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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A reader contemptuously adds,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experimenter bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

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

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

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

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

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

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

XV. Maintain your state control

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

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

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

Update

GBFM reveals the secret Sandberg tapes,

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

The Thirst is a Red Pillian term for sex-starved beta and omega males who fawn, notably online, over LSMV (low sexual market value) women, artificially inflating the self-perceived price of those women.

The enfant realtalkers who decry The Thirst on grounds of making their romantic journeys more perilous consider themselves enlightened to the bitter realities of the sexual marketplace. As a working theory for how the sexes interact sociosexually, the notion of The Thirst is more right than wrong. Women are, reproductively, the more valuable sex (during their youthful primes), and this inherent, biologically grounded sex value skew translates into all sorts of organic, cognitively discordant social phenomena, such as the factual observation that the average early 20s girl receives a lot more unwarranted sexual attention than the average man receives warranted sexual attention of any age.

Upon closer inspection, though, The Thirst falls short of a truly 360º panoramic view of the sexual market. I’ll explain its shortcomings as a Guide For The Good Life, and why I’ve come to see loudmouthed publicists for the SMV-bending beaver magic of The Thirst as little different than their distaff doppelgängers, the “Dick is abundant and low value” feminist crank trolls.

Why a Theory of The Thirst is flawed

1. Low value women don’t get sex (or, especially, love) as easily as prettier women.

Aggro MGTOWs find this hard to believe, but it’s true. Real life, and studies, clearly show that the uglier, older, and/or fatter the woman, the more time she’s gonna spend in involuntary celibacy purgatory. Granted, a LSMV woman won’t serve quite as long an incel sentence as a LSMV man, but she will serve some time before a sufficiently LSMV dick falls in her lap pretending to love her. If she’s lucky.

Have you ever noticed that one girl in your social group who has a history of showing up to parties or happy hours alone? She’s often representative of one of two kinds of girls: The sexy slutty ingenue who plays the field (usually by free choice that she comes to regret later), and the homely girl everyone feels sorry for. Why do we feel sorry for the latter and not the former? Because we know, in our subconscious moral calculus, that the homely girl is sexually isolated through no fault of her own. Unless she’s fat. In which case, we feel pity, which is a form of contempt.

2. Women don’t value sexual attention as much as men value it.

What happens when you expect to receive a certain type of social reward? You value that social reward less when, predictably, you get it.

So it goes with women, even the less attractive ones. Spreading their legs for a horndog who won’t call them the next day is no accomplishment for most women with working ovaries. (Say it with me: Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.) Despite the phony crowing of pump&dumped bitterbitches, sex is simply not something that, by itself, pumps women full of pride and happiness like sexual conquest does men. Men who claim otherwise are projecting their own desire for sexual attention onto women. (Projection… it’s not just a woman thing!)

So The Thirst is not blowing up the egos of fat/ugly chicks as much as its resentful advocates fervently believe.

Yes, a constant barrage of online flattery, no matter the quality of the sources or the wit of the pitch, will, in time and for short duration bursts, play head games with fug girls who get zero likewise attention offline. Yes, some of these fugs may temporarily come to perceive themselves, unreasonably, as more attractive to high value avatars men than they are in fleshy reality. But they will quickly be disabused of their false pride the second they step out the door and once again notice all the men walking past them as if they were invisible. So whatever ego-boosting ASCII effect The Thirst exerts on a fug, it evaporates the moment she enters the field where the plunger splits the ho.

3. Women instinctively know online male flattery is a low investment, mass targeting strategy worth absolutely nothing.

When a fatty gets propositioned by the 200th random pussy solicitor channeling Lord Byron… you dtf?… you really think she takes that sexual come-on to the id bank as a deposit put toward her accumulating romantic worth account?

Yeah, sure, if cornered by a sadistic interlocutor, she’ll lie and brag about all the love thrown her way on Tinder, but in the quiet of her thoughts she’ll know the flattery is as empty as her ice cream bucket.

4. Sexual attention is worse than being ignored when it’s from depressingly low value men.

If The Thirst was such an all-powerful force for NB1 ego inflation, why do the unattractive girls who receive cat calls, on- or offline, from the dregs of malehood feel worse for the flattery?

As a man about town, you likely know the same feeling. Dressed to the nines, confidence sky high, charm dialed in, prêt-a-poon slay, a chubby plain girl approaches you and smiles, introducing herself as someone very interested in getting to know you. All at once, the air is let out of your scrotal balloon. The weaker sort of men who experience this unfortunate courtship stillbirth spend the rest of the night beating themselves up. “Are these the only kinds of girls I can ever get?? Fuck, here I am at my best and only the ugly girls come up to me!”

Well, that hideous feeling is the same feeling girls have when miserable wretches come onto them. So what if 1,000 omega males hit on a fatty in chat over the course of a month? It’s still 1,000 omega males, and that makes all the difference.

When you’re ignored by the opposite sex, you can at least mentally masturbate to the hope that you’re attractive to them in their thoughts.

5. Women value commitment, relationships and love, which are much harder to acquire from men than are men’s sexual favors.

The Thirst, as it’s understood by most of the bitterati, applies primarily to sexual desperation; that is, men heaping transparently shallow compliments and favors on women in hopes of sexual reciprocation.

(There is a variant of The Thirst that involves relationship mongering, but this is much rarer among men, the sex for whom getting into relationships is not nearly as difficult as it is for women, nor as desired as getting into panties.)

This is really the biggest flaw in the theory of The Thirst: Thirsty sexual come-ons from horny men are no substitute for the romantic fulfillment of long-term love to women. Women grow up dreaming of their wedding day; they don’t grow up dreaming of all the cock they can squeeze into their hymenically-unsealed snatches.

Women fear insol a lot more than they fear incel. Lesson: If you want to properly shiv a feminist, ask her how long it’s been since a man stayed with her for longer than three months.

6. Women lie.

Finally, one contributing factor for a widely held belief in The Thirst is simply that women lie about their attractiveness to men. In fact, women lie more than men do about all things related to sex and romance. Are you sitting next to that fat chick as she stares at her flickering phone screen? No? Then don’t take her assertion that she gets “tons of attention” from men as the gospel truth.

***

This balls-deep CH analysis proves that the Red Pill concept of The Thirst is an overblown interpretation of a sexual market reality that, nevertheless, contains some useful truth value as a general map of intersexual relations.

The part of The Thirst that is true:

Women generally do receive more sexual solicitations than do their peer group men.

The parts of The Thirst that are false:

Fat, ugly, or old women can get desirable sexual attention, and convert it into actual sex, any time they want. There is a scourge of desperate beta and omega males banging down the doors of fatties and fugs. Online flattery gives ugly women long-lasting ego boosts. Women appreciate sexual attention as much as men appreciate it. An epidemic of thirsty beta males is making pickup much more difficult for charming players.

Even the true part of The Thirst is subject to circumspection. There is a wild swing in sexual attention skew when we compare women and men at different points on the SMV scale. For instance, an HB9 and a male 9 won’t be as far apart in sexual attention received by the opposite sex as will an HB7 and a male 7. Nor, paradoxically, will a female 1 and a male 1. At the extremes of sexual repulsiveness and sexual attractiveness the male-female difference in ability to incite the opposite sex to romantic exclusion or abandon narrows a bit.

It’s in the middle of the SMV belle curve where we discover that the sex attention skew — The Thirst Ratio — dramatically widens among the mediocre masses. A female 5 will receive, and particularly online where face-to-face rejection isn’t a threat, a lot more manipulative flattery from low value men than a male 5 will receive from low value women. This sex difference could be on the order of 100-to-1, or worse.

The sexual market is intrinsically unfair, so much so that it makes mockery of equalist pretensions. Beta males who are new to the teachings of Game and struggling to find romantic success bemoan this unfairness, but it’s better to accept it as an immutable part of the natural order and do what it takes to leverage the blessings, and attenuate the curses, of that order.

tl;dr

“He’s just not *that* into you.”

CH answered this post title’s question already in the seminal “Dating Market Value for Women” at-home quiz, and in this post defining the qualifications of the “alpha female”, but feminists and male feminists continue to insist against the bleedingly obvious real world evidence that men desire smarts in women over and above all other mate value considerations. For instance, the latest garbage study purporting a strong male desire for female IQ is about as flawed as a self-report sex survey can get.

Instead of writing a draining exegesis on why smarts don’t matter much to women’s romantic fortunes —

executive summary: a woman’s IQ has little impact on her short- OR long-term desirability to men unless she’s beyond the comfort zone of intelligence compatibility with the man she’s dating; i.e. around 15 or more IQ points above or below the man’s IQ

— I’ll just reprint a Telegraph commenter’s witty response on the topic.

awesome research – it validates the view that porn has no future on the internet

So much feminist-friendly “””research””” has upon later inspection turned out to traffic in horribly flawed premises and methodology that it’s a good bet to prejudice any social science study issuing from an Anglo university with at least one Scandinavian- or Eskimo-sounding female name in the author list as worthless.

UPDATE

Commenter Arbiter does the hard work debunking this feminist study that I wasn’t willing to do.

All right, let’s take apart the Telegraph article:

1. Journalist Sarah Knapton has talked to a Professor David Bainbridge. So you would expect some strong scientific research to back up his claim, right? No. “Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for.” You don’t even get to see the surveys. Nor do you get any mention of the fact that what people say in a survey doesn’t mean it’s true, especially not in a leftist climate that pressures them to ignore nature.

2. Bainbridge sets up a strawman to attack: it’s “large breasts and long legs” vs. intelligence. This is even in the title. He knocks large knockers by saying it’s not big breasts men want but symmetrical breasts, and he knocks long legs by saying it is straight legs men want, not long ones.

Ergo, men value intelligence instead of looks! Right? If you ignore the little fact that he just mentioned physical traits that men desire: symmetrical breasts and legs that are not crooked.

Far down in the article we also get this: “However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips..” So the “men really look for intelligence, not beauty” theme that the article starts with is nonsense, even by the writer’s own admission. But this comes far down in the story.

3. The real “proof” to grab people’s attention is George Clooney. The article begins with a picture of him and Lebanese wifey Amal Alamuddin. Sarah Knapton writes under the picture: “Despite dating a string of attractive women George Clooney settled down with human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin”. They are mentioned again farther down in the article, and Alamuddin’s picture appears again.

No longer do you need to study thousands of people, you only need to look at one person’s choice. If you are the science editor at The Telegraph.

But not even this one example proves anything: Alamuddin doesn’t look bad for her age. She also no doubt shares Clooney’s socialist preferences, and his anti-White ideology served well by marrying a non-White. So looks, check, and compatible personalities, check. Furthermore, that she is a “human rights barrister” doesn’t mean she would be brimming with intelligence for Clooney to lust for. Probably she just has enough intelligence to be close to him on the scale.

Alamuddin is one of the worst exhibits the feminists could use to buttress their “men love SMRT women!” psychological projection. She’s hotter than 90% of women her age. And, lest the fact escape anyone, she’s also 17? years younger than Clooney.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There’s nothing more comically predictable than stories about chicks doing what they do best: Digging jerks. Reader Waffles passes along a chicks dig jerks anecdote, Double Infinity Plus in a Series.

Just wanted to add this to the “chicks dig jerks” evidence pile. Quite the story. A girl I know recently broke up with her boyfriend and moved out of the place they were sharing because he disliked her dog. He broke her dog’s leg on purpose. I repeat, PURPOSELY BROKE HER DOG’S LEG. She moves out on him and goes back to her apartment which she still had. She proceeds to go on rants about the incident, gets sloppily drunk at a large group gathering, and gets her old boyfriend (the one before the dog leg breaker) to drive over an hour to pick her up. She gets back with the the old bf and he moves into her apartment with her. Flash forward about a week [ed: one week!] and she is posting beach selfies with the dog leg breaker. Apparently she also moved out of her apartment to move back in with him, straight up just leaving the old bf there by himself. LOL

If you had to choose to emulate Skittles Man or Break a Dog Leg Man to win the imperishable loving devotion of a girl, choose Skittles. At least no dog gets hurt, the only innocent, loveable party in the whole sordid spectacle.

Chateau Heartiste, 2009:

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

¡SCIENCE!, 2015:

Resisting Connection Following Social Exclusion: Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor

Social psychologists theorize that individuals seek connection following rejection. However, accepting connection from a low status other may imply that one is of similarly low status, which may call into question one’s prospects for future acceptance. Thus, we hypothesized that rejection would lead individuals to distance themselves from a low status other even when the low status other is accepting. In two studies, single, heterosexual, female participants received simultaneous acceptance/rejection feedback from one physically attractive man and one less attractive man. As predicted, rejected individuals derogated their rejecters as indicated by a decreased desire for affiliation and more negative evaluations. Moreover, participants rejected by the attractive man also derogated the unattractive man even when the unattractive man offered acceptance. These data may shed light on specific circumstances under which rejection leads to antisocial behavior.

It’s a bit circuitous, but the relevance of this study to CH Maxim #101 becomes clear once we accept the premise that “five minutes of alpha (male)” is to women, for all practical purposes, a rejection. “Five minutes of alpha” is an aesthetic interpretation of a one night stand or a short fling that ends without any commitment extracted by the woman from the man. A woman WILL feel the sting of commitment rejection in much the same way a man will feel the sting of sexual rejection; and yet, the fleeting pleasure of an alpha male’s attention can ruin a woman for all promise keeper beta males to come after.

This is what the study uncovers, in its sphere of examination. Women “rejected” by the alpha male were more likely to be a bitch to the lesser/beta male. That sting of rejection the women felt from the alpha, and the ensuing bitterness about it, redounded to the betas a hundredfold.

Conclusion: If you are a beta male… STOP DROP AND MOLD yourself into an alpha male. Also, the more alpha fux a woman has accumulated over her prime fertility years (without commitment from any of them), the worse she’ll behave toward any beta males unfortunate or stupid enough to take on the role of her sloppy sixtieths.

Again, we see the wisdom, first dropped at CH and later confirmed by 😎SCIENCE😎, that men who want admiration, devotion and loyalty from a lover would do well to avoid dating (or god forbid marrying) any woman who could challenge them in the bed post notch department. Virgins aren’t prized the world over for no reason.

But, please, feel free to pump and dump those “dick is abundant and low value” try-hard feminists and add to their future beta husbands’ misery.

They weren’t born that way, they were made that way, by repeated failure with women in the sexual marketplace. Their romantic failure is a consequence of their inexperience, lack of game, and their poor understanding of female sexual nature, each reinforcing the other in a feedback loop of infinite incel, until marriage at 33 to a dumpy hausfrau (and they are legion).

But there’s another, even crueler and more invidious, reason why beta males become bitter about women:

Women treat beta males worse for no reason other than that they aren’t alpha males!

As we learned from yesterday’s post, a study has found that women who are rejected by an alpha male experience a surge of bitterness and bad feelings that they then dump onto any beta males unlucky enough to be next in line for the faire maidens’ hands.

Now, a question for the tough guys who like to dump on the bitterbetaboys (and CH stands accused along with the sadistic rabble): If women are autonomically treating beta men like shit, through NO FAULT of the beta males’ own, might it stand to reason that a legitimate explanation for beta male bitterness and romantic failure is their parallel sexual market reality in which they have to deal with cranky, bitchy, demeaning women who are pissed off that they didn’t get the alpha male of their dreams? Just sayin’.

In a normally functioning social dynamic, less attractive women (and lower status men) behave more deferentially toward their betters than do hotter women (and higher status men) toward their lessers, because the beta of each sex seeks to gain social standing by ingratiating herself or himself to pack leaders, (and because threatening the social hierarchy carries great risk).

But sometimes the behavioral properties of the pecking order get scrambled, as often happens when intersex feedback loops are introduced, and we observe contingent social phenomena occur such as when less attractive girls act bitchy when they believe beta males are making advances on them.

Reader Colonel Spartak illustrates this well, with an anecdote that reveals much about the female ego and its response to different sexual market stimuli.

[Beta males] get bitter about women because the women they hit on are much more likely to be bitches. As you have said previously, the 8s and up are hit on less regularly than the 5-7s who the lower smv value males hit on. These 5-7s are often bitchy, partially because they are suffering from the cuntishness endemic to the western womyn and partially because they are bitter themselves.

Case in point. Last weekend a DJ friend of mine took me with him to a club which was filled with 16-19 year olds. We were there for an hour, so I took off to the dance floor to make some conversation with the resident poon. The first girls I talked to were a group of straight 6s who were standing watching the dancing, and I asked them if their parents knew they were out. The one girl replied to me ‘how old are you, 47?’ and not in a playful way, in full on viper mode (I’m a youthful 37), so I told her I was 72 and my old age home had given me a free coupon to the club. I left them and 10 mins later approached two solid 9s at the bar and said exactly the same thing. I struck up a conversation with one of them, who was really friendly and kept asking me how old I was. I wouldn’t tell her and eventually she guessed I was 28.

That’s not the first time I have experienced savage put downs by unattractive women both irl and on Tinder. Some lower smv women prop up their self esteem by being bitches to men who approach them because in some way it must allow them to feel like they are emulating the behaviour of women with higher smv and like they have choices (ultimately they don’t). Higher SMV women have less to prove to themselves and others.

That last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter. Quite often, LSMV girls will act bitchy toward men, even high value men, because this is their only chance to feel, for a very short moment in the sun, the thrill of being an in-demand hot babe with the consequence-free privilege of rejecting suitors left and right. The LSMV girl is, through the egoistic palliative of her phony bitchiness, playing the role of the beautiful girl with tons of options and the self-entitled, my-shit-don’t-stink attitude that goes with all those options.

Of course, the put-on is self-defeating. An LSMV girl bitching out an alpha man leaves him no worse for the wear, especially when higher quality poon is a few feet away and willing to treat him nicer. Beta males don’t lose much, either, for they have avoided entanglement with a cranky bitch who will never stop resenting any beta she settles with into aromantic despair. The real risk to beta males is the growing bitterness that will gradually erode their self-confidence and strip from them any latent natural charms they could develop, for few betas can endure without ill-effect a constant stream of bitchiness from sub-par girls with bruised egos.

The biggest losers are the middling girls who engage in this sort of temporary, impulsive ego gratification at the expense of beta males too nice and generous to know when they are being played for a cunt’s ego prop. These bitterbitches will spend their fleeting prime nubility years in loveless pump and dump scenarios, in the last alone and wondering where it all went wrong, or having to settle far lower down the male desirability scale than they would have if they had ditched the bitch act and got serious about cultivating that sweet, feminine woman inside before youth abandoned them.

Emulation of alpha behaviors really only works for men; ugly girls can emulate the behaviors of cute girls till the cows come home, but because their raw appearance is the alpha and the omega of their desirability to men (at least at the first few meets), such alpha female emulation by fugs will land with a thud at the retreating feet of men rightly casting them off as that most loathsome of creatures: the screwed-up bitch who’s outer ugliness amplifies her inner ugliness.

For men who want more choice in women, and value the crimson pill knowledge that will help them deal with the phony puffery of plain janes icing their player vibe, the first thing to know is never to take an NB4’s bitch facade personally. You aren’t the only man upon whom she’s unloaded her species’ peculiar psychological issues, and you won’t be the last. Water off a duck’s back.

Understanding will increase your confidence as well. Accepting women for what they are, you’ll come to appreciate those times when you’re the target of a homely woman’s nastitude as evidence that you’re far above her lay grade. It’s like a shit test; when you get one, you know the girl is grappling with a bean-budding arousal for you.

Second, know too that a bitchy mediocrity can be leveraged into romance with a pleasant hottie. If the bitchy NB is part of a larger group, calling her out with wit can intrigue the better girls in her company. “I’m sorry, you must have me mistaken for a man who broke your heart.”

Even a mediocre bitch can be turned, if for some strange reason you relished the challenge of notching a night of mediocre sex. Playfully evading her taunts, reframing, and finally gently chiding her for hiding her true feelings under the mask of a tough girl really crying out on the inside for someone who “gets her”, is a (painful, laborious, four-hour) formula for seducing the nasty NB5 of every man’s fantasy.

***

Mr GS passes along the story of the battle-toad.

I was out last summer and my friends and I were flirting with whatever female passed by. Anyways, a plump (-5454085/10) girl walks by and hears our hilarity ensue with the females we are joking around with; I’m still not sure, but I think she might have known these women we were speaking to? Anyways, to be friendly I jokingly flirt with her as well to keep things moving, and without a pause she says “You are the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen” to which I fire back “Well my mother would disagree with you;” the two girls we were initially joking around with laugh and kind of look at this plump-porker in a weird “are you serious?” way.

A warpig of this calibur is not going to get me down with her comment, but in this scenario, where two good-looking men (I’d say my friend and I fall into the 8-9 category looks wise), it seemed out of place. The warpig persisted, “No seriously, you guys are just fucking lame. You are just disgusting.” This battle-toad swung her axe and was trying to cut deep; “did a guy who looked like me molest you or something?” Miss Piggy’s donut-scanners widen and she stares at me in shock (I don’t care if I seduce these other females now, Miss Piggy ruined my fun). “Really???” the battle toad exhales in disgusted awe, “you shouldn’t joke about people getting molested!!” I smirk, “well I’m sorry you got molested.”

Anyways, I can continue my story, but the point is the last paragraph is spot on. I assume her two relatively good looking friends (if they even fucking knew her since they were distancing themselves from her) made her jealous that she was not a part of the fun, and she decided to reject before she could get rejected.

Preemptive rejection is a favorite tactic of the left-behinds. The battle-toad would rather swing her axe than suffer another second of invisibility.

Remember that unfunnygirl who performed a social science experiment up to the rigorous standards set by academic feminists everywhere, an experiment in which her results were presented as evidence men don’t want casual sex any more than women want it? Femcunts rejoiced, because femcunts will rejoice at whatever slender reed of feels gives succor to their pretty lies.

Dr. Jeremy, from Psychology Today, responded, vindicating the original Clark and Hatfield study finding that men are fantastically more agreeable to the prospect of casual, NSA sex than are women.

The difference between actual social science research and these pseudo-experiments is that, with real research, there are experimental controls put in place to reduce bias and alternative explanations for the findings. For example, the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study standardized what was said by the experimental assistants to ask for sex, so that each participant received exactly the same believable message. Specifically they said, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

Additionally, Clark and Hatfield (1989) used multiple experimental assistants to control for differences in attractiveness. Also, the assistants were asked to only request sex from believable partners (college students, relatively the same age, and attractive to them). Finally, participants were approached during times when they were most likely to have free time for sex (weekdays and not between class periods).

We see none of these experimental controls in the pseudo-experiment video. The woman is inconsistent with her approach and how she asks for sex. Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request. She also approaches many men who are not plausible sex partners for her, who are busy with their day, or who are otherwise unavailable for immediate sex.

Nevertheless, when she does approach men that she finds sexually attractive, who are plausible sex partners, who are available, and her request to them is more complementary and believable, then she more often gets a yes (for example, see video at 1:54 with guy in blue shirt). In fact, simply taking the men out of the analysis who are clearly considerably older than her (10), state they are too busy to go with her immediately (9), say they have a girlfriend and cannot have sex with her (12), or tell her they are gay (3), begins to increase her probability of getting a yes to sex (28/66 = 42%). If she only approached men that she actually found sexually attractive, used a standardized and believable request for sex, and hid the camera too, then it is quite possible that her rate of success would be even higher and better match those of actual studies that used such experimental controls. In fact, more recent experimental studies, following those controls and protocols, have indeed found similar results as the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiments (for more, see Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-54.

Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behaviior, 31, 453-458.

Feminists — ah, fuck it, let’s just say all women — will never be convinced by logic or reason to accept that there are deep, abiding differences in the psychology of the sexes. Women are built by evolution to fool themselves as much as fool men to their true natures, because complete enlightenment and the pained introspection that would follow could sabotage the Darwinian prime directive to attract and monopolize the top alpha sperm and resources.

A long time ago , CH criticized “Sex at Dawn” writer, Christopher Ryan, for his beliefs that jealousy is a social construct (or a recent, malleable, adaptation) and his presumption that polyamory is the natural state of de-Christianized, de-programmed white Europeans.

But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them.

I don’t need a laboratory or multiple Pee Aich Dees to know that men feel more more white hot jealousy for a sexually cheating girlfriend or wife, and that women feel more jealousy for an emotionally cheating boyfriend or husband. One would have to have been born and raised in an SJW reeducation camp to believe otherwise.

These are the observed CH ugly truths that discredit feminism and its parent ideology, equalism, and drive their adherents crazy with rage.

Which is why, once the equalist liars are twisted into a rictus of butthurt, I like to ease the shiv in further, whispering to them in their death agonies, “Give up, you don’t stand a chance! Let’s end this here! It will be easier for you, much easier. You’ll see it will be over quickly.” And, since the anti-human leftoids pride themselves on their fellowship with ¡SCIENCE!, nothing quite delivers the killing blow like enlisting the aid of their godhead to betray them to their last breaths.

Apropos, here’s 💋SCIENCE💋 telling us that, yes, CH was right again: Men and women feel jealousy differently, and this difference is best explained by a biological, innate cause.

Highlights

• Strong sex differences in jealousy responses across measurement paradigms
• Sex differences in jealousy responses not subject to moderation or mediation
• Noteworthy sex differences in a nation with high paternal investment expectancy
• Findings contradict explanations derived from social role theories.
• Findings support evolutionary predictions.

Despite some controversy about sex differences in jealousy, data largely support that sex differences studied with the forced choice (FC) paradigm are robust: Men, relative to women, report greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity than in response to emotional infidelity. Corresponding sex differences for continuous measures of jealousy typically have been less robust in the literature. A large sample of Norwegian students (N = 1074) randomly responded to either FC or continuous measure questionnaires covering four infidelity scenarios. Large, comparable, theoretically-predicted sex differences were evident for both FC and continuous measures. Relationship status, infidelity experiences, and question order manipulation (activation) did not consistently influence the sex differences for either measure, nor did individual differences in sociosexual orientation or relationship commitment. These large sex differences are especially noteworthy as they emerge from a highly egalitarian nation with high paternal investment expectancy, and because they contradict social role theories that predict a diminution of psychological sex differences as gender economic equality increases.

There will never be a polyamorous culture, legalized or de facto, in European-derived nations that doesn’t end in tears. Feminism, as per usual, is a crock of shit and a belief system that, contrary to its stated intent of enlarging the moral universe, strips humans of both sexes of their humanity.

A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.

1. More sexualized women.

Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?

In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.

2. Less sexual dimorphism.

It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.

Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.

In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.

3. More feminism.

Recall the CH maxim regarding feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.

4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.

A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.

Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.

5. Hatred of beta provider males.

Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.

6. More aggressive sexual signaling.

A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.

Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.

7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.

A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)

A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:

Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).

8. More women acting out like men.

Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.

Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?

9. More men acting out like women.

This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?

Spite. Bitterness. Resentment. Contempt. Decivilization.

The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.

Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.

But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.

Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.

So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?

♂😎SCIENCE😎♂ swoons for Game once again, or rather, for the biomechanical truths explored here at the Chateau. Via reader RedEleven, a slew of studies examining the role of biological sex differences in gaits and other physical motions (there is such a thing as throwing like a girl).

There’s a lab in Canada that does motion capture studies of people and has collected data and produced animations that show distinct differences in the male and female gait.

This interactive flash applet lets you adjust the masculinity-femininity of a wireframe animation.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html

This WebGL version allows you to rotate the wireframe and toggle between dot mode and skeleton mode:

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/webgl_walker/webgl_walker.php

And here’s an excerpt from one of the studies they published:

“A framework is outlined that can be employed to obtain gender and other characteristics of the agent from human motion patterns and subsequently use this information to synthesize motion with particular, well-defined biological and psychological attributes.”

And from the discussion section:

“For instance the exaggerated male walker has wider shoulders than hips whereas in the female walker this ratio reverses. Male walkers display considerable lateral body sway whereas this is not the case for female walkers. Hip motion in male walkers is 180 phase shifted with respect to the hip motion in female walkers. The position of the elbows is very different in male and female walkers. Men tend to hold their elbows away from the body whereas women hold them close to the body. In general, the exaggerated man seems to attempt to occupy much more space than the exaggerated woman — a display not unique to the human species. ”

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Text/WDP2002_Troje.pdf

There’s also an experiment that let’s you guess the gender of these 15-point figures as they walk, run, throw a ball, sit down, etc – based on data capture from real life.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Experiments/BMLmdsex/

That first biomotion link provides a few minutes of amusement if you adjust the sliders to MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE.

Male-Female: All the way to the male.
Heavy-Light: All the way to heavy.
Nervous-Relaxed: All the way to relaxed.
Happy-Sad: All the way to happy.

There you go, gentlemen. Mimic the walking motion of the MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE:

Elbows out.
Lateral sway in the upper body.
Knees high and out on the leg up-swing.
A little bit of bounce in your step. (“Get air” in your walk.)

In other words, lope like a pimp nigra.

j/k, but only sort of. Fact is, an alpha male gait that will turn on women is going to somewhat resemble a pimp roll. But Hwhyten it up. You don’t need to go the full gorilla to have an effect on lovely lady loins.

And whatever you do, don’t sashay your hips. Unless you’re John Scalzi, who is all about the swish.

BONUS: If you hoist iron, the resulting growth in your muscles and neural connections will naturally conform your gait into one that is more alpha male than beta male.

The second link is even funnier to watch in MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE MODE, (if not as educational), because it’s a full skeleton instead of a dot skeleton. You can practically see the silverback hair and prominent brow ridge.

How did you do on the “guess the sex” biomotion test at the last link? Your venerable Chateau host got 8/10 on the first sequence and 17/20 on the second sequence. Not bad considering the only clue to the sexes was a dot figure performing different motions. Do I know this because real world sex differences in gait and physical motion shape my impressions? Or do I know this because I was born with a mental template deep in my hindbrain that subconsciously informs my instinctive impressions? It’s probably both: Our genes create our sex differences, and our culture organically reinforces our genetic imprints.

Conclusion: The sexes are intrinsically, innately, immutably… biomechanically different!

Feminists, male and female? You there?

*crickets*

What about MAXIMUM ALPHA FEMALE MODE (i.e, how would an HB10 walk)?

Set the dot skeleton sliders in the first link to:

100% Female.
80% Light.
80% Relaxed.
80% Sad.

Try it, and I think you’ll agree that this female gait is the sexiest to male eyes.

Why? Because sex differences in mating psychology are telegraphed through our gaits. The HB10 is at her sexiest when she’s walking with:

– a 100% female gait
– a light step, but not so light she looks like a flaky slut
– a generally relaxed gait, but with a hint of nervousness that suggests vulnerability
– some perceptible sadness, because a 100% happy woman looks too strident and chirpy to properly ping those male radars for vulnerable faire maidens.

I hope this post has been as informative to open-minded readers as it has been hurtful and distressing to equalist fruit cups.

Update

Commenter mendozatorres notes that the more “male” the dot figure, the greater the “crotch thrust” and the wider the man-spreading! Spread those legs out, men, and let your hog light shine! The women want a show. And, vice versa, when the figure goes from male to female, the crotch area sways more, like a pendulum tantalizingly swinging a basket of fruit at its end.

***

From commenter “its me”:

50/75/25/75 – effeminate homo/hipster walk lzozlzolzzolzzolzzozlz

It’s lzozlol because it’s true.

PS Fat-woman-who-has-given-up-on-life walk: 75/0/100/100. She looks like she’s ready to fall through the earth.

No one knows for certain how the Neanderthals went extinct. There are many theories propounded — climate change, resource competition with newly arriving anatomically modern humans, megafauna population declines, etc — all of which are plausible, and some of which are supported circumstantially by recent genetic evidence.

I’ll suggest another, uncomfortably familiar, extinction mechanism for the Neanderthals: Diversity™ killed off the loveable brutes.

I don’t mean, exclusively, Diversity™ in the usual senses — warfare, rape&pillage, territorial disputes, food shortages. I mean it in the Calhoun rat “behavioral sink” sense. That is, the flood of Vibrant AMH Diversity™ arriving from points south, who may or may not have mingled peaceably with Neanderthals in the latter’s homeland, (and occasionally shared beds), by their mere proximate presence and cultural dissimilarity induced immense psychic pressures on the locals until their native fertility rate plummeted to levels…

…not unlike what we are seeing today among white Westerners living in homelands rapidly populating with millions of alien world migrants.

Diversity™, itself, is what killed the Neanderthals.

Arguing against my speculation: Contraceptives, the Japs.

Neanderthals didn’t have the hedonism aids of condoms and Pills. If they were “secularizing”, relative to their race’s historical norm, and choosing to forfeit childbearing in favor of extracting the last bit of fun from a shrinking playground, they’d have a challenge trying to do all this to the beat of the rhythm method. Not that it couldn’t be done; Neanderthalettes might have stiff-armed a lot of horny men if they felt that conditions weren’t optimal for raising a family.

The Japanese. They have a very low TFR at the moment, and last I checked there wasn’t a ton of Diversity™ in Japan. But, it is an island nation, and there are a lot of Japanese living on it, living a neon-colored and optically-wired version of the Western lifestyle. Here, the mechanism is entirely raw numbers, rather than raw numbers + clash of cultures.

The Neanderthals, it now appears from genetic analysis, have gifted White Europeans with just enough of their DNA to make something of a difference to the trajectory of white history. Did Neanderthals also gift us with a warning for our own race’s future, or lack thereof?

Remember the CH post about walking like an alpha male? For shits and remotely activated tingles, I decided to try out the MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE MODE walking style in a beautiful baby zoo near you.

I walked about town like a guy who absorbed a piece of gorilla DNA in a telepod, similar to Jeff Goldblum’s unfortunate mix-n-match in The Fly. I strutted and swaggered. Not quite as comically as this buffoon:

…but getting close.

Result: After an hour or so performing the “here are my steely balls, ladies, feast your eyes” gait, I can conclusively say that a lot… no, a WHOLE LOT… of women tossed me lascivious stares. Not “what is this weird guy doing?” looks; real hardcore “i want… i need… to get to know this man” stares.

Ok, there were a couple of “who’s the weirdo?” looks, but most were definitely in the “checking him out” camp.

I want… I need… to report that I felt foolish walking like I had an anvil in my crotch that I had to swing my legs around, but sadly, with heavy heart, I felt no such discomfort. What I did feel instead was confidence boosted major.

To this day, and after so many years of confirmatory experience, it still astounds me how autonomically women are magnetized by a man exhibiting alpha male characteristics. It’s almost… robotic.

Vapid shell entity Caitlin Dewey is at it again, snarkily uptalking in her late Millennial patois and squirting out mental masturbation material for bitter feminists left behind by a merciless sexual market. She links to a study which found that male Halo players who were losing the video game badly were aggressively hostile to female players and aggressively submissive to better male players.

Dewey uses the “””findings””” that are a little too conveniently friendly to feminist shibboleths to grind her cunty battle axe. Unfortunately for her religious tenets, the study is so flawed as to make it nearly self-debunking.

Nowhere in the linked source for the study did I see a reference to ages or races of the study participants. Were these all white kids trash talking what they thought were female teammates who were letting the team down? Or was there an unfortunate racial skew the study researchers felt disinclined to note?

And what about the ages of the male players? 12 years old, or 25 years old? This makes a huge difference. No one should be surprised when a 12-year-old boy lashes out at UGH GIRLS. But these natural and normal development behaviors of boys tend to dissipate by adulthood.

Here’s an ugly scientific and common-sensible truth with which the Caitlin Deweyettes of the SJW world should acquaint themselves: Sexist men are more attractive to women. Or, in urban SWPL ditz parlance, sexist men are QUITE LITERALLY winners.

Here’s a quote that will simultaneously trigger Caitlin’s man-hating ego and jerkboy-loving vagina.

And, in what is sure to be a shot straight to the flabby feminist gut, women are more sexually receptive to assertively sexist men.

Sexist men are socioeconomic winners and sociosexual winners. Women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who scoff at feminist poopytalk.

Now, this is not an endorsement of the 12-year-old boy variety of hostility to women. The sexist adult men who win women’s hearts are best classified as “benevolent sexists”; that is, they aren’t hostile to women; they are patronizing to women. Chicks dig a man with amused mastery. You know what chicks don’t dig, in the digging way that truly matters? Avowed male feminists sucking up to them at every turn.