Luke Ford

From the Chateau: When men get into comfortable relationships, what normally happens is a slackening of the masculine drive to excel. There is even scientific evidence for this; after marriage, men in a variety of occupations — science, math, business — experience a reduction in their productive output. The most parsimonious explanation for this phenomenon is that once a man has landed a woman and codified it with a marriage contract or a commitment to date exclusively, the fire in his belly slowly burns out because he no longer feels a compulsion to impress potential mates….

Women naturally tease, feint and misdirect because it is in their nature to do so; such behavior helps screen the unflappable alpha males from the bewildered betas. Men do not naturally tease because all their screening is done within seconds of seeing a girl; her beauty, or lack of it, is comprehended instantly.

But once a woman falls in love, as you have done, she surrenders all possession of the faculties which served her well during the courtship dance. A woman in love is a woman stripped of all her armor; she is exposed. You are exposed. Your emotional nakedness prances around every word you write like a frantic sprite.

CHATEAU: Any woman truly falling for you will wind up blurting out an EOB against her better judgment. A woman in love can’t help herself.

Maxim #26: Women secretly hope that you won’t rob them of the opportunity to make themselves vulnerable before your alpha inscrutability.

STUDY: Women, being from Venus, have a reputation for being the first to spring “I love you” in romantic relationships.

But men actually are more likely to utter those three loaded little words first, and men admit thinking about confessing love six weeks earlier than their female partners, according to an article to be published in the June issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

That doesn’t mean men are bigger saps. Taking an “evolutionary-economics” perspective, the article concludes that gender differences in the timing and function of saying “I love you” are related to whether a couple has had sex.

“Men may be more impulsive in the way they express love, but what love means to men and what love means to women may be very different,” said co-author Josh Ackerman, assistant professor of marketing at MIT Sloan School of Management.

In a series of surveys, researchers found that two-thirds of couples report that the man was first in confessing love. Men also reported being significantly happier than women to hear “I love you” one month into the relationship if they had not yet had sex, while women felt happier than men when they heard “I love you” after the onset of sex in the relationship.

The researchers theorized that a pre-sex love confession may signal interest in advancing the relationship to include sexual activity – which is what men want, evolutionarily speaking, so as not to lose an opportunity to spread their genes. They want to “buy low,” as the article put it. Women, who have more to lose if they get pregnant, prefer a post-sex confession as a signal of long-term commitment. They prefer to “sell high.”

Furthering the point, the men happiest to get a pre-sex love confession were those interested in a short-term fling, while both men and women seeking a long-term relationship were happier hearing “I love you” post-sex.

Despite birth control and egalitarian values in modern society, these primitive patterns persist in the subconscious, Ackerman said.

The researchers hope exposing the biological underpinnings of these behaviors can help people understand the hidden meanings and motivations behind professions of love, which are ripe for misinterpretation.

CHATEAU: So what is this study telling us as it relates to game? You have to read between the lines a little, but basically it’s saying that expressions of love are intimately tied up with men’s and women’s sexual market value. Women who wait to say ‘I love you’ until after the man has said it are subcommunicating their higher value. (A high value woman juggles interest from many men, and can make a man wait for sex much longer than he is comfortable until she is satisfied his commitment to her is genuine.) In contrast, men who rush to say ‘I love you’ subcommunicate their urgency to extract sex, and thus their lower value. (A high value man is never urgent for sex because he is getting all the sex he needs from other women in his informal harem.)

I’ve never had a good result from buying a woman a gift less than three months into a relationship. It always has lowered my value in her eyes.

From the Chateau: On a number of blogs and websites covering the story of Steve Jobs’ death, there was much consternation among the commentariat about a small anecdote from his personal life retold in his new biography. Supposedly, Jobs was on a date with Joan Baez and he refrained from buying her an expensive dress that she swooned over when she saw it in the store window. Instead, he opened his billionaire’s wallet with his alligator arms and bought himself a few shirts.

Alpha.

Naturally, the dweebs that typically infest comments sections took this as evidence that Jobs is an asshole (true) and a beta who doesn’t know how to win a lady’s heart (false). The manginiac whining crescendoed in a giant betaboy wail that real men buy women stuff if they want to impress them. You could call these panty piddlers part of the lost beta generation. They have no clue.

