Study: Dominance, Not Looks, Predicts Men’s Mating Success

A solid, thick, tight study has scraped the shins with a loaded deadlift bar, and the findings are nothing short of an ECA stacked validation of CH teachings. For as long as the Provencal sun has shone its ethereal light on the Chateau, we have been saying that male power and dominance — and the outcome independent attitude that conveys those traits — are the primary male attractiveness cues that women LOVE LOVE LOVE. And where there’s LOVE LOVE LOVE, there’s TINGLE TINGLE TINGLE.

Although recent research has increasingly focused on human sexual selection, fundamental questions remain concerning the relative influence of individual traits on success in competition for mates and the mechanisms, form, and direction of these sexual selective pressures. Here, we explore sexual selection on men’s traits by ascertaining men’s dominance and attractiveness from male and female acquaintances. On a large American university campus, 63 men from two social fraternities provided anthropometric measurements, facial photographs, voice recordings, and reported mating success (number of sexual partners). These men also assessed each other’s dominance, and 72 women from two socially affiliated sororities assessed the men’s attractiveness. We measured facial masculinity from inter-landmark distances and vocal masculinity from acoustic parameters. We additionally obtained facial and vocal attractiveness and dominance ratings from unfamiliar observers. Results indicate that dominance and the traits associated with it predict men’s mating success, but attractiveness and the traits associated with it do not. These findings point to the salience of contest competition on men’s mating success in this population.

“Only looks matter” shut-in dorks wept bitter, Cheetos-laced orange tears.

This study is chock full of quotable goodness, and the experimental breadth is wide enough to spur further discussion.

[P]rior studies have typically focused on either female choice or male contests without attempting to quantify the relative contributions of these mechanisms to the total sexual selective pressure on a particular trait (Hunt, Breuker, Sadowski, & Moore, 2009). Second, to our knowledge, no study reporting relationships between a male trait and mating success has investigated whether these relationships were mediated by attractiveness or dominance. Third, most studies of sexual selection in men have measured success under female choice or male contests from limited information, such as body size, strength, or ratings of faces or voices made by strangers in the laboratory. Attractiveness and dominance have thus frequently been assessed devoid of relevant information, such as personality and intelligence, and in isolation from the complex webs of social relationships in which we live.

Your charmingly egotistic Chateau lords have insisted for a long time that a major shortcoming of studies attempting to measure male sexual attractiveness is the lack of examining the all-important components of personality and attitude, or what we in the business call charisma, aka game.

Although we are interested in how past selection produced present sexual dimorphisms, we take a behavioral ecological approach, which emphasizes contemporary selection. We take this approach because we expect that, in general, current function will provide insight into past function. However, attractiveness, dominance, and even mating success have likely been at least partly decoupled from reproductive success by features of modern industrial environments such as effective contraception and socially imposed monogamy.

“Only men who have kids are alpha” game haters wept as well. In CH shorthand: The Pill and condom thwart reproduction, but encourage copulation. And which men are doing the bulk of non-marital copulation? Alpha males. (In fact, I’d bet that within marriages alpha males continue to comparatively monopolize the share of copulation events. Chicks dig dominant men, with or without a ring on it.)

As shown for female choice and male contests, the combination of significant positive and negative eigenvalues suggests that the fitness surface for mating success is best described as a multivariate saddle (Fig. 2C). There was also significant positive linear selection on m2 and m3, which favors increased girth and decreased vocal masculinity (m2) and increased height and girth (m3).

There’s a lot of juicy math in this study, so you abstraction pros can hash out the details for make benefit of haters’ anguish.

When mating success was used as the fitness measure and success under female choice (attractiveness) and male contests (dominance) were treated as traits, there was directional selection for dominance, but not attractiveness (Fig. 1, Table 3).

Reread the 16 Commandments of Poon. Most of the Commandments are essentially power laws, instructing men how to act like a more powerful man. It works because, as ♥science♥ is now discovering and in the process catching up to the observations of real world field soldiers, chicks dig dominant men more than anything else. And perhaps chicks have no choice but to dig dominant men!

Although facial and vocal attractiveness (Table E2a) and related eigenvectors (Table E3a: m1, m2) positively linearly predicted success under female choice, they did not predict mating success (Tables E2b, E3b). Again, linear, but not quadratic or correlational, sexual selection on male traits acting through female choice differed from that acting through mating success (see ESM).

What this means is that men’s efforts to get laid matter just as much as, and perhaps more than, women’s choice in matters of male sexual success. So… bust a move, gentlemen! As long as you’re imposing yourself, you can override the female sexual choice imperative.

When mating success was used as the fitness measure and attractiveness, dominance, and sociosexual psychology were treated as traits, there was directional selection for dominance, sociosexuality (Table E8), and an eigenvector onto which dominance and sociosexuality loaded heavily (Table E9: m1), but not attractiveness (Table E8). Dominance and sociosexuality also positively interacted in predicting mating success (Table E8).

Sociosexuality is basically willingness to engage in flings and sexytime outside of committed relationships. So again we see that where high dominance and sociosexuality interact to turn a man into a stone bone lady slaying machine, attractive male looks as perceived by women don’t really do much for a man’s mating success if he’s neither dominant nor highly sociosexual. Dem handsome betaboys are gonna struggle to get the same amount of pussy that uglier badboys with devil-may-care attitudes will pull.

Female choice exerted positive directional selection on height and stabilizing selection on an eigenvector that was heavily weighted by girth. These results corroborate previous research finding that women prefer taller males particularly for short-term mating (Pawlowski & Jasienska, 2005), and that they prefer men of intermediate brawniness (Frederick & Haselton, 2007).

Lifting weights is great, but the biggest benefit comes not from bulking up to the size of a house (which chicks don’t really care about), but from reaping the reward of that wonderful elevated testosterone, the hormone elixir that nourishes the desire to approach and close.

Moreover, both multiple regression analysis and canonical analysis indicated selection under female choice for negative covariance between girth and facial and vocal masculinity, suggesting that the brawnier a man is, the more important it is for him to have a feminine face and voice, and vice versa. Female choice favored more attractive, but not more masculine, faces and voices, and facial attractiveness became more important as height increased.

This is a bit of heartening news for short men. Women will want tall men to have pretty boy faces, but short men can get away with uglier mugs if they have brawnier bodies (and more masculine, if less pretty, faces). There appears to be some kind of competing interplay within women that compels them to find attractive men who, in various ways, balance their masculine traits with feminine traits, leading to counterintuitive results like female choice that favors brawny men with feminine faces and voices, and less physically imposing men with more masculine faces and voices. But…

These results indicate that beyond height, masculine features tend not to make independent positive contributions to