Lust Is Love

A shopworn shibboleth heard often in various permutations from people who fearfully shirk from reality is that lust is dirty and craven and superficial while love is divine and transcendent and meaningful. This pretty lie probably has its basis in early religious texts, which pegged (heh) lust as one of the seven deadly sins.

And yet, without lust there would be no love. Much philosophy, supernatural or secular, which reveres the concept of endearing, lifelong romantic love must necessarily also revere lust for bringing its only begotten son — love — into the world. Evidence for this cosmically bonded relationship between lust and love abounds in personal experience. (Who here ever fell deeply in romantic love with someone they didn’t also sexually lust for, at least at the beginning of the relationship?)

CH knew this intimate entanglement between lust and love, long ago, before the “manosphere” was a twinkle in the blogosphere’s eye:

We here at the Chateau have in the past written that it is just as easy — in fact, may even be easier — to fall in love and begin a healthy long term relationship with a woman after having sex with her on the first date as it is with a woman who has made you wait for weeks or months before having sex. […]

Pure, feral lust is a necessary prerequisite to romantic love. A love not undergirded by animal lust is not a romantic love at all. It is, at best, a companionate love, or an affectionate love, or a phony love that two losers convince themselves to feel when no other options are available. So why delay the inevitable? If you feel hot for each other, go ahead and consummate on the first date! You won’t poison any budding relationship that might follow.

Now there is evidence from ♥SCIENCE♥ that… HO HUM… once again vindicates another vantage point in the Heartiste worldview.

Lust: Sexual desire forges lasting relationships.

People often think of love and lust as polar opposites—love exalted as the binder of two souls, lust the transient devil on our shoulders, disturbing and disruptive. Now neuroscientists are discovering that lust and love work together more closely than we think. Indeed, the strongest relationships have elements of both. […]

Brain imaging is revealing the distinct but interlocking patterns of neural activation associated with lust and love.

Lust is most likely grounded in the concrete sensations of the given moment. Love is a more abstract gloss on our experiences with another person.

Powerful lust conceives enduring love. And when lust wanes, love — romantic love at any rate — follows in its dissipating wake.

This provides ample justification for the player’s intuition that the best relationships are the ones that begin passionately, and sooner rather than later. The bounder who collects his bounty on the first date is more likely to segue into a loving long-term relationship than is the idealistic betaboy supplicant who dutifully waits ten dates for a scrap of tepid snatch.

That three date rule is more than just a game strategy for avoiding the curious cruelty of a cockteaser; it’s also a litmus test for the presence of irrepressible lust, which in turn heralds the prophetess of love. If you, or she, can hold out longer than three dates, your future love, should it come, will more closely resemble a candle flicker than a blast furnace.

This CH-embracing study also lets the air out of feminist bromides that women have to sleep around in order to determine with whom they’re sexually and temperamentally compatible. Such hogwash. If love is kin with lust, then the first man who inspires a woman’s convulsive orgasms can be, and likely will be, the man she falls in love with, or dreams of falling in love with, or regrets having let his love slip away. Such a man needn’t be her twentieth lover any more than her first lover.

And temperamentally, lust has a way of enabling superlative post hoc rationalizations of compatibility.

No, women who assert a “need to sleep around to find the right man” are playing the age-old hamster game known as “I keep getting dumped because I’m a foul skank, but I can’t tell myself that or the razor blade will start to look very inviting.”

With love,

CH





Comments


  1. agreed. and because lust so often leads to love, at least in my case, i need to remind myself of the non-lust factors that make a woman LTR-worthy. no doubt in my mind that lust is a prerequisite for love.

    Like


  2. “Love” is such a mushy term. It’s times like these that the Greek “agape,” “eros,” “filia,” and “storge” come in handy.

    Like


    • Those are the words I would use.

      But this is one of the very few times I disagree with CH. Yes, you need carnal desire, but lust can last for 18 months. People in the past understood this in a much deeper context than he is giving them credit for. The reason they made people wait, is the same reason people make you wait before buying a tv, appliance, or playstation with a credit card; if they are smart.

      Buyers remorse.

      You do have to know somebody before “buying.” If they have had sex like that all the time, then they were statistically likely to be unfaithful. In times past, a family with loose children did not fare well in the arranged marriage market. So they had to at least hide their actions, or suffer a bad reputation. Then the financial gain, and strong family ties would never be created.

      Sex is now literally just sex. Yet the consequences are still there. Pure lust is credit card relationship, old school courting was the concept of saving and buying in cash. So then you knew you owned it, if you needed to get rid of it, you knew you could.

      Like


  3. The Greeks have had this one pegged for a few millenia and built the nuances of it into the language.

    “Eros” is the word for romantic or lusting love. It is the basis for “erotic” in English.
    “Philia” is the for brotherly or friendly, but non-lustinglove (Philadelphia being the city of brotherly love).
    “Storge” is for parents felt to children and other family members.
    They also have “Agape” which is a spiritual, holy or divine love.

    When in doubt the Great Books For Men provide answers to question they didn’t ever expect to be asked.

    Like


    • We need those nuances.
      Mushy and ridiculous as it may sound, I have felt love (agape may be the closest match here) of the romantic/chivalrous type for women before, but without any or much in the way of sexual lust. There are girls I can look at and go ‘Wow, she’s gorgeous!’, without wanting to fuck them.
      There are girls who are really cute, charming and fun and make you go ‘Awwww….’, but there’s no sexual tension.
      These days, sexual attraction is mostly limited to about 10% of women under 35, actual *love* to animals.
      Because I know better now.

      Like


      • I had a very strong,ya might say obsessive “love” for a young woman years ago,for whom I didnt feel much lust at all. She was not sexually attractive,her legs were fat,she was a stumpy slightly weird part Indian/part white chick. But her voice was beautiful and her face,tho most would say it was plain,was breathtaking…to me! This was when I was going thru really horrible times. I hope that never happens again! AS for banging the gilr on the first “date”,doesnt that mean she’s a slut?

        Like


    • Concur- those distinctions are important and well-known.

      Like


    • Yup.

      And our glorious brainwashers throughout the land have convinced men that eros love > agape or even philia love.

      So the simple fact is.

      Keep agape love for God and it is the highest.
      Keep philia love for men…it is the second highest.
      Keep eros love for women…it is the third highest.

      If you see love on those terms…you’ll be fine.

      Like


      • See The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis for the best, most accessible modern interpretation of this hierarchy.

        And consult Embracing Our Femininity’s new gravatar pic: ὁ θεòς ἀγάπη ἐστίν.

        Like


    • I wonder what kind of love Matt King feels for Feministx?

      Probably a version called “PhiliaBindiBeta” — ?

      Like


  4. If a woman doesn’t lust strongly for you before falling in love your relationship is fucked. It’s that simple. Lust is there from the first moment you meet a woman, Game keeps or builds that momentum, beta hood kills it. If lust isn’t there from the jump with a woman then don’t play the game of trying to create it. Doesn’t work.

    Had to respond cuz CH posts a lot of bullshit sometimes but this one is straight truth.

    Like


  5. on October 25, 2013 at 8:50 am Lucky White Male

    Something that’s been on my mind lately. All human relationships between men and women WILL follow the following pattern, unless it can be somehow avoided

    3 Phases (see Fredrickson Love 2.0 )

    Sexual Attraction – 12 -18 months

    Affection – 2 – 3 yrs

    “Friendship” – 3- 7 years and beyond

    The so-called “7 Year Itch” in marriages, is basically what this is.

