Highlights from Chateau Heartiste:
* “Women basically want a monopoly on judgement. She can judge reject men as she chooses, but men are not free to reject/judge her or her choices, ever.”
* “If you are the average man — average height, employed, no major physical or emotional deformities, able to hold a conversation without shitting your pants, don’t know what LARP means, can refrain from obsessively counting toothpicks that fall on the floor — then you won’t need game, or very much game as the term is commonly understood, to fall ass-backwards into long term relationships with plain janes, facial mediocrities, or chubsters (who, note, constitute the majority of American womanhood, and thus fall right in the middle of the fat (heh) part of the bell curve).”
* “The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the woman’s thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decision, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity”
* “The Hamster is basically a condescending term applied by PUAs to women- it essentially means false rationalization. The hamster runs on its wheel to churn up excuses and allows its owner to side-step responsibility.”
* “Feminists, and women more generally, hate the idea of judgment and of consequences for their actions. They want to slut it up, take it slow, hook up, hang out, drag it out, do the woo, and try a bunch of different stuff without the judgment of men or other women cramping their uteri, and without worrying about the consequences which might ensue as a result of their panoply of choices. This is what is known in the literature as a fantasyland: a wonderful place in the puffy white clouds where human nature doesn’t exist and actions don’t cause reactions, except those reactions that the feminist dearly desires, which desire is subject to change at any given moment depending on the feminist’s whim.”
* “I have never met a slut who didn’t have those creepy, dead, black orbs for eyes. The voice, too, gives it away. Sluts tend to speak with the monotonic cadence of men, growly and inappropriately assertive, like someone who has long nursed a chip on the shoulder.”
* How many penises does she have to straddle to get to know herself? Does the penis imbue some sort of special “consciousness raising” enlightenment once it has parted the labia? Should high school guidance counselors tell graduating girls to hop on a cock for career advice? I bet Clark has no trouble, being a member in good standing of the feminist cooperative, explaining to her acolytes that women require penetration by erect penises to discover the strong goddess inside them.
Now, personally, I think that a good rogering does help clear a woman’s head, but I’m not sure feminists would be happy to hear that from me…
Feminists, and women more generally, hate the idea of judgment and of consequences for their actions. They want to slut it up, take it slow, hook up, hang out, drag it out, do the woo, and try a bunch of different stuff without the judgment of men or other women cramping their uteri, and without worrying about the consequences which might ensue as a result of their panoply of choices. This is what is known in the literature as a fantasyland: a wonderful place in the puffy white clouds where human nature doesn’t exist and actions don’t cause reactions, except those reactions that the feminist dearly desires, which desire is subject to change at any given moment depending on the feminist’s whim.
But reality, so ugly in its clunking machinery, has a different plan for such utopian fruitcakes. Women *will* gossip unfavorably about sluts because those sluts represent a mating threat to their interests. Men *will* push for sex faster, and avoid commitment more studiously, with women they perceive as slutty. Sluts really *do* have tells that experienced men can clue in on. Cockteasers really *do* risk losing alpha males if they drag out the waiting period for sex too long. Aging, unfeminine spinsters with hairy chins and cheese grater attitudes really *will* have to settle for less desirable men than they could have gotten when they were younger, better looking and more docile. And hamsters really *will* spin their wheels more feverishly the higher the pile of delusional self-medicating lies grows.
Why do feminists assert nonsense that intimacy is terrifying to men? Answer: it’s a female-friendly response that explains in elaborate mental calligraphy why they can’t keep a man around for more than a few ruttings, conveniently sidestepping the role that their physical unattractiveness might play.
Men are terrified of large, charging predators, like bears or lions or drunk fat chicks. They are not terrified of showering your overworked vagina with their warm seed. Get some perspective, will ya?
Allow me to cut a serrated swath through this post-gender, social constructivist swamp muck. Amanjaw Marcuntte and her ilk absolutely hate men in the abstract and loathe unrestricted male desire. They work tirelessly for a world, however ultimately fruitless the endeavor, where female sexuality is free to roam wild and unjudgeable and male sexuality is straitjacketed, regulated, restricted, demonized, ridiculed and made obedient through law or eunuch alliance to female, particularly feminist, caprice. This is modern, critical theory feminism in a desiccated ovum. It’s a farce, but the bigger joke is that media organs happily provide advocates of this farce a forum to dazzle their awomen choruses.
Her’s a little slice of truth… just a little mind you, enough to qualify as hope and change but not so much to entice pointing and sputtering… for the Slate and Salon crowds and the Clark-Flory-Hamster-Hi-I’m-A-Useless-Self-Gratifying-Hyphen contingent:
There is no difference between hookup men and “for-real” men. The men you skanky, aging broads want “for real” are the hookup men who weren’t interested in the same thing you wanted back when you had more to offer. So you dropped your standards and unilaterally declared the more pliable men willing to play by your newly-discovered “traditional cougar courtship” rules the “for-real” men you claim you always desired.
That hatetalk is drawn from real world observation. Mine, and the collected wisdom of millions of men like me. Now, if you don’t like common sense derived from real world observation, then you can always turn to science, which has a funny habit of frequently confirming what we can all see with our lying eyes, and of debunking cherished feminist narratives.
“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.” […]
“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”
“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.’”
If you didn’t get that, what it means is that women want their alpha hookups to turn into “for-real” men, but, unlike Clark’s assertion that she’s the one making the choice in which men she considers “for-real” dates, it’s actually the men (coupled with her desperation fueled by her rapidly closing attractiveness window) who are indirectly deciding for her which of them she’ll have to settle with in happily “for-realness” after.
Yes, the hookup jerks chicks love are also the jerks chicks wish would stop dicking around and CHOO CHOO CHOOSE them.
* The flood of Western women into the workforce has had, and will continue to have, massive, heretofore unexamined in an honest way, unintended downstream and upstream effects on social and sexual organization. It was practically preordained. When you fuck with the god of biomechanics, expect uncontrollable consequences to belch forth from the depths and rake at your legs dragging you into its disorienting hellhouse. This was never going to be a simple matter of giving upper class, bored housewives something to do. Female economic self-sufficiency rivals the Pill, abortion, easy divorce and alternative male sexual outlets for the acid bath demolecularization potential each has on the standard model of growth industry civilization.
If the result of feminism, equalism (aka anti-white male “progressivism”) and all these other little earthquakes rattling the very foundation of the Western sexual market is to make various sectors of the economy more risk averse and more status whoring, and thus more pleasing to women’s innate preference for a hidebound, exclusive aristocracy and genteel “makework” in service to the lords, and less friendly to the openness, candor, effrontery, class shuffling and innovation that is the preference of men seeking to make a mark in the world, then we really have to ask ourselves what the end game will look like. Because, right now, the accumulating signs do not point to a happy future.
Executive summary:
Credentialism stifles innovation and risk-taking, and solidifies a de facto corporate, academia and government aristocracy preferred by women. Credentialism is a natural outgrowth of feminism and equalism, which themselves are natural outgrowths of the feminine sensibility. The root of these twin evil ideologies must be destroyed and the ground upon which they grow salted before the West can begin an era of renewal that returns it to the eternal principles enshrined by the gods of the copybook headings.
* Most girls avoid inciting confrontation. But some girls are constitutionally nasty. All girls can occasionally be nasty if they are pushed hard enough (or PMSing hard enough). American girls are getting manlier and, hence, nastier, so the occasions you will encounter nastiness from a girl in America and her Western satellites are likely increasing in frequency.
Some things a nasty bitch will utter are so grating you feel impelled to haul back and send her to the moon. “Get lost” is one of those things. Of course, you don’t want to do this. Not only will it result in a white knight brigade gang-tackling you in hopes of receiving a pat on the back from some fat hog in flip-flops, it will kill your pickup momentum.
The best answer to female nastiness is calm. As long as your demeanor is calm and you look unflustered, you will knock a nasty cunt off her game plan. She’s expecting one reaction; you’re giving her another.
Calmness is essentially non-reactiveness. When you react, you accede, implicitly or explicitly, to your antagonist’s frame. When you react, you confess defensive insecurity, even if objectively you are not, because perception is all that matters in seduction. Defensiveness is the biggest game-killer, outside of supplication. If you ever observe naturals or experienced players hitting on women, one thing you’ll notice they all have in common is a complete and total lack of defensiveness or supplication. The non-neediness and self-certainty of the inveterate player are so ingrained that he couldn’t be otherwise if he tried.
So, to sum up, when you encounter shocking nastiness from a girl:
1. Stay calm
2. Don’t react
3. Announce your preferred intention
Number 1 is very hard to do if you are a young man full of impulsivity and heavy balls. But it comes with practice. Hot emotions can be corralled and channeled, just like yogis can train themselves to focus inwardly and feel less pain.
Number 2 can be mastered simply by willing yourself to pause for a second or two in mental silence before responding to a girl who has attempted to get under your skin. The pause of alphaness is a powerful technique, and will help you gather your thoughts and keep a poker face. It is also very unsettling to your opponent.
Number 3 is reframing. This is where you apply the proper tension with the words you choose to relay to her. A substitution of her tacit demands with your alternative preference implies your indifference and perhaps mild annoyance. You are not angry or spiteful. You are condescending.
* Contrary to the delusional claims of feminists and their fellow travelers in the degenerate freak mafia, there has never been a time in history when women weren’t physically objectified, by either women themselves or by men. Objectification of the female form is the manifest nature of sexual selection. Shaking a fist at it and whining for it to change on feminist blogs is akin to forming an advocacy group for the reversal of the earth’s orbit. Except for some minor fluctuations at the margins, these timeless truths of human sexual preference are unchanging. Wailing for the ghost of Rubens won’t spare the resentful, rump-faced rejects from the unalterable truth that a fatopia, or a lawyercunttopia, or a manjawtopia, or a bigfatbeardedfeministtopia has never existed in modern human history, and likely hasn’t long before that. Fat, ugly, unfeminine, and/or older women were never in demand and never considered desirable by men or women with skin in the game…
Beauty is objective. Beauty is measurable. Beauty abides universal standards. Beauty is an ironclad cosmic law that can’t be wished into irrelevance. Beauty is the golden ratio that holds illimitable dominion over all.
* Female messiness — of her bedroom, her bathroom, her car, her finances, her thoughts — is a leading indicator of sexual looseness. Beam with expectant joy and grab your tumescent pride when you step into a girl’s roomful of clutter, because you, my friend, are about to rocket down orgasmic highways of limitless pleasure.
…And messy girls are high cheating risks. If she can’t be bothered to care about her living space, she won’t be bothered to care about pleasing you. She will be as sexually impulsive as she is spatially impulsive. A scatterbrained woman has a scatterbrained vagina.
* Men of all stations in life have to deal with sexual rejection more often than do women, and as such they develop a strong shell that protects their egos and allows them to hunt another day, instead of curling into the fetal position and waiting for death, or the next episode of “The New Normal”. Women have never developed this purposeful shell, this strength of self-possession, and their inability to handle unambiguous rejection with dignity testifies to their underlying emotional and ego weakness. Men who get nervous at the thought of approaching women would do well to keep this in mind: you are far better equipped than your prey to surmount a temporary setback. Your masculine detachment is a gift. Take pride in it. The qualities that every societal siren blares that you should be ashamed of are those very qualities that will serve you so well.
* There’s a reason many societies attempt to limit the exposure of wives to too many single men. Women’s hypergamy and sexuality don’t just turn off the moment a marital contract is signed, or a meaningful eye-gaze discussing dating exclusivity is shared. If your male friends are very alpha, very charming, and/or very flirtatious, especially relative to your own talents, then you are staring into the maw of an excited vagina aroused by the scent of cock in the water.
Alpha male friends (AMF) can be more fearsome sexual market competitors than alpha male strangers (AMOG). The comfort of acquaintance pacifies the female urge to caution, and an alpha male friend whose bond of loyalty is weak will pose a bigger threat than some random guy hitting on your girlfriend. A simulacrum of familiarity coupled with a constant state of self-enforced denial is rocket fuel for female fantasy.
Plus, think back to the ancestral environment, and realize that the norm for much of human history has been small tribes interacting only occasionally with outside tribes. In this environment, the men that women would most likely cheat with would know on some personal level the male partners of such women…
Sadly, female hypergamy can only be chained so long as it doesn’t grow too strong in the presence of a much higher value male. Your beloved will jump the bones of a Hollywood celebrity if given a real chance for it, no matter how much she sincerely loves you. And I suspect a lot of you tradcon loyal hubbies with visions of beatific virtue dancing in your heads would jam the hammer in Emma Stone’s toolbox if she backed up into you…