It is much more likely that Jobs’ refusal to buy Baez that dress made him seem *more* alpha, and hence more desirable, to her. Buying women stuff — particularly buying them stuff before you have sexed them numerous times — is a surefire way to fast track yourself into the beta provider zone where women lose all arousal and make you wait three months for sex.

For the slow learners: Women do not get viscerally turned on by men who buy them things. They get avaricious when they think they have a gullible mark in their grasp. Buying women stuff to win their approval is a great way to ensure you date only heartless golddiggers.

Rollo writes: Thank you Mark Zuckerberg for creating the single greatest time-comparative engine men have ever known. I’m not a big fan of Face Book from a male standpoint, but if it has any redeeming aspect it’s that it provably shows men, in stark contrast, how women’s SMV declines. This is driven home all the better because the subject women are usually ones he’s known personally for a few years.

I entered my 20s in the early 90s, well before the internet went mainstream. I can vividly remember the women I was banging then and the ones who wouldn’t have a thing to do with me. Now I see them 20 years later thanks to social media and every single one is just ravaged by time and lifestyle. I’ve accepted friend requests from women whose memory from 20+ years ago are ones of flirtatious, beautiful lust-inspiring youth, all to be shattered when I see photos of them in their late 30s and early 40s. Then I pray to God and thank Him for sparing me from being yoked to cows like that in spite of my consuming desire at the time to get with them.

Take a minute to digest this: we are really the first generation of men to have such a convenient comparative tool. There was a time when a man could get with (or not) some girl he fancied and never see her again. Young men hear all the time how inconsequential the women they pine for really are in the grand scheme of things. Now the older men giving him advice have a tool to prove and emphasize that advice, and women have cause to lament the ugly, provable truth.

From the Chateau: …wives nag because their husbands have turned beta. Less succinctly, their husbands have become weak, enfeebled, grasping, defensive, sycophantic, solicitous “yes dear” yes-men. Strong men — alphas, you bet — almost never elicit the nagging response from their wives or girlfriends, and they aren’t exactly bending over backwards to do 50% of the housework or scrambling to fulfill all requests in a timely manner. The difference is that women never feel a need to nag an alpha lover with innumerable trivial demands, because these women who are so lucky to be with willful men have not had their sexual attraction replaced with the cold, dispiriting mentality of a schoolmarm overseeing errand boys.

Any man who takes the “experts’” advice and begins promptly responding to his wife’s nagging, thinking that resolution of her frivolous demands will resolve their marital issues, will only get more nagging, and more firmly shut legs, in return.

On the other side of the equation, the deteriorating wife syndrome explains many cases of nagging as well. Wife gets fat, old and ugly, husband loses sexual and romantic interest, wife responds by nagging to provoke signs of life from listless hubby. And the therapists and counselors say “just do what she says and all will be better”. What fools. This kind of nagging will never go away until the husband makes clear, one way or the other, that his wife’s physical decline will not be tolerated by him. A happy wife with a good body and an alpha husband is a wife who will rarely experience the incipient female compulsion to nag.

From the Chateau:

Penelope Trunk. For some reason, she gives fellow aspie and open borders ivory tower bubbleboys chubbies, who can’t stop linking to her blog, (comments by “Dave” and “Anotherphil” are illuminating). But Chateau Heartiste called this broad out for the psycho, man-hating bitch she really is a long time ago. And how that judgment has been vindicated. Prescient? Nope. Just open-eyed observers of the human condition, coupled with a smattering of experience with these types of whipsaw women.

The latest Penelope Cunk dramafest comes courtesy of a post on her blog where she displays her wrinkled slate-flat cougar ass and her wretched uncaged id on national internet, complete with bruise she alleges was from her husband, who got sick and tired of her “look at me!” provocations and pushed her into a bedpost out of frustration.

The Farmer told me that he will not beat me up any more if I do not make him stay up late talking to me.

If you asked him why he is still being violent to me, he would tell you that I’m impossible to live with. That I never stop talking. That I never leave him alone. How he can’t get any peace and quiet in his own house. That’s what he’d tell you.

Translation: Penelope Trunk berates, nags, pesters, humiliates, shrieks and wails at her husband at ungodly hours of the night and throughout the day, and he responds, in piques of frustration abetted by his normal male propensity to avoid extended verbal fights with no ending or solution in sight, by physically stifling her to make the unbearable shrew torrent stop.

What feminists either don’t understand or don’t wish to understand is that a nontrivial amount of physical domestic abuse is in response to non-physical provocation. For every action there is a reaction. Women abuse men psychologically because that is where their strength lies, and fortunately for them the marks made by psychological abuse are less photogenic than the marks made by bedposts. So women, in addition to being the beneficiaries of the ancient biological force that subconsciously deems the female of the sex a more valuable commodity than the male, get to enjoy the sympathy of the bovine crowd when they post jpegs of their thigh bruises.

These volatile domestic scenarios are almost never one way streets. Look at Rihanna. Chris Brown is a violent thug, but Rihanna could have easily avoided his flying fists of fury had she just stayed the fuck away from him. And yet, she couldn’t do that. She *still* can’t do that, in fact, and in returning to him to shower him with her love rewards his shitty behavior. Penelope Trunk does something similar with her Farmer hubby, but takes it a step further; she instigates his flashes of anger and desperation purposefully to get a rise out of him, so that she can avoid feeling abandoned. Or whatever the fuck it is she missed out on from daddy.

When guys talk about crazy bitches to stay the fuck away from, Penelope Trunk is Exhibit A.

Now don’t get me wrong. These kinds of women have some use: they are great in bed… But that’s where it ends. Save your love and commitment for the relatively sane chicks. You give your heart to a drama queen and attention whore like Penelope Trunk and you are asking for a world of emotional torment if you don’t know anything about the proper handling and care of such spaztastic specimens. Because when the screaming and crying and berating don’t work, she’ll step it up to openly flirting with other men in front of you, and then to cheating and leaving clues for you to find out about it, and finally to resorting to insane outbursts to get her hamster fix.

And you will never experience such roided up, coked up, caffeinated hamsters in your life. These critters are unstoppable.

My edumacated guess is that Penelope Trunk’s husband is a beta male at heart who has no clue about women, and even less clue about women like Trunk. He was smitten by her willingness to screw early and often, and her slender proportions, while well past prime attractiveness, compared favorably to the lumbering middle-aged cows on his horizon and put the boner in his pants for the first time in years. Being a man of little breadth of experience with women and zero game or state control, he was easy prey for Trunk’s urbane sadomasochism. She takes advantage of his rustic beta ignorance and naivete and pushes him to the brink as often as she can get away with it, while enjoying the thrill of refueling her ostentatious craving for coerced, theatrical displays of love and a relationship perpetually teetering on the precipice of doom. He, being a salt of the earth kinda guy, has no idea what he got himself into, and his instinct to control an out of control situation impels him to lean on the one defensive maneuver that worked in the past and which rises naturally from the contours of his male brain: his showstopper physical will to power. Of course, the solution is always temporary, and the cycle repeats. Which is exactly how she wants it. And she gets it.

I love a good pile-on as much as the next sadist, so here’s an ego shredding, soul killing, demonic diagnosis worthy of a Chateau Hall of Fame nomination, from a naughty little bastard called The Last Psychiatrist.

Penelope Trunk has a history of sexual abuse by her father. She has a pattern of intense, unstable relationships; a history of self-cutting, bulimia; is emotionally labile and reactive; and her primary defense mechanism is pretty obviously splitting, i.e. things are all good or they are all bad.

Trunk says she has Asperger’s, and maybe she does, but what I’ve described is “borderline personality disorder.” BPD is not a description of behavior exactly, it is a description of an adaptive coping strategy. In other words, people persist with BPD because it works. […]

Knock down fights and great make up sex is psychologically more fulfilling than a normal, calm, low-affect marriage. Mind numbing jealousy is preferable to being 100% sure of their fidelity, to the point that it will actually be invented. “Are you just looking for things to be upset about?” The answer is yes. […]

Nothing is to be gained by saying her husband abuses her, which he does, but nothing is to be gained from saying that unless he’s listening. She is abusing herself. I’m not judging her, I’m not saying she is bad or that I don’t understand it, but she’s setting up, well, a pattern of intense, unstable relationships because she needs the intensity and will thus tolerate the unstability. A relationship isn’t one sided, or bi-directional, it’s a dialectic. They are very much in it together.

A worthy flaying. Borderline personality disorder is the scientific term for attention whoring, although not all attention whores are BPD victims. Every woman has the seed of an attention whore in her, as it is the caprice of their sex, but some women, women like Trunk, through a combination of genetic enhanced femaleness and environmental instability during the formative years, become raging monsters of insatiable egos with no self-awareness or cultivated sense of modesty.

And here’s the catch. What the Last Psychiatrist describes as a deranged personality imperfection is just the normal female psychology amped up to unsustainable levels of estrogenic insanity. Women really do like a little — or a lot, for some women — uncertainty in their relationships. This is a scientifically as well as observationally settled fact. It is the natural female inclination to swoon and tingle for men who offer doses of delightful discomfort. This inclination, it should be noted, is stronger in younger, prettier girls for whom the option to act out in this way without consequence is readily available.

The Last Psychiatrist has to know that this predilection for drama, affect and uncertainty is primarily a female affliction, and, in small manageable doses, is actually the normal state of emotional functioning for the majority of women. Hamster spinning wackos with advanced cases of BPD like Trunk are extreme manifestations of this innate female condition, much like power hungry sociopaths are the extreme manifestation of the innate male predisposition to maximize status. TLP is right to highlight Trunk’s disease of the id, but he should not be tempted to think that Trunk is a wholly alien representative of the female sex.

Trunk is, to put it mildly, a hyperfemale.

But, alas, the wall looms for hyperfemales as surely as it does for emotionally grounded women. The attention whoring that provoked so much reaction from men when she was younger elicits nothing but indifference at best and contemptuous pity at worst from men when she is older and uglier. TLP:

The thing is, BPD “works” when you are young, there are always people around to tolerate it. Parents, boyfriend/girlfriend, employers, etc– and being pretty, which Trunk obviously is, helps a lot. This doesn’t mean people are necessarily nice to her, or that she’s happy; only that “crazy” behavior is more tolerable to other people when you are young.

The problem for her is she’s not getting any younger, and like it or not the only one who will put up with a 60 year old borderline is no one. Except maybe the kids, which we will get back to.

Once women start experiencing the consequences of their flighty behavior from getting older and invisible to men, the smart ones among them adjust their expectations, emotional indulgences and demands accordingly. Penelope Trunk, thanks to the sycophantic chorus of her careerist fembot and scrap-begging mangina readers, will likely continue her coyote ugly act on into perpetuity, winding up alone and unloved by anyone but her imagination and bug-eyed omega commenter nerds desperate for human contact. If she hasn’t burned too many bridges and was effective at concealing her complicity in her personal calamities, then she may retain the love of her kids into dotage. That’s a big if. More likely, the kids will slowly realize what a loon she is, and will withdraw their love until they feel safe from entanglement in her manufactured crises.

There is an easy, convenient way to deal with BPD attention whores that won’t get you socially ostracized or locked up. If I had the ear of Trunk’s husband, I’d tell him this. Instilling a dab of dread — a phone call, say, from a location where she can hear the voices of laughing women in the background — would go a long way to satisfying the drama-feeding maw of Trunk’s vagina-shaped id. No blog-fodder bruises required. At the very least, such knowledge can give him more options in women, freeing him from his desperate, fearful clinging to a visually stimulating BPD headcase.

From the Chateau: Flipping the script works. It works because women can’t resist a man who won’t tidily play by the established, and oh so boring, rules. A coy man — a man who is as circumspect and judgmental and inscrutable as women normally are at the beginning of a courtship — triggers women’s attraction, much like a woman’s firm round ass and pretty face triggers attraction in men. Male coyness — aka the art of insinuating you are the one being chased — is so odd, and so at adds with biological, not to mention social, norms, that women are compelled to chase the man who effectively adopts such a conceit. A woman thinks to herself, or rather she subthinks to herself (because these thoughts never really materialize fully into conscious awareness):

“This man is coy for a reason. What is he hiding? And how amazing is this part of him he’s hiding? He hasn’t asked a question of me yet. Does he like me or not? I can’t tell. He must have other lovers at his beck and call. I feel strangely intrigued. I need to know more.”

Once a woman is put in this chaser pattern, the seduction is yours to lose. She will be the one readily offering information about herself to win your approval, while you will lean back, literally and figuratively, judging her harshly. For it is true that every woman, despite her boilerplate blather to the contrary, secretly wants to be judged by a man. That’s how she knows you’re better than the rest.