    Rest assured, anyone married much past 7 years are basically compatible “friends” that either enjoy each other’s company, or have kids and it is easier to stay married for the time being (married for sake of kids)

    This idea that you can have sexual lust with a girl after more than a few years, at best, is ludicrous

    The question then becomes: how can we expect any relationship let alone a marriage to last for decades.

    You stay married for kids. You get married because you were Blue Pill and didnt know any better, and/or you were conned by antiquated religious ideas

    Think about this a while, as I have, and you may get 1) very quickly depressed, 2) while becoming very quickly irritated about how many years of your life you may have wasted trying to force a square peg into a round hole (heh) – forcing relationships that have simply run their course

    What is the accurate way for a high value man “play” life in the face of this:

    polygamous, with a fucking rotation (Tomassi: Spin Plates, only do it indefinitely)

    Like


    • My anecdotes are not your data, but the three women who I’ve known over time (23 years, 14 years, 14 years) all told me that they came within the first 10 seconds of our first sexual liason — and all retained that desire until the end (or the present). Mutual lust box: checked. And I would do any of the three today with mucho enthusiasm if I knew it could be complication-free.

      When my ex- asked for the divorce (23 years after we met) she also still wanted to go home and fuck. (An offer I declined, but seriously.) After the divorce I once found a nude picture of me on her dresser, when I was picking up the children.

      I don’t know what “love” means, because “I love you” is so commonly used as currency to get something else. I know exactly what trust, respect and lust comprise (big-time happiness), and I’m not surprised that the brain multi-tasks between the love and lust impulses.

      Point of my comment is that I don’t buy the seven-year expiry of desire. YMMV.

      Like


      • on October 25, 2013 at 9:59 am Lucky White Male

        Interesting. Keep in mind what I’m telling you is scientifically validated

        Hearing you talk from outside, your ancedotes sound likek following

        1. Asking for the divorce then wanting to fuck: an understandable swirling cocktail (heh) of emotions: sadness tinged with melancholy for a long-ago love.

        No surprise that a lover about to call it quits also wants to fuck you: this is one last tango in paris, not confirmation of sexual lust burning brightly after 7 yrs

        2. Nude picture on dresser post-divorce: you made her an Alpha Widow, so congratulations sir. Again, this is not the tear your clothes of, fuck your brains out Sexual Chemistry phase lasting up to 14 months

        If sexual chemistry lasted, you wouldn’t see people like Jack on a constant merry-go-round of new poon for decades. He would have simply stayed with Anjelica Huston

        https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/i-only-take-viagra-when-im-with-more-than-one-woman/

        Like


      • I can’t refute your counters. Except that I wouldn’t have stayed with Anjelica either, but probably not be fat, bald and cavorting with groupies.

        Like


    • My husband and I were sleeping together for 3 years, then living together as girlfriend and boyfriend for another 3, and now married for 2 = total 8 years together

      I still lust after him a lot, he lusts after me a lot but probably not as much as I do for him, he has admitted that he gets bored of me sometimes (he said it in a nicer way but that’s what it comes down to ultimately). I have stretch marks and loose skin on my stomach from pregnancies so I can’t really blame him for not feeling the same way about me as he used to. I’ve caught him cheating a lot of times (but I don’t think he cheats as often as I suspect him of), he still sleeps with me a lot so I don’t think he can really be cheating on me THAT MUCH. I definately don’t believe men are monogamous. All men will cheat if they can in my opinion. The only ones who are not cheating are the ones who are smart enough to be discrete so they don’t get caught, and the ones who don’t have a chance to cheat. Otherwise all other men do cheat yes. I don’t think lust and love are always intertwined, especially for men. A man can lust after a girl and not love her. And I know that my husband still loves me even though my stomach isn’t sexy anymore.

      Either way no we don’t feel like ‘friends,’ nothing close to it.

      Like


    • on October 25, 2013 at 12:45 pm The Burninator

      LWM

      What you recited is the standard Blue Pill Marriage Counselor view. It’s how they convince beta husbands to accept their wife’s frigid indifference and not try to build attraction except for adding more Beta e.g. – “Plan a date night once a week! Do more dishes and laundry! Bring her flowers!”. Because yeah baby, that’s why you wanted my cock when we were first dating, you really admired my dish washing skills and the way I did laundry.

      Real lust/desire can transcend those first 2-3 years, but you have to continue to use Game inside the marriage, to keep the bad boy alive that she fell into love/lust with. Some guys succeed, most guys fail.

      Like


      • on October 25, 2013 at 5:09 pm Lucky White Male

        Real life doesnt bear you out. You can’t take direction from Athol Kay.

        A nice guy, but a clown. Did you see the picture of his wife?

        How do you fuck Athol Kay’s wife for 14 years? Unless you are a loser. Maybe he’s the Captain Alpha to her First Mate fat ass, but who wants that title?

        This stuff about “keeping the romance alive” is fodder for losers who have no other options in life. They’re basically stuck with the same woman. It is basically self-brainwashing to “convince” themselves and her its’ a First Date Night

        Let me ask you this:

        If lust lasts beyond 12 mths why do your high value men, and PUA’s operate a constant carousel of new hotties? If lust lasted, you would see them with the same broads they had 2 years ago

        Blue pill says if she’s frigid you are not making her appreciated enough – keep working at it

        Red Pill is Love 2.0 – the reason she’s frigid is that her biological attraction has run its course

        Like


      • If her initial attraction is not for a blue pill reason (and it wasn’t) what makes you think that the ways of keeping or restarting attraction are blue pill either? Yeah, probably not date night, unless it’s an excuse to get away from the kids. I tell you my marriage was like the old days for 2 weeks when the kids went to summer camp.

        Like


    • Very well said. I can personally attest to the truth in those statements

      Like


    • I kinda think that this is untrue. So long as the woman has options and is desirable, the man will have sexual attraction for her. So long as the man has options and is desirable, the female will have sexual attraction for him. The problem is that, in marriage, both parties tend to let themselves go.

      Like


    • I contend: there exists no absolutes within the laws of attraction. I’m certain the Seven year rule applies and coincides with a majority of typical marriages, however I can assure you, exceptions do exist. Case and point: my wife and I. 13 years together, (10 as husband and wife and 3 kids) and there is no shortage of lust on either side. Sex never has dropped below4- 5 times per week our entire relationship. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that she’s a hard 9, if she let her self go it would be a different story.

      Like


  6. on October 25, 2013 at 8:55 am RappaccinisDaughter

    One caveat from the distaff side of the aisle: Not all women feel lust instantly. In fact, for us, it’s fairly common to start off feeling sort of “meh” about a man from a sexual standpoint, and then to have him grow on us over time. I’ve had that happen with friends…I start by liking him as a person, and then later that turns into finding him attractive.

    Part of this is because women aren’t as visually based as men are. I’m not saying we’re less shallow or superficial—in many ways we are more so—I’m just saying that your physical appearance isn’t as important to us in terms of attraction. Being smart, funny, interesting (translate: good game plus good personality) can cause us to see you as physically attractive.

    [CH: this is absolutely true. which is why the three date rule exists — three dates allows enough time for a man to communicate his attractiveness. if, by the 3rd date, she’s still cold, that’s his cue to move on.]

    Like


    • I vastly prefer the 7 hour rule. The three date rule is just an approximation. And depending on the girl, I’d say it’s a 5-10 hour rule. If any girl — ANY GIRL….ANY OF THEM — can wait beyond like 3-4 dates to bone you, you are boring beta herb material to them.

      Like


      • Yeah, it’s been a long time since I was with a woman I couldn’t read after even two hours. Beatrice’s comment puzzles me because I haven’t met a woman in years who didn’t decide immediately if she was attracted to me. Years.

