Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Rules of Manhood’ Category

Regularly dating young women in their nubile prime and having long-term relationships with some of them can provide unexpected jolts of depressing reality delivered through ordinary objects that provoke intense bouts of rumination.

Most modern couples have photos of themselves from the time they first met, usually of them hanging out, all smiles, with a group of friends. The pre-relationship photo montage is a peculiarity of the digital photography age; photos of couples spontaneously enjoying each other’s company in the dawning of their love would have been much rarer before the camera phone became ubiquitous. This is why you hardly have any photos of your young parents or grandparents drinking in a bar with their friends celebrating some urban slut’s birthday. It used to be that couples’ photos pretty much began and ended with their marital careers.

I’m thinking of this seemingly trivial sexual market phenomenon as I write this post. More than once when I’ve been balls deep in a relationship I’ve been stopped in my tracks by a passing glance at an early photograph of the both of us that my lover had framed and prominently displayed on a dresser or somesuch. I’d look at this photo and even if it was taken only a year earlier I could discern the greater glow of youth in her appearance to what she exuded in the present. For most women, three years difference is enough to notice the quick fade of their late teens-to-mid 20s youthful allure, and the noticing becomes worse the further past prime nubility she has time traveled.

The photo juxtaposes tragically with a man’s greater SMV longevity compared to women’s SMV lifespan. This is the curse that shadows any man who has skin flute in the game; if you are still capturing and amplifying flirty vibes from fresh cleft, then that haunting “pre-relationship photo” with your steady will have you questioning whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the schwing-less sorrows of restricted options, or to take arms against diverging values, and by leaving reset them.

This was an ugly post, but it needed saying, because the world has become a playground for platitude pushers, and more than ever the services of borderline sadists are required to fight back against the plying of the lies. The feminized West needs this Chateau reminder of the tremendous unheralded sacrifice that men make when they commit to one woman…a sacrifice that isn’t measurable by econometric formulae or social science r-squareds, but that is just as significant as the sacrifice women make for motherhood or soldiers make for their country.

Read Full Post »

Commenter HEM writes that men who get married but then don’t justify the marriage with kids are beta.

1) alphas don’t have big weddings. Every extravagant, expensive wedding (and cake with figurines) is a chick’s doing with her beta’s compliance.

An alpha might go along with a big wedding if it’s no skin off his nose, but HEM’s general sentiment is correct: big weddings are usually the domain of domineering self-absorbed brides and their lickspittle plan B betaprops.

2) an alpha knows the only reason to marry is for the sake of his children. No big theatrics (small ceremony of close friends, trip to Vegas, courthouse wedding, etc). The wife is emotionally ecstatic just to take his name and the upgraded label of wife as opposed to “baby mamma.” Her biggest fear was she was going to have children out of wedlock because Mr Alpha wouldn’t settle down (quit partying and fucking other chicks). Any childless dude who gets married is definitively a beta.

3) alphas don’t do PDA. Another sure sign of a beta male is during the “you can now kiss the bride”.. If the dude is all liplocked in a pathetic movie scene inspired 5 seconds or greater kiss – guaranteed beta. He’ll spend the evening eating at the Y and not pounding the pie.

lol at that last line. PDA is a tricky topic, but yeah betas are wont to publicly slobber all over their women while alphas prefer the coolasfuck policy of holstering their PDA while their women get worked up having to restrain themselves until later.

HEM’s precision-guided shiv is the observation that childless husbands are beta. 4 out of 5 White irredentists agree: there’s no fucking point to marriage if you won’t meta-consummate it with kids. Why assume all that baggage — the enforced monogamy, the legal risks, the messy financial commingling — if your sacrifice isn’t rewarded with noble heirs?

I suppose there’s the filing jointly tax angle benefit, but is it worth the hassle and downsides of a non-trivial chance of divorce theft? If you just want a steady supply of sex and love, then the alpha male move is to grab yourself a long-term pussy, enrapture her to a blissfully transcendent plane of committed adoration, non-maritally cohabitate like people from the nation formerly known as Sweden, and wheeze dustily into that long twilight holding hands until the Final Snuff relieves your shared earthly burden.

PS Hi, Pman!

Read Full Post »

SCIENCE SAYS!: Noodle-armed bitch-tittied nü-males are more likely to be shitlibs.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology.

“This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” said Dr. Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

I know, try to contain your shock. But this is SCIENCE, the beloved snark totem of the shitlib self-holding company, speaking authoritatively on a topic that causes shitlibs to spontaneously menstruate and temporarily forget that ¡SCIENCE! can and often does radically undermine their globohomo worldview.

