratios opted for riskier investments, choosing more shares in fewer companies, than those who read about favorable ratios.

In practice, “riskier strategies” for women amounts to what we see today on college campuses, where women outnumber men 60-40. The zeitgeist is a sexual pornucopia for a few alpha men getting the milk for free without buying the cow, and a lot of disappointment and depression among marginally pretty women who thought they could turn that fling into a thing.

The fact that sex ratio had an impact on decisions that were not directly linked with mating success suggests that sexual competition elicits a general mindset geared toward achieving the largest possible reward, regardless of the risk involved.

Polygyny, as is the norm throughout Africa, can induce the same risky investment strategizing from men as can an unfavorable sex skew. When a few men lock up many women, each individual man has an incentive to throw caution to the wind to be one of those few winner men.

As such, the researchers argue, these findings could have implications for decision making in domains as diverse as retirement planning, gambling, and even making consumer purchases.

Executive Summary: The meaning of life is to fuck.

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d  = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d  = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE!❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

File the latest SCIENCE! study in the “Chicks dig jerks” binder (it’s bulging).

Women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds

There has been a long history of people falling for inmates and criminals and now a study has found the phenomenon may be more common than thought.

According to a new study of prison guards and other correctional workers, the attraction is felt more by females than males, and hardly ever has a happy ending. […]

In a study published in the journal Déliquance, justice et autres questions de société, the researcher focused on more than 300 cases of the phenomenon in the US and European media over a ten-year period, from 2005 to 2015. […]

The study found women were more affected than men, with over 70 per cent of cases of sexual misconduct in US correctional system involving female staff, despite them making up less than half of the prison workforce. [ed: much less than half. in 2011, women were a quarter of total prison facility employment]

The usual Hivemind-approved rationalizations are given for why women LOVE LOVE LOVE incarcerated lowlifes (“emotional manipulation”, “forced intimacy”, “savior mentality”, etc), but really the answer is the most Occam-y of the hypothesis razors: dangerous men make women’s vaginas wet with arousal and their hearts flush with yearning.

Scathing ridicule aside, let’s keep something in perspective. Women fawning over hardened inmates and opening their pussies to criminal cock is an insult to the families of the victims of these killers. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

But that is female nature for you. Instead of ignoring that nature, or hand-waving it away under a shitstream of sophistry, we should all confront it and accept it as an unchangeable fact of life. Then, we as a nation need to have policies which recognize and synchronize with the reality of female sexual nature rather than attempt to defy it or mold it into something alien. So here’s an eminently reasonable suggestion that will be dutifully tut-tutted by our equalist overlords: ban women from working at male prisons.

Perhaps Trump can bring this up on his victory parade to the White House.

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

*band name alert

PS Reader The Observer observes,

You can learn a lot by watching a lesbian work on her target paramour while out and about, too.

They push boundaries HARD. They know it works, and where the limits are, and walk right up to them. They understand the function of obligation in the female psyche.

Observe, and learn.

Obligation and submission are two powerful psychosexual undercurrents in the roiling sea of a woman’s soul. It’s a shame it goes so little remarked upon by mainstream social analysis. But that’s why the Chateau exists; a beacon of truth guiding the way through a dark wood. *heart bursts with vanity*

Recall the aphorism, “Men invade, women invite“. I wrote not too long ago that Western White women are at the forefront of pushing open borders multikult annihilation.

Now, reader Passerby forwards a study (with commentary) which provides evidence of a deeply rooted, evolved sex-based psychological underpinning for women’s generally higher rate of enthusiasm for welcoming the mud world onto historically White shores.

Circle of Friends (women) or Members of a Group (men)? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/6/3/251.full.pdf

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/8/2/159.full.pdf

In two studies, findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group’s importance to her. In contrast, men’s ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e.attached to the group identity).

Men perceive the bigger picture. Women primarily perceive their feelz. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing… until the scope of women’s influence extends beyond their immediate childcare-recruiting social group to the scale of a nation, with all that entails (e.g., border control).

One interesting consequence of women’s lack of interest in a group’s collective identity is that it may lead to important sex differences in group-related outcomes. For example, if women value a group based only on their attachment to individual members of that group, then their group membership may be less stable than men’s. Prentice et al. (1994) suggest that groups with strong common identity attachments may last longer because their existence is less contingent on good relations between current group members. It is possible that this extends to individual group membership as well. The importance that men place on a group’s identity may result in greater longevity and stability in the face of changing group membership. If common bonds dissolve, men may remain in a group for its sense of common identity, whereas the group would lose all value for women.

What is the practical meaning of this? Women care mostly about close people, their “circle” , and not about larger groups based on common identity. If her lover is from another group, then she will (most likely) no longer care about her original group (her ethnicity).

Women are more trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity. In contrast, men are less trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity.
Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize interpersonal interactions (relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize teams and large groups (tribes).

Basically, women are loyal only to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their own tribe).

Loyalty is a mostly alien concept to women. They JUST DON’T GET IT.

Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.

Mutter Merkel is a childless spinster. That alone should have disqualified her from running a country.

This could also be observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.

Like I’ve written before, feminization of culture and politics can be beneficial to the stability of a nation when it’s exploited during high T times to mitigate the worst excesses of rugged, expansionist, lassez faire, free-for-all masculinity. But those times are rare and brief. When societal feminization hits an inflection point of weepy vaginatude, and establishes itself deep into every institution’s nook and cranny, the result is Death of the Nation… invasion by migrant foreigners, gibsmedats are far as the eye can see, and glorification of the feminine vices at the expense of the masculine virtues.

The results of this study are interesting in that they somewhat contradict tangential studies of the online dating market which have found that women, especially White women, prefer to date same-race men. In fact, White women, if those OKCupid data analyses are to be believed, are the most racist group of prospective daters.

Maybe these conflicting findings can be reconciled by understanding that online dating market environments like OKCupid are evolutionarily atypical, aridly calculating simulacra of the real world contexts in which women sift through potential mates. Online, women have to fill in profile information explicitly asking for mate preferences, but in the hustle and bustle of the meat market women are buffeted by an extraordinary array of male mate value signals (Game) that affect their choices.

Online, a White woman, given time to mull it over in her head, will state a preference for White men, but offline (aka 99.99999999999999% of the time in which human interaction evolved) her choices will be susceptible to the frothy currents of social spindrift, and in that environment she’ll choose whichever intimate relations — native or migrant — best satisfy her immediate needs.

PS Women’s differently evolved group cohesion strategy partly explains why White wives vote more like their Republican husbands than like their Democrat single lady friends. Once married, a woman’s husband is her MOST INTIMATE relation, which means she will adopt her husband’s views as her own as her prime feminine directive subconsciously instructs her to do.

Via Mangan (Twatter link: @Mangan150), the reason why monogamy beat polygamy:

It all comes down to paternal certainty. Where (beta) men are reasonably assured the kid is theirs, civilization can flourish. Where men have no idea if the kid is theirs or some other (alpha) dude’s, chaos, dysfunction, and indigence reign supreme.

Ironically, the incredible success of the modern West portends a near future of less monogamy and more de facto polygyny, possibly reverting Western Civilization to a more primitive form:

It was not until 1943, amid world war, that penicillin was found to be an effective treatment for syphilis. This study investigated the hypothesis that a decrease in the cost of syphilis due to penicillin spurred an increase in risky non-traditional sex. Using nationally comprehensive vital statistics, this study found evidence that the era of modern sexuality originated in the mid to late 1950s. Measures of risky non-traditional sexual behavior began to rise during this period. These trends appeared to coincide with the collapse of the syphilis epidemic. Syphilis incidence reached an all-time low in 1957 and syphilis deaths fell rapidly during the 1940s and early 1950s. Regression analysis demonstrated that most measures of sexual behavior significantly increased immediately following the collapse of syphilis and most measures were significantly associated with the syphilis death rate. Together, the findings supported the notion that the discovery of penicillin decreased the cost of syphilis and thereby played an important role in shaping modern sexuality.

The mid-20th Century and 21st Century War Against the Beta Male will have profound consequences for the West, none of them good…. except for one potentially beneficial outcome.

Options = Instability. A Chateau maxim as universal and relevant to life satisfaction as the famed CH aphorism Diversity + Proximity = War. The O=I theory was introduced in this original press post:

Where you have options, you have trouble sticking by one person. A man dating a girl (or girls) will feel on top of the world and suddenly all those single women traipsing around the city look like much easier targets to approach. His loins will quiver with excitement. A woman transplanted from a less populated region of the country to the big city will become enthralled with all the extra attention from men who are probably much better at playing the game than the men she left back home. Her ego will quiver with expectation.

…and fleshed out here, with accompanying scientific confirmation:

[T]here is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

I don’t need my knob slobbed by ¡SCIENCE!, but I won’t turn down a freebie blowie if 💋SCIENCE💋 just can’t get enough of my Renaissance Meat. So once again, to the lab-coats (via VIP commentator chris):

Scientific proof that options creates instability.

In the interests of weeding out the mathematical complexity, there were three values calculated. Assuming you were taking the survey, they would correspond to (1) how well your actual partner matched your ideal (2) what percent of possible real mates out in the world are better overall fits, and (3) how much more or less desirable you are to others, relative to your partner. These values were then plugged into a regression predicting relationship satisfaction. As it turned out, in the first study (N = 260), the first value – how well one’s partner matched their ideal – barely predicted relationship satisfaction at all (ß = .06); by contrast, the number of other potential people who might make better fits was a much stronger predictor (ß = -.53), as was the difference in relative mate value between the participant and their partner (ß = .11). There was also an interaction between these latter two values (ß = .21). As the authors summarized these results:

“Participants lower in mate value than their partners were generally satisfied regardless of the pool of potential mates; participants higher in mate value than their partners became increasingly dissatisfied with their relationships as better alternative partners became available”

Implied in the CH Options = Instability formula is the premise that the available options are desirable; options don’t mean much if what you have now is decidedly better than the alternatives. Few people will trade up from a filet mignon to a burger, so the existence of millions of attainable burgers doesn’t register as a menu of options to our subconscious minds if we’re currently dining on filet mignon. (If you’ve dated a really pretty girl, you’ll know that, at least for a while, the world of women outside her presence seems to recede into invisibility. Some call that love.)

Instability follows from options when the options are instinctively perceived as worthwhile substitutes. From this truism, we can deduce the effectiveness of a powerful Game principle: Dread. If you are a man who is, or is subjectively perceived to be, lower in sexual market value than your girlfriend/wife, then you can help stabilize your relationship and increase the happiness of you and your partner if you ACT LIKE you are a man with many desirable and attainable options you’d trade up to if circumstances allowed.

That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.

CH Maxim #77: If a man acts as if his life is full of willing women, then women will be more willing company.

Female suffrage was a big mistake, part infinity in a series.

Austria had an election recently, pitting a nationalist, immigration restrictionist patriot (Hofer) against a globalist, open borders nutjob (Van der Bellen). The vote results confirm a pattern seen all over the Western world: White women are voting in the shitlib traitors who will drown White nations in a polluted sea of third world misery.

Men invade, women invite. Right now, White women — especially over-educated White women — have the West’s power structures by the balls, gleefully cutting them off and handing them to migrants, invaders, refugees and general admission Diversity for display in their conquerors’ trophy cases. White men have responded by… well, until the Trumpening struck fear in the hearts of the West’s enemies, throwing up their hands and retreating to pr0n, opioids, and video games.

Trump is the West’s last, best, chance to turn this thing around. If TheCunt wins, it’s GAME OVER for America as we have known her.

Three “power brokers” with their hands in pockets, and one doing the fig leaf over his crotch. Classic beta male body language tells. Trump, meanwhile, is the only man in the room with his hands out, gesticulating a commanding presence. Keep in mind that Trump is the man in this meeting who hasn’t yet been elected to any high office. Alpha is Attitude.

Nearly every photo of Trump is a master class in alpha male body language. For we teachers of the crimson arts, the Trumpening is gift from Eros, a walking Powerpoint on the successful traits, mannerisms, and habits of the alpha male who is beloved by feminine women and admired by masculine men.

A man of some repute addressed an audience of women in 1933, warning against sexual amorphism and the close correlation of feminine men and masculine women with national decline.

Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in purpose, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.

…and that man was Joseph Goebbels. A bad bad man, but…….what he said was true, and downright prophetic as we scan the androgynous slop oozing over America’s fruity plains and as we heave under the onslaught of alien races welcomed into White homelands in no small measure by the contributions of our own women.

A thought: If you don’t want your nation to convulse with a bloody backlash of hypermasculinity, don’t allow your nation’s fate to be guided by the saccharine machinations of its women.

Given the recent news of a discovery suggesting that Neanderthals may have been more advanced than previously thought, it’s time to revisit the possibility that Neanderthals were out-competed by  proto-Sapien Cro-Magnons because the former were missing some valuable, survival trait other than intellectual horsepower.

We humans may have evolved to have tighter Game. Reader Feta explains:

I don’t know if this study has been discussed here before, but take a look if it has not:

“The Neanderthal correlation”

“No, I found that Neanderthals lacked genes linked to successful socialization and management skills. They could count perfectly well, but they couldn’t deal with groups. Socialization genes came from Sapiens”

Does this imply that alphas are the advanced “monkey” in the classic evolution pic? Betas/gammas usually are not bad with logic, but don’t fair well when it comes to “Sapiens characteristics” (i.e.,socialization)? If this is what the study says, then Game is an attempt to jump a great distance ahead in the evolutionary process.

Yes, that’s implied. When Neanderthals and Sapiens simultaneously occupied the same territories, it was the socially awkward beta nerdo Neanderthals who, despite their numeracy and great strength, succumbed to the Sapiens who had the tight Game (i.e., social skills) to form cooperative militias that could take out Neanderthals, monopolize their megafauna prey, and… wait for it… even bed Neanderthal women!

Game, far from being solely the primitive manipulations of sex-obsessed cads, was the next step in human evolution! Game can save species on the brink of extinction.

I like the coda to that article linked by Feta:

“You’re trying to tell me …” I said, but my mental censor blocked the idea.

“That human mathematical intelligence came from Neanderthals? That’s what the data say. The Cro-Magnons had the social skills. But that isn’t all.”

I stared at her. I couldn’t tell that to the research council.

As usual, she couldn’t read the warning look on my face. “The hybridization was successful in the Stone Age, but the environment has changed. I found that modern culture selects for socialization but against the Neanderthal traits for mathematics and intelligence,” she said, and looked down. “I don’t know how you’ll survive when our genes are gone.”

It’s possible then that Neanderthals picked up some beneficial “Game genes” from interbreeding with Cro-Magnons, but the intervention was too little too late to save them from the race annihilation we currently can see happening in Sweden, Britain, Germany and swaths of America.

Theory: too much sexual or cultural selection for Game genes will corrode the modern civilization that fewer Game genes helped create. When social savvy genes crowd out math and high impulse control genes… welp there go your highways, sewage treatment plants, and circuit boards.