        Like


      • on October 28, 2013 at 10:58 am RappaccinisDaughter

        Well, there may be a reconciliation of the two philosophies: When most women meet a man for the first time, we do indeed rate you physically. Only instead of the 1-5 scale, or the 1-10 scale, for women it’s pretty binary: would/would not.

        It’s also more fluid than it is for men, I think—your behavior can move you from one category to another (and back again). What you may be experiencing, BV, is a woman seeing you and putting you in the “would” category…and then you do well from that point forward, increasing the attraction level from “I’d consider it” to “Let’s get a room” in short order.

        Like


      • I’m not saying that within two hours women are undressing, though this game stuff has proven pretty startling in that regard.

        I am saying that I know if I am in the ‘would’ category. I have decent social skills so my impression is that I don’t get knocked out of the ‘would’ box. (I think if a woman is thinking ‘would’, the bar is really pretty low in terms of social skills and intelligence. Is this correct?) I think it is totally obvious. The only times I’ve been wrong is when I’m dealing with a damaged person who is struggling with internal emotions across the board. And misreading that kind of deal is prudent, anyhow.

        I have never gone out with a woman who understood the outlook we discuss here, or who understood game. That would probably be more of a puzzle, a longer duration card game.

        Like


      • Lets rephrase that for women it’s pretty binary split: 20% would/80% would not. 80% of men need not apply. Let’s be clear so guys that are new to the blog would not be confused by women-speak.

        Like


    • Don’t we have some ultra-violence to settle between us?

      Like


    • The three date rule is how it generally works out, but what do you count as a date? Of course, if I ask a woman over to my place, it’s a date. Maybe I’m on a date (hanging out at a coffee shop or something) and don’t know it, unless I get IOIs or something. Even then, I wouldn’t call it a date. Besides, I live in Taiwan, and many women are attracted, but afraid of even slight social censure from anyone, especially the most beautiful ones. Having lunch, dinner or coffee with a woman or two is very common here and they often pay.

      Like


  7. “That three date rule is more than just a game strategy for avoiding the curious cruelty of a cockteaser; it’s also a litmus test for the presence of irrepressible lust, which in turn heralds the prophetess of love. If you, or she, can hold out longer than three dates, your future love, should it come, will more closely resemble a candle flicker than a blast furnace.”

    I agree 200% that irrepressible lust is necessary for romantic love, but…. let’s be fair. Girls holding out on sex aren’t necessarily doing it because they don’t want it. They’re usually doing it to protect themselves from getting hurt if they get dumped afterward. Can’t lust be demonstrated by increasing escalation and how responsive she is to it?

    Like


    • Can’t lust be demonstrated by increasing escalation and how responsive she is to it?

      Yeah… that’s how this rule can apply to tradcons. If lust ain’t there, not just on your side but on their side, you don’t want a relationship with them

      Like


  8. Honestly, reading this blog has pretty much made me depressed. All of my notions of romantic love and finding a “good girl” have been dashed. It is like a lightning bolt through my heart.

    [CH: cheer up ray gun. it’s not that bad. you could have a urethral parasite gnawing its way up your penis to feast on your lower bowel innards. #perspective ]

    Like


    • on October 25, 2013 at 9:20 am RappaccinisDaughter

      There’s nothing on this blog to contradict the fact that romantic love exists and that there are “good” girls out there. The point of this blog is to help men build the tools they need to get their feet in the door. You can’t have romantic love until you’ve met someone and gotten her interested in you, and you’re not going to be able to do that until you understand the realities underpinning male/female dynamics.

      Like


    • ray gun,

      knowing is half the battle 😉

      Like


      • Yeah, learning the true nature of women and hypergamy has been a life changing process for me. Looking back I realize all of the stupid mistakes Ive made with women, and this is coming from a guy that has NEVER had much of a problem getting pretty women with the occasional hotty. Thing is though, and call me whatever you want, I don’t really want to bang as many women as possible. I want something truly meaningful. I guess that puts me against most people who post here but I just want a good girl that I can come home to. Sounds a bit beta, but that idea sounds nice to me.

        Like


      • As CH has repeated many times “Game” is not just about slaying poon. Yes, that is it’s prime directive but the mastery that comes with it can also keep the fires burning quite brightly in an LTR too. There are whole other blogs like this one about “gaming” in the context of a stable relationship. Cheer up little shaver! It is not so bad as it seems.

        Like


      • on October 25, 2013 at 10:49 am RappaccinisDaughter

        “Sounds a bit beta”

        What’s beta? Is it beta to go after the things that you want, and to experience a high rate of success? No, that’s alpha. If what you want is an LTR, and you use the skills taught on this blog to secure and maintain one to your satisfaction, then…you’re the winner.

        Like


      • hey man, self-directed relationships and looking for the right one are sort of the point, i wouldn’t feel down about that at all.

        the things to feel down about are things like that most married women are still available, that a lot of guys raise kids that aren’t theirs, that marriage is handing someone a knife and standing with your back to them for 50 years. if you find the ‘right’ one though, you avoid all of these truly depressing things. so get to it.

        Like


    • Ray_gun, just use the game concepts in this blog to attract as many girls as you can. Not all of them will be club skanks you can take home that night, but none of them will be perfect good girl princesses, either. We’re never perfect. You can’t let it bother you; instead you make it work in your favor. Imperfection doesn’t mean that some girls aren’t much better than others, and it doesn’t mean that some girls aren’t keepers. You just have to stay realistic.

      Like


      • Yeah I’ve started to slowly adopt some stuff mentioned on her. Game is definitely useful and I plan on getting better. It is extremely hard not to fall into the old habits, though. At 26, I wish I started reading this blog at 21….

        Like


      • I am 21 years exactly right now… in 3 months i will be 22 years old.

        Like


      • on October 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm ain't nuttin but a gansta partayyy

        hey bro i started reading this at 26 too. life changing

        all it takes is consistency and drive and continual trial and error and educating yourself on the female mind. worth every second and it’s never too late

        this stuff also works its way into professional life and into your very character and we should always be growing and moving and changing for the better, whatever your better may be

        Like


    • I lived the blue pill lie, RG. Discard it ASAP. Trust me, you’ll be more optimistic and be much more capable of finding your “woman of virtue” if you discard the poisonous myths we were fed — and interact with women in a manner that is informed by reality.

      Like


    • The truth is bitter…but its fruits are sweet.

      Besides all your notions…were put in there for a specific reason. To blind you from reality.

      Like


    • Wow,CH,you’re a regular Ward Cleaver.

      Like


    • Or maybe your definition of what a “good girl” is needs to come down to Earth. A woman who avoids sex may be doing it, as Amy said, to protect herself, to conform to group norms, to hold out for the highest bidder, or because she doesn’t like sex, or even worse hates men. You don’t find that out unless you are willing to look at the cold, hard truths of women’s nature.

      The flat truth is that we are just opportunists with varying sex drives and material concerns. I would add capacities for love, but for the vast majority of women, this is only relevant in the case of their children. I have never met more than a couple of sane, heterosexual, non intersex women who ever experience or are capable of an all consuming, against everything, romantic love like men experience regularly…almost as a rule unless something gets terribly broken. Even men raised in cultures wherein women are, status wise, the dirt on their shoe experience it.

      Most of the women I’ve encountered who experience it or something close to it are either very male brained (analytical, maths oriented, maybe mildly autistic) or insane. The latter are not so much in love as in a kind of possessive obsession. There’s nothing protective about it.

      Because they are so few, and usually taken right away, the chances are extremely low that you will ever meet, much less gain the affections of a woman who will ever love you the way that you love her. This is a Hollywood dream that has been sold to fool men into thinking chasing their ideal is worth all they’ll pay to do so, and keep women constantly dissatisfied since they will never feel the kind of love the movies say they “deserve”. They’ll keep chasing that dragon and taking good men for granted until they’re too old.

      A good girl is a girl who is good to you. Whether or not that continues depends on whether you understand her and can face the realities of what it takes to keep her in your life, the same way you need to learn the needs of a tiger if you intend to keep one of them in an enclosure.

      Like


    • Why? The point is that you can have romantic love in conjunction with lust. Why does a woman being sexual with you make her not a “good girl?” Do you define “good girl” by a lack of sexual interest? I ask these questions sincerely. It seems many highly sexual men hold out for the fantasy of an asexual “good girl” type. In other words, the idea is that she is not sexual until he wants her to be, and exclusively because of him. This is magical thinking, of course.

      Like


      • I don’t think it’s entirely magical thinking. It’s just outdated.

        In the past, even in some cultures where the religion was not one of the judaic, the worlds of men and women were largely separate after puberty. Men never got to see women expressing sexuality the way that they do today. Women never felt the need to flaunt their sexuality the way they do today.

        Only recently has the fact that women are sexual creatures, and that this is normal, and some women who aren’t prostitutes even have high sex drives, come into the general knowledge. So the good girl who’s only sexual for her husband is not a Hollywood fantasy or a church ideal so much as it was the fact of normal life for people of a certain level of class and stability until society made it okay for women to be vulgar in public.

        Now, things have changed. To some degree, even women who would normally be monogamous or discrete have to kind of put it out there and play slutty to be noticed by the average guy.

        Like


    • on October 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm Hugh G. Rection

      I think the realization that you can’t be a “good guy” either kinda evens it out.

      Like


    • well, ‘good girls’ are good.
      Bad girls are even better ..
      Just learn to take advantage of them

      Like


  9. If I never met my boyfriend, I would disparage the power of “companionate” or “affectionate” love, which is I guess what my love counts as. But it’s an intense love in its own right. It is powerful and compelling.

    But I kind of don’t think it is just a companionate or affectionate love. It is also a love of idealization. Stephen Hawking gets ladies to marry him. They probably love him. I can’t imagine that they love him in a way that any of you are loved because he only has something different to offer.

    I feel like I have singer-producer love with my boyfriend. It’s like what Celine Dion has with her husband who is much older than her and has been her manager for all her life. Or what Mariah Carey had with Tommy Motolla, who was twice her age when they got married. Neither guy seems like they could be viscerally attractive to those women, but by Hollywood standards, both were successful marriages. I’m not a professional singer, but it’s sort of that dynamic. He’s twice my age, and he is my maker as an artist. I’ve noticed that celebrity models and actresses date famous athletes or actors most of the time. But singers more often than not end up with non celebrity producers or record company guys, and often they end up with guys twice their age. This makes sense to me because female singers are usually nothing without a good producer/manager. I think this is its own kind of love. I think it must actually feel pretty intense if you depend on being a singer.

    Like


    • I think what you are identifying is the non two-way nature of male / female love which I 100% agree with. Men MUST have lust for any love to spring forth and can then build from that platform. Not so with women, and I have heard women speak like you have above anecdotally throughout the years.

      It is still very fascinating to me how different our brain chemistries are when it comes to attraction. I can conceptualize what you are describing as a fairly astute and intelligent man but that is about it.

      A recent story of something like this. I was dating this girl for a short amount of time and I was talking to her in the car while parked. I really wasn’t even much paying attention or actively gaming and she blurts out. “I want to masturbate.” I was like W T F ?! I said why? She says because the way you are talking is making me wet.

      See that is the kind of stuff I just can’t wrap my brain around. If I had been talking “game on” mode or seductively, yes, ok. But this was not that but some combination of words I used, my tone of voice, and the topic just lit her up like a Christmas tree. Again, it is all fascinating.

      Like


      • Jay,

        Yeah, I kind of see what you mean in that you can’t really relate to this feeling at all. I suppose even from my boyfriend’s end, he can’t either. NYC has plenty of fat black women that sing a whole hell of a lot better than I do, but my fella doesn’t seem to take any interest in them.

        Like


      • feministx
        NYC has plenty of fat black women that sing a whole hell of a lot better than I do, but my fella doesn’t seem to take any interest in them.
        ————————————————————————————————–

        Its quite common for marginal musicians to avoid challenging themselves with better artists and instead surround themselves with rookies. its the big fish in the small pond syndrome.

        Very annoying.

        Like


    • If I… But I…I… I… me…my boyfriend…I’m not… I’ve noticed…This makes sense to me…I think…I think

      Thanks a lot for your personal take on things and anecdote. We’ll all sleep better now.

      Like


      • on October 25, 2013 at 12:51 pm The Burninator

        Instead of being bitter (which is understandable at some phase of transition to red pill) instead come to terms with women’s solipsism. It’s part of who they are, and no amount of condemnation is going to make it go away. The best you can do is roll your eyes and laugh at it, when appropriate. It is valuable sometimes though, so listen closely if it’s regarding a topic that may get you laid by said young thing. On the internet this isn’t a concern, but in real life they can give you keys to their pants in a long solipsistic rant if you pay attention closely.

        Like


    • Fex, are you a singer?

      Do you have any of your stuff online like soundcloud/itunes or something?

      I would like to hear it?

      Like


      • Femx has a really nice voice. She shared a song she’s writing on her blog.

        [CH: i’m still waiting for femx to post up with the nudies. i mean, she does want me to be nicer to her.]

        Like


      • Thank you Kate!

        Thwack, you can hear me singing here-

        http://feministx.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/my-songs/

        I am not a professional at all. As a singer, I am entirely a creation of my boyfriend. I didn’t even sing in the shower before I met him, and I had little idea that I could sing. He worked with me a lot to help me develop a style and also have basic competency in terms of technique.

        [CH: demanding artist game.]

        I can play the piano at a really basic level, but I’m far from a complete artist without my boyfriend. He works with my ideas to develop arrangements and he helps me shape the melody of songs so that they have better hooks.

        CH, I am at work, so I cannot do that. Before you told me that posting such would be unwise. I have come to accept that as correct, so I will not be going back to my old ways.

        [oh, it’s definitely unwise. but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work to soothe the savaging beast.]

        Like


      • [CH: demanding artist game.]

        Yes, it is very much so.

        [CH: chicks dig a man of challenge.]

        [oh, it’s definitely unwise. but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work to soothe the savaging beast.]

        Oh dear. Guess you’ll have to rock on wit yo bad self then :-/

        [i won’t stop. i can’t stop. and you love it.]

        Like


      • I would have said that I merely tolerate it, but love it? Dunno. If you say so I guess.

        [CH: this is the female version of a crash and burn flirt.]

        Like


      • Come on, fem. Admit you love him for the rapier wit and eviscerating commentary. I’d add “withering stare”… but I don’t think you two have met.

        Like


      • Oh? Now you mention it, I think sheer abuse game is over my head.

        [CH: hysteria the deliria.]

        It seems only maya is clever enough for the tete a tete in this arena.

        [and yet you keep coming back for more.]

        Amy, are you trying to live vicariously through my internet self?

        [she wants to see your breaking point.]

        Like


      • [and yet you keep coming back for more.]

        Come come. Why such low self image?

        [CH: i’m not the one racing back to dance on the puppeteer’s strings.]

        It’s possible that abuse is not the only compelling thing you have to offer.

        [so you admit you’re compelled?]

        [she wants to see your breaking point.]

        That just might be you projecting.

        [it’s fun for the whole family!]

        Like


      • You are asking if I find you compelling? This is like asking a six year old if they like Christmas.

        I can internet love you whether you are kind or cruel, so you can spend your energy as you see fit.

        Like


      • on October 25, 2013 at 6:49 pm Reservoir Tip

        None of us are going to listen to it.

        Like


      • If that is really you (sorry, this is the internet) then Im pleasantly surprised; you are pretty good and have a decent singing voice; respect to you.

        I don’t know what motivates you to sing but I will give you this peice of advice; stop with all the self disqualification and the “this is my boyfriends idea…” nonsense. it will do nothing to innoculate you from the haters.

        You might as well own it because hate never sleeps.

        Good for you, that was fun.

        Like


      • You be nice anyway, meaniepants.

        [CH: is that a meanie in your pants or are you happy to see me?]

        No one wants to be on the receiving end of your rants.

        [rants? au contraire, mi deplore. euphonic vivisections.]

        And if I catch you hollerin’, I’ll only write in rhyme.

        [i ain’t botherin’, vagina’s on my mind.]

        Believe me, I can do it a long time 🙂

        [that’s what he said.]

        Like


      • Euphonic vivisections or symphonic communerections,
        your capitalization still needs correction 🙂

        Like


      • Kate,

        Does your presence in these parts indicate Minter could not satisfy your hypergamy, or am I mistaken?

        Like


      • @Sigma Male — I was wondering the same thing.

        Like


  10. on October 25, 2013 at 9:23 am Random Latino

    Lust cannot be confused with any kind of sexual attraction. Lust is the excess of sexual desire. Healthy sexual desires is for lust what hunger is for gluttony.

    Like


    • The greek definition for lust as spoken by Jesus when saying that to lust after a woman is the same as committing adultery is different than how we use it today. The greek definition of lust is both desire AND intent.

      Like


    • Correct, Random, thanks for clarifying it.

      Lust is not a feeling, it is a willful over-indulgence. Too much of a good thing. Its closest analogue is gluttony, an obese woman cramming her maw in a doughnut shop.

      But the down-trodden and sexless do not want to hear about excesses at this stage in “the game.” And, being so deprived, they cannot fathom ennui or surfeit ever becoming a factor.

      Like a henpecked husband deprived by his shrew: “Too much sex??? What’s that!!! Amirite? Do ya know what I mean or do you know what I mean?”

      Matt

      Like


  11. Love vs lust? Jewish theologists had this figured out a long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust#Judaism

    “In Judaism, all evil inclinations and lusts of the flesh are characterized by yetzer HaRa (Hebrew, יצר הרע, the negative desire). Yetzer hara is not a demonic force; rather, it is man’s misuse of the things which the physical body needs to survive”

    “The Torah is considered the great antidote against this force. Though, like all things which God has made, the Yetzer is good: for without it, man would never marry, beget a child, build a house, or trade.”

    Like


  12. Agree with the basic point of the post, basically that sexual desire is a prerequisite for romantic love, and yet it’s easy to conjure (or recall) situations in which love and lust are quite distinct and distinguishable. You can lust after a fling, or ONS, or even a hot stripper, without notions of love even coming into your head. And you can have surprisingly strong feelings for women who you have no (or no longer have) desire for at all. An analysis of that would probably involve an in-depth look at the neurochemistry of pair-bonding- what happens there, how, and why. There’s probably some science out there on that, in addition to the paper cited in the post.

    Like


  13. I married the man who gave me my first orgasm!

    I gave him a BJ the second time we hung out (I’m not a slut! It “just happened” lol). It was the first BJ I had ever given.

    The first time we had sex I had an orgasm. I wasn’t a virgin, I had had sex before but had never had an orgasm before.

    We were sleeping together for 3 years without him wanting to be in a relationship with me. He said that he loved me but he wasn’t ready for a relationship 😦

    After 3 years he let me be his girlfriend and let me move in with him. Then another 3 years after that I got pregnant and we got married. We are still together and in love! ❤ ❤ ❤

    Oh and my father HATED him lol. I don't think fathers understand that telling their daughter that their beau is 'evil' and 'dangerous' only makes her want them more. My father was a leftie SWPL liberal type and my husband is extreme right wing. I believe if a girl doesn't have a strong father figure she will rebel and end up with a guy who stands for the exact opposite of everything the father stands for. I also know a girl who has a strong father figure and she ended up with a man who is just like her father.

    Like


    • My father was a leftie SWPL liberal type and my husband is extreme right wing.

      heheheheheh

      Like


    • Parental hatred is your friend.
      If her dad wants you dead, she’ll want your baby ASAP.
      If her mom declares you an angel, she’ll be fucking another guy before nightfall.

      Like


  14. Don’t you maybe confuse ‘lust’ with ‘passion’?

    Lust is a deadly sin because it takes control away, makes you an animal, so to speak. No longer are you steered by clear thinking and strategic goals but just like any other underclass gangbanger only by your wish for immediate fullfillment of carnal wishes. This sounds very anti-game to me.

    Also, being scientific, intellectual and strategic is by no means any hinderance for having crazy fun with your girl, that’s where passion comes in.

    Like


  15. What you call lust…I call desire.

    But yeah if she doesn’t have it for you…don’t waste your time trying to cultivate it.

    No matter how much game you have…you can’t negotiate desire with a woman. It’s either there or not.

    Like


  16. Me and my ex had incredible incredible lust power it was something else. Some days we would just bang all day long. On one particular occasion we were in the bedroom from morning to 6pm. Literally didn’t leave the bedroom except for some water and a snack. Breaking up with her was one of the most painful experiences of my life. But It needed to be done otherwise she would have destroyed me. If only a few things were different (too much drinking and selfish) about her I would have stayed with her until the end of time.

    Like


  17. I agree wholeheartedly and I think this topic leads into the broader topic of “settling.” Most see settling as a bad term, implying that one is accepting something less than they want in a romantic partner, in order to try to insulate themselves against the sexual market.

    [CH: getting what you want > settling > grinding solitude.]

    I believe this is the wrong view however. If anyone wants a life-long relationship with a member of the opposite sex, settling is an absolute requirement and its not a bad thing.

    You’ve probably heard the expression “show me a beautiful woman and I’ll show you a man who is tired of banging her.”

    [the more beautiful the woman, the longer it takes to get tired of fucking her.]

    This is a fact of life. Once a man conquers a beautiful woman, he still wants more women, and more beautiful women. Hypergamy is the same way. Women are naturally inclined to always want to trade up the ladder, even when they have an alpha man (the exception being when they are pregnant or with an infant). Lust is a biological function that is constant, but it is temporary.

    If you want a relationship to last, you have to learn to settle for what you have, and to agree to take yourself out of the sexual market. This isn’t just true for unattractive people. Even a supermodel married to a famous millionaire can potentially trade up, and no doubt a famous millionaire can find a younger model that will have him. Lust would not feel so exceptional if it were the norm. This principle is inherent to conscious existence. But love and good sex can exist after lust. It just isn’t the same. If you want lifelong love, you have to accept the diminishment of lust and you have to settle for what you have.

    Like


    • If what you want is a lifelong relationship with a woman, you have to mentally settle. The predilection to lust for other women (desire for new pussy) will always be there, sometimes even for women who aren’t as objectively as attractive as the one you’re with.

      [CH: in the abstract, avoidance of settling may be an impossibility, at least for men who are the sex that is wired to appreciate mating variety. but you can greatly reduce the pangs of regret and resentment that accompany settling by gunning for a woman who is as high on the SMV scale as you are able to procure. the closer you manage a mate who embodies your ideal, the less you’ll feel like you settled, or feel like you need to rectify a boring relationship.]

      Like


      • There are more ways to design a relationship.

        Like


      • Is it impossible for a man to be 100% happy with monogamy? If a woman really loves a man, should she try her hardest to look the other way and ignore it if he is occasionally unfaithful? Is occasionally experiencing other women integral to his happiness?

        Like


      • as lawyers like to say… it depends! but, seriously, your mileage may vary as to all questions you’ve posed. most men would, if it were readily available to them and would not result in negative consequences, prefer to have multiple partners. however, there are plenty of folks out there with low sex drives, overwhelming commitment to religious principles, etc., who are just fine taggin’ their wife and their wife alone. as has been mentioned in this thread (and in many prior threads), the length of your relationship plays considerably into this analysis.

        Like


  18. The word lust has changed from the time that the seven deadly sins were listed to today. At the time the word lust implied both desire and intent. So random woman inspired sexual arousal has never correctly been considered a sin (although it may commonly be considered a sin by the average church lady whose morality is based far more on her own sense of propriety than anything that is written in the Bible).

    Like


  19. CH you mentioned the 3 date rule is a litmus test of irreprisible lust, but lust can be generated artificially too, after being in the loveless relationship, yeah?

    I was an utter beta male stuck in a loveless,lustless relationship for 2 years. The girl dumped me, I almost committed suicide, but friends stopped me. A friend redirected me to the Chateau and other game blogs. Swallowed the red pill. Worked on myself. Got six packs, corrected my beta ways, found a mentor. I went from 3 notches to 45 in a year and half. Met the girl about 3 months ago, she was shocked. She’d also gone from a 7 to 8 meanwhile. We’ve had crazy sex and attraction’s skyrocketed. Its a crazy rollercoaster relationship. Lust yeah. Love?? Perhaps.

    Like


    • “I was an utter beta male stuck in a loveless,lustless relationship for 2 years.”

      Unless she was a virgin or “seeing” other men, you really have to wonder about a girl who’s willing to be in a sexless relationship for two years. How romantic and sexual can she really be? Not that you can’t have fun finding out, but… I think you should be wary.

      Like


    • dude, no. move on for good after you bang her out. unfortunately, she will ALWAYS remember you as the sadsack she left who almost committed suicide. the good news is that she’s the only one (other than, perhaps, your two prior partners) who “knos” who you “were.”

      Like


  20. Arranged marriages last longer than when couples “fall in love”, so I’m not sure about this theory. This emphasis on passionate love is probably why modern marriages fall apart so often. I think the idea marriage would be similar to Natasha and Pierre’s marriage in War and Peace. There is pretty much no chance of divorce in that situation.

    Like


  21. I know the Judaic religions are all about repressing sexuality, which is why I have to laugh whenever I read the Sing of Solomon:

    She:

    Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
    for your love is more delightful than wine.
    3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
    your name is like perfume poured out.
    No wonder the young women love you!
    4 Take me away with you—let us hurry!
    Let the king bring me into his chambers.

    It’s pretty much a book ABOUT lust and how awesome it is. Sounds like Solomon was quite the Alpha….

    Like


    • on October 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm Hugh G. Rection

      Didn’t the story also say something about 100 or 1000 wives or something? That’s gotta be terrible, imagine you got hundreds of broads on the rag at the same time.

      Like


      • I am so happy for what this great spell caster called Dr.Kwale did for me, for a very long time now i have been in a serious battle in my family affair my husband left me and my two kids for no reason at all and went after another woman but right now thanks to Dr.Kwale my family is once again together if you have problems in your family affair you should contact the Dr.Kwale via email on: [email protected] or call him on +2348o56141089 And i assure you that your problem will be solved..

        FADH

        Like


  22. OT: Just because it is funny.

    Like


    • I wake up every morning praying to my God to strengthen Dr.Kwale for his good works that he is doing around the world. I lost my lover some months back but thanks to Dr.Kwale for helping me to get back. Contact Dr.Kwale on [email protected] or call +2348056141089. Thank you Dr.Kwale for the help you render me..

      MIKE LONDON

      Like


  23. How do you game guys even stand women? I’m an omega male and I don’t like them, they’re dumb and horrible human beings in general.

    And if I ever tasted success I’d resent them even more.

    So let me get this straight, an entire sex ignores my existence for thirty+ years but because I read some social-skills-material I found on the interwebs and read it out to them in a believable fashion they all suddenly wanna fuck me now??? As if they’re totally blind to the creepy awkward repulsive piece of shit that’s hidden just a millimeter below the surface?? That’s it, poof it’s gone?!!

    HOW FUCKING STUPID DO THEY HAVE TO BE???

    How can anyone ever take them seriously in any capacity? Am I supposed to forgive them for this tiny little oversight? Like oh I’m sorry that I didn’t learn your dumb fucking womanese language, my bad.

    Women treat most men like dog shit but only if you ‘understand them’ can you fucking talk to them? How the fuck can half the worlds population be so fucking cruel and dumb at the same fucking time? God really fucked it up when he made them, he probably pissed and shit on their logic and language circuits by accident.

    [CH: you’re either an “agree and amplify” troll, or you’re so jacked up with unspent semen that it’s starting to cloud your good sense. take a breather, stop trolling, go outside, smile and say hi to some rando broad. report back in three years.]

    Like


    • So let me get this straight, an entire sex ignores my existence for thirty+ years but because I read some social-skills-material I found on the interwebs and read it out to them in a believable fashion they all suddenly wanna fuck me now??? As if they’re totally blind to the creepy awkward repulsive piece of shit that’s hidden just a millimeter below the surface?? That’s it, poof it’s gone?!!

      No, in my own case, it took a couple of years to turn the creepy awkward guy I was into something better, and the process is continuing.

      Sorta like the difference between the Catholic and Protestant ideas of justification. Protestants say you just believe on the Lord Jeezus Christ and you’ll be saved, despite being a repulsive piece of shit. It’s the exact equivalent of the perception of Game that you have, as snake-oil salesmanship. Catholics insist upon an overhaul of your entire character and constant vigilance and maintenance, which is the proper attitude to take toward Game.

      It takes work, and time. You sound impatient. You can’t be, if you want to get better.

      Like


    • on October 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm The Burninator

      So…you’re mad because they won’t pay attention to you because of HOW YOU ACTED. You learned how to act and now you’re mad because they pay attention to you based on HOW YOU ACT? Did I leave out any relevant detail?

      It sounds to me like excuses for not doing anything with women. Here’s a pro tip: Human beings act and react to certain things in predictable patterns. It’s called psychology. Be mad about it all you want, but that won’t change it or make it go away. What else did you want, women just magically liking you for the “person you are” (who was, actually, hate filled towards women)? What kind of fucked up magical world do you expect delivered to you anyway? What, precisely, would you explicitly want women to react to? The wind? The tides? Or something predictable that you can learn?

      It really looks to me like you’re just searching for reasons to fail, and will accept no victory even if it means you have to spite yourself. Either get over your anger, or stop pursuing women if that’s what you’re doing, or at best, use your anger to help you learn how to pursue them with better Game. Sitting around posting self laments is boring and unmanly.

      Like


    • Oh fer god’s sake. Get over yourself. Calling yourself repulsive hasto stop number 1. We are made in the image and likeness of god. Repeat it til you believe it, despite our host’s skepticism.

      Get a female relative to give you some clothing advice and develop some hobbies, -not- call of duty.

      You also may be paying too much attention to showboating hotties rather than the lower profile. There are many shy, nerdy, slightly socially awkward
      Girls out there you may fi nd something in common with. Altho i suspect you’re only venting, don’t sound so defeatist.

      Like


    • I think Patrice has spirit and insight. It is a bit weird that women respond so differently to what our culture says they hate, than to what our culture says they love. I actually think that this is a very healthy insight to use as a point of departure.

      I defer on the sola scriptura/Catholic thing. As C.S. Lewis said very well, these particularists don’t matter.

      Like


    • “”Patrice
      How do you game guys even stand women? …..

      How can anyone ever take them seriously in any capacity? “”

      Patrice, you’d have to be an idiot to take them seriously.

      It seems they lie almost as a matter of principle, until you realize someone can’t lie about reality unless they actually know what reality is, which they don’t.

      It seems they go after the most horrible, parasitic men available, or men that command the most resources that they can leech, so they don’t go after the good in men just the thrill– then you realize they can’t go after the good because they don’t know right from wrong, just what they want from what they don’t want.

      They’re toys, expensive toys. Weird toys that can reproduce. They use language as a method to get desired sperm and money to reproduce. In my paranoid moods I think of them as hostile aliens.

      One needs to refer back to Freud’s axiom:
      Man’s primary love object is woman, woman’s primary love object is her children.

      You’re just an afterthought to a woman except for your sperm-and-resources.

      Like


  24. [CH: you’re either an “agree and amplify” troll, or you’re so jacked up with unspent semen that it’s starting to cloud your good sense. take a breather, stop trolling, go outside, smile and say hi to some rando broad. report back in three years.]

    I am not a troll. I am in my thirties and still a virgin. I have been on two dates my entire life and been kissed once (over a decade ago).

    I have been actively ignoring and avoiding women the past 5 or 6 years now. In my job, amongst friends, everywhere. If I can’t ignore them I keep things as short as possible.

    I know this won’t get me anywhere but I hate them. I’m not sure if you’ve dealt with hard-case newbies like this, but CH, how can you erase the hatred??? How???

    I am hateful but I don’t want to be.

    Like


    • bro, we know. you keep telling us. the reason why you’re annoying is because you seem to enjoy wallowing in your pityparty. either make a decision to improve (slowly and incrementally, naturally) or do us all a favor and get the fuck out of here.

      Like


    • on October 25, 2013 at 1:33 pm The Burninator

      OK, a quick psychiatric evaluation. Do with it what you will.

      Almost all hatred of others, that is not due to abuse, is actually a hatred of self. If a person beats you or intentionally tortures you, sure, hate them. If you hate an entire class of people (women, for example) what you’re actually hating is how you were treated by most every woman you ever met. But what was the common denominator between all of those meetings? You. You are the common denominator. Your hatred then is due to their reactions to how YOU dealt with them, transferred outward to them instead of your own behaviors. You are hating your own impotence before women.

      Women as a class did not get together and decide to abuse you or torture you psychologically. Your entire approach to them was wrong in the past, and you got angry, but with predictably effeminate solipsism you turned that anger towards them without realizing it was you that was the problem all along.

      You have two choices, come to accept your HUGE, exclusive role in your own rejection, or live in a fantasy world where “they” are all aligned against you. If you lose the hatred, your anger towards yourself, you can begin to come to terms with why you were rejected and continue to be rejected. Once you come to terms with that, accept the blame for your own place in life, then you can work on it. But you have to realize that you’re expressing self hatred first, and stop blaming them for your own deficiencies, in order to deal with it and fix it.

      That’s it. The charge is five cents, in accordance with the Lucy rule of psychotherapy. I take PayPal.

      Like


    • You might need some professional help first, Patrice. No shame in that.

      Like


      • Amy is right, for sure. Therapists call being as bad off as you are and not trying to change “Help-rejecting complaining.”

        You want to keep getting sympathy for staying the same. Something for nothing. It’s actually YOU that is being antisocial– leeching sympathy without doing anything for others in return. You’ve become part of the problem of coldness and entitledness.

        I am quite hostile sometimes to women as well, but I realize it’s just because my personality is not very appealing to them, and I’m hurt by being rejected.
        Everybody has strengths and weaknesses, I’m smart, I can make money, I’m creative– we worship the natural that always has women around, but some of us just don’t do so well and never will, although we can improve to some degree.

        Unfortunately, women actively screen out men who are sensitive to rejection, because their primary use for men is a man’s ability to insensitively and aggressively go out and command resources for them women’s children.

        So people like us are sort of trapped in a vicious circle unless you can find wealth fame game whatever lever naturals don’t have.

        Ironically I’m fairly good looking, so I KNOW it’s my personality haha.

        Some people are born with cerebral palsy and are trapped in wheelchairs all their lives. Being a loser with women isn’t the worst thing in the world.

        Like


    • I think you have some positives to build from. You seem to have a red pill acceptance of general female tendencies. I also personally do not like over half of them. But I don’t have hatred for them. If they don’t make it easy for me I don’t waste my time. The reward isn’t good enough to motivate me to go to all the lengths people think about it on here. After being with a couple hot chicks it really isn’t all that. It’s a big lust rush at first, and then they start acting annoying like most chicks.

      But I have been with some women who were good people along the way. They are out there. And I don’t think you should be forming such definite impressions of women when you have never had an emotionally and physically intimate relationship with one. Try to keep an open mind.

      Finally, maintain your own frame. Don’t let the acceptance or rejection of a woman determine whether you hate them or love them or whatever. Focus on figuring out what you want to accomplish with this life and then break down the steps necessary to achieve it. When you put in the work and learn how to get things done, you aren’t nearly as nervous around women because their approval is not the end all be all of your self-worth.

      Like


    • Don’t “erase the hatred,” omega. Channel it, sublimate it.

      Whites are very good at this. And there’s plenty to be pissed off about.

      The worst thing you could do would be channeling righteous anger into video games and sports and ranting on the web and the like. Do not live vicariously.

      Matt

      Like


      • As opposed to you, who skips the video games and sports and just…channels righteous anger into ranting on the web?

        Like


      • Matthew King

        Don’t “erase the hatred,” omega. Channel it, sublimate it.

        Whites are very good at this. And there’s plenty to be pissed off about.
        ————————————————————————————————

        Matt is correct, but don’t go crazy and shoot up a school or something.

        Hate is a form of nrg, it can make you more stronguler.

        “They hate me so much, they love me. They’d kill to have me, they hafta kill me; their hatreds pure, I am divine’

        Like


    • No reason to hate all women. No reason to hate any woman who didn’t put you down.

      It’s an interesting problem. If your mother tried to kill you, you’d likely be the best ladies man out there, disproving your mom’s thesis.

      Anyway, you’re not going to get dates and kisses if you hate women. They have radar for that. So figure out why you hate all women. Eliminate the hate. Eat healthy. Get laid.

      Like


    • Assuming you’re not a troll and your cry for help is genuine – a basic tried-and-true premise understood here is that your identity is not static, it’s fluid and can be taken in any direction you choose to take it. Seems you’re aware that hating isn’t any way to live your life. Realise that blame is a form of self-pity and also an easy shortcut to absolving yourself of accountability. Accountability for what? For not fulfilling your biological imperative to become the greatest man that you can become. You can’t hate women for their “cruelty” in the way they select men, any more than you can hate evolution itself. Hate instead the blue pill thinking you’ve been spoon fed from birth. Ignore what Amy said about professional help. That’ll likely just be a blue pill detour. There’s nothing wrong with you per se, what you need is a sustained willingness to change & a whole load of red pill reading.

      Like


  25. Interesting.

    I’ve had a few, maybe more, girls surrender the snatch the first time our paths crossed, though I never considered them for greater romantic investment because of their sluttery, not even for a nanosecond. If a girl spreads to easily for me she necessarily disqualifies herself, losing my potential commitment.

    My brother, however, popped his wife on the first date …they have two kids now. To each his own I guess.

    ******

    I’m 35, dating a 23 year old, introverted, bookish sort of girl. I recently took her virginity at the five month mark of our relationship. Yes, you read that right: five months before my shaft drew blood. I could of slayed her pissclam on the second date if I wanted, though she tells me I’m ‘full of it’, but I decided to hold off on sex with her under the assumption that, if she earns my commitment, the potential relationship will be stronger due to manufactured abstinence.

    She’s introverted, has a small, but tight-knit group of friends and family … she’s submissive and takes direction with pleasure, she has no desire to lead or compete with me and she has red pill views of gender dynamics and race(though I keep it light n fluffy with her. When I want to talk race or politics I do it with men).

    The above factored into my calculus to postpone sex, because I do want to have a couple sons and a daughter with a stable girl whom embraces and enjoys her femininity.

    P.S. I had two FWBs leading up to sex with the former virgin. #novoluntarycelibacy #noparchedpecker

    Like


  26. Love is a battlefield. That’s why you need game

    Like


  27. Just wanted to note that my personal experience confirms this, as well as the experience of the most alpha guy I know.

    He has 200+ lays easily, college defensive lineman. A few weeks ago we’re speaking and I’m shocked because all of the sudden he’s in relationship. I was like, what happened man no more single life? He goes,

    “Yea, she woke up in my bed one morning and it turned out she was pretty cool, so I decided to keep her around.”

    Like


  28. I agree that without lust, there is no romantic love. It’s as you say, a “phony love that two losers convince themselves to feel when no other options are available.”

    Lust is a catalyst to love.

    However, I disagree on “irrepressible lust” being such a good thing for the long run. It’s great while you’re in the middle of that kind of crazed lust, but it doesn’t last long if it’s not founded on terra firma.

    “That three date rule is more than just a game strategy for avoiding the curious cruelty of a cockteaser; it’s also a litmus test for the presence of irrepressible lust, which in turn heralds the prophetess of love. If you, or she, can hold out longer than three dates, your future love, should it come, will more closely resemble a candle flicker than a blast furnace.”

    If you can hold out past 3 dates, your love will not necessity resemble a “candle flicker,” and having a “blast furnace,” is not guarantee of lasting love. There is such a thing as burning too quickly and consumed too fast. And there is also a such a thing as waiting and erupting in flames that endure.

    And let’s be honest, if a girl puts out too fast, which is within 3 dates, you guys will not respect her as much as if she made you wait longer, because the sex came too easy and you didn’t have to try hard and cajole and conqure. In addition, once you taste her and get past the lust, you start wondering about her character. Is she like that with all guys? Who did she do this with before me? Doesn’t she have self-control? What is she hiding from me. Therefore, sex within 3 dates, is good for the cynical/jaded man who never wants to get married.

    Girls wanting a husband should really not let the lust get in the way, unless it had a chance to built and based on a real relationship, as opposed to just wanting to fuck each other so badly. Most Hollywood relationships fail primarily because they are solely based on sex. Of course, the lifestyle and the fame also contribute to the chaos they endure, but first and foremost the problem is they sleep together after one or two dates.

    Why it’s not good?

    1) First, it clouds the woman’s judgment and she might mistake the lust for love, when the love might be just temporary and mostly based on the novelty of the relationship. Temporary love is infatuation. We’ve all been victims of it, however good it feels to be in the thralls of it.

    2) Second, clouding her judgment with lust also means that she can’t evaluate him dispassionately as being the right man for her.

    3) Third, from the man’s perspective, getting access too fast to a woman is just going to cause him doubts about her. But if he had to wait, he might stick around past the initial get-to-know-you lustful sex that burns like a “blast furnace,” and evaluate her more honestly than just a temporary flame that burned out of fuel when his interest dissipate.

    4) Are relationships so bad for men? If women were more old-fashioned about their sexuality, we’d have more successful relationships and loving marriages, as opposed to the throngs of cougars walking the halls of academia and corporate America, or single mothers and divorcées rising their children without a dad.

    Lust is a wonderful gratifying thing, and any couple that can have their lust endure are really blessed with a great gift. However, lust can never endure based on speed. As is, it’s an intrinsic thing that has no tangible quality. It can be so fleeting that you can hardly hold on to when it’s over. All it can do is leave you almost empty inside when it’s over. However, your best bet to making it linger as long as possible, is to build it on firm ground. It can’t be based only on instant gratification, otherwise, you’re ensuring it will burn out fast and furious before you even knew what hit you.

    I do agree with you though that a woman doesn’t need a lot of practice and lots of lovers to experience the love of her life. Women who sleep around are nothing but sluts. So how do you expect a non slutty woman to give you access to her within 3 dates? Those two characteristics don’t go together. You can’t expect a woman to give you access to her within 3 dates, and also be that women that doesn’t sleep around, either stays a virgin or has a very low count, or you’ll say that sex with her will be like a “candle flicker.”

    Either way, it behooves women to wait, even though it’s in direct opposition of what men want, which is to get it out of the way as soon as possible.

    Like


  29. on October 25, 2013 at 4:19 pm Jacob Ian Stalk

    CH, this race to the bottom you’re on has had a few nitrous boosters over the years but, boy howdy, you seem to have reached the home stretch with this post. Here we were deluding ourselves that our closest extant relative, the bonobo, never closed the gap from making flint to making fire because when the male falls in ‘love’ he just eats shoots and leaves. Silly us.

    Like


  30. I don’t know about the data, but this is anecdotally borne out by all the pua videos and posts.

    Women “fall in love” after you fuck them. Women start pining after a guy who sparks attraction and gets the kiss close.

    Why do women hate “nice guys” who work to prove their “love”?

    The whole psychology of LJBF bears this out: “I love you but I’m not IN LOVE with you” meme.

    It’s also why women desexualize a guy immediately after breaking up to rationalize to themselves he wasn’t right.

    It’s also why disappearing, no contact etc work in re-igniting passion and “love” ie lust. Women want to chase things of higher value.

    Like


  31. This is Michael from Dalrock. Lust is not love.

    Like


  32. This is true. I once thought I loved a girl. I thought about her every day. Other girls were viewed more or less as fuck meat, but this girl I wanted to hug and kiss and be all lovey dovey with. Then, one night, I had a dream about her wherein she had these things growing out her stomach. When I awoke in the morning, I asked myself “Would you still love this girl if she really had these things growing out of her?” and the answer was ‘no’. So even though I thought my feeling went beyond the flesh, they obviously didn’t go far beyond it.

    Like


  33. […] A shopworn shibboleth heard often in various permutations from people who fearfully shirk from reality is that lust is dirty and craven and superficial while love is divine and transcendent and meaningful.  […]

    Like


  34. […] And yet, without lust there would be no love. Much philosophy, supernatural or secular, which revere… […]

    Like


  35. The biblical word lust means simply intense desire in the body. So whatever it is you desire too much is called lust. Modern day hick-Christians think it means licentiousness, which is out of control sexuality. But yeah, “love” is the beta end of sexual lust.

    Like


  36. […] has a post on his blog titled “Lust is Love,” in which he makes the assertion that (as the title suggests) lust is actually the same […]

    Like


  37. […] Lust Is Love – from heartiste. […]

    Like


  38. the only reason that the ones who wrote the scriptural law forbade lust is for population control and to uphold formal marriages.

    This was according to the writings of the great Maimonides and note that he was very objective and scientific in his writing as he was also a medical doctor

    Like


  39. Metalocalypse nailed it!

    Like