I’m surprised shitlibs have so desperately allied themselves with the SCIENCE abstraction, given how incredibly easy it is for subversives like yours unduly to rhetorically hang shitlibs with their own professed faith in SCIENCE. “You’re a fan of science, libmanlet? Good for you! So tell me, what are your thoughts on the science of physiognomy and innate race and sex differences?”

Predictably, the mass cucking of America over the past few generations has allowed shitlibs the luxury of wrapping themselves in the cloak of SCIENCE because there have been — UNTIL NOW — so few shitlords willing to id-slap the neotenous SCIENCE crowd with findings that cut against the equalism and magic dirt narratives.

PS “Science not Silence” is the latest mystery bleat canard shitlibs have adopted to virtue snivel to their fellow shitlibs in their all-White hipster doofus gentrified enclaves. Like I said, this is a shitlib own goal as long as the Maul-Right is around to remind everyone what SCIENCE has to say about subjects that science-hating shitlibs would rather ban from public discourse.

Read Full Post »

The Chateau is long on record observing that a man’s force of personality — his charisma — is a powerful lure for women. As women are unlike men in some very fundamental aspects, it benefits men to understand which ways women differ from men and to tailor their seduction technique to press women’s particular arousal buttons.

One major difference between the sexes is the emphasis each places on desirable traits in the opposite sex. Shortly and sweetly, women are holistic mate evaluators, men are visual mate evaluators. Women want the whole package, but are especially aroused by men with intoxicatingly jerkboy-ish attitudes who stand apart from the masses of “So what do you do for a living?” beta males. Men want hot babes, end of story. More sweetly:

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.

Male power is projected through various social cues, including dominance (over men and women), humor, confidence, cockiness, entitlement, wit….and creativity. All these traits fall into the “male personality” category, which broadly speaking one can call “charisma”, which is why the CH “Dating Market Value Test for Men” includes questions such as:

13.  When was the last time you went to a house party?

Within the past month:  +1 point
Between one month and one year ago:  0 points
Over one year ago:  -1 point

14.  Have people besides your family called you funny?

None:  -1 point
A few have:  0 points
Nearly everyone who knows me:  +1 point

[…]

21.  You’ve just met a cute girl in a club and have been talking with her for five minutes when she abruptly changes the topic to a raunchy conversation about her multiorgasmic ability.  You respond with:

(A) a huge grin and an eager “Damn! That is HOT!”
(B) a look of mild disdain.
(C) a raised eyebrow while saying “Hey, thanks for the medical report.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

The background is to set up another *PREEN* HERE COMES ¡SCIENCE! ONCE AGAIN TO SLOBBER THE CH KNOBBER:

In the ruthless world of the mating game, plain-looking men instinctively know that being funny, smart or poetic helps to compensate for a less-than-stellar exterior.

That gut feeling has now gained scientific validation from an unusual study published Wednesday.

Average-looking men become more alluring when women sense the man has an imaginative spark, it found.

Charisma can vault an average beta schlub past hunky men and into the hearts of women. This is vindication of a core CH concept.

But for women, sadly, there may not be the same boost.

Indeed, one experiment suggests that less attractive women even worsen their mating chances if they show mental zing.

This too is vindication of a core CH concept: men don’t much care about women’s wit and wisdom as long as she lookgood. In fact, men are a little bit TURNED OFF by women who have interesting personalities that could make the men’s personalities seem lame in comparison. (The same happens with wealthy or over-educated women; men don’t like to be with women whom they perceive as competitors, or as possessing traits in sufficient quantity and quality that diminish the attractiveness value of those same traits in men. This is why it’s arousing to men when women seem vulnerable and admiring.)

The results showed that men with less attractive faces get a big boost in the popularity contest if they show a creative touch, Watkins found.

“Creative guys with less attractive faces were almost identical in attractiveness to really good looking guys who were not as creative,” he told AFP in a phone interview.

Male smarts are pointless for attracting women unless those smarts are put to use crafting an intriguing, creative personality. In other words, more storytelling, less logical explaining.

The top-ranked men were those considered to be both physically attractive and creative.

Also does not contradict CH teachings. Looks matter less for men’s romantic success than they do for women’s romantic success, but that doesn’t mean male looks don’t matter at all.

For women, though, the news is not so good. Looks remain paramount.

In one experiment, creativeness did nothing to boost the allure of attractive women — and it even reduced the appeal of less attractive women.

I enjoy being with witty funny women….who are super cute. But that’s because my wit and humor is at the infinity-eth percentile. The point being, the stablest, happiest relationships are those in which the man is superior to the woman in all ways except looks. Women want….NEED…to look up to a man to feel love for him. Men want….NEED….to know that a woman is looking up to him to feel loved by her.

Why would women rate creativity among men so highly?

Watkins pointed to evolutionary biology — the hidden criteria that drive us to seek the best mate for ensuring healthy offspring and their survival.

“Women on average are a more selective sex when it comes to choosing romantic partners,” he said.

Imagination and inspiration may be “a proxy for intelligence,” he suggested.

“Creativity is thought to be a signal that an individual can invest time and effort into a particular task or can see things in novel ways that may be useful for survival.”

Evolution works on the human hindbrain by hiding its intentions. Women aren’t thinking “Oh, I really want to sex with a high IQ man who will be better at providing for our future children”; what they’re thinking is “Wow, this man makes me feel great. He’s so funny! Wew is that a love puddle in my yoga pants?”

That means nerds and poets are at a big disadvantage in online dating, where decisions to swipe left or right — to shun or show interest — are often based on just a glance.

“Certain platforms that we have now for dating might not be favourable for assessing people on more complex attributes,” Watkins said.

This is another vindication of a CH tenet: online dating severely restricts the range in which men can display their mate value to women. Use online dating as an appetizer, never the main meal, especially if you aren’t a top 5% man in the looks department. If you’re an exclusive online dater, you are handicapping yourself if you’re a man with that ineffable jerkboy charm that women crave in doses of close physical proximity. It’ll be much easier for you to get across your charms face-to-face than through the Zuckerborg Dehumanization Autistoportal.

Read Full Post »

This is both a Game post and a politics post. Enjoy this explicit two-fer, because it’ll be one of those rare times you can witness the see-sawing CH haters implode from cogdis.

The reframe is a powerful Game technique, capable of stopping shit testing bitches cold, reigniting stalled banter, and easing the apprehensions of egg-guarding girls. The reframe is essentially perception management, in which one can alter the value of something (such as oneself) by changing the context in which that thing is understood.

A classic of the genre:

GIRL: I bet I’m not the first girl you’ve said that to.

POPE BUTTPLUG’S ALT-NEMESIS: I’ve learned what to say from girls just like you.

One more PUA classic:

POPE BUTTPLUG’S SATANIC TRUMPDREAM: Hey girl, don’t get handsy! You’ve gotta wine and dine me first, I’m not that easy.

***

Swinging this around to the politics angle, we can apply the reframe to a current event that has shitlibs twitching with gotcha! tingles.

The story: A trickle down media dweeb and walking nebbish caricature Ben Jacobs got body slammed by a Montana Republican pol named Gianforte. It’s being reported with indignant tones suggestive of a major scandal but honestly it’s the best news I’ve heard all day! Who hasn’t wanted to remind these dorky uptalking shitlib manlets that high school never really ends for them?

The reframe: “A reporter was tackled by a Montana Republican? Don’t give in to fear and hate. If you do, the Montana Republicans will have won.”

Another reframe, courtesy of Gabber @CorneliusRye:

In the aftermath of this attack, I fear the backlash that the Republican and Alt-Right communities will have to endure. 😢

We stand in solidarity with them.

Post note: On cue, Paul Ryan has cucked his way into the news by asking Gianforte to apologize. If CuckRyan had instead said anything akin to the reframes above (instead of groveling for an apology from Gianforte), my estimation of him would have gone from AIDS VECTOR to T LEVEL DETECTED.

Read Full Post »

“But I’m ALL Milhouse!”

Sorry, Milhouse, chicks don’t really want niceguys. They want jerks they can pretend are niceguys underneath. Allow me to introduce you to the female rationalization hamster:

Read Full Post »

Reader mendo earned himself an honorary Chateau post with this gem of a comment in which he explains his “beauty-boning correlation” categories of varying intimacy.

Reminds me of a recent categorization I’ve been developing in regards to rating a women’s face.

Beautiful–making out whilst boning her

Pretty–looking at her whilst boning

Okay–looking at the boning

It’s hardcore cuz it’s true.

Okay-looking chicks get the “straight to doggy style” treatment and a denouement hastened by staring intently at the insertion point. Pretty chicks get missionary and eye contact, and a perfunctory effort to engage the cum-stumping kegels. Beautiful babes get a marathon lovemaking session afforded by a pre-date rub-out to take the edge off, deep passionate kissing, eye contact so profound that the iris juices commingle, and intimacy that makes it feel like you’re jizzing straight into her heart.

Related: Hotter women = better sex. And SCIENCE! agrees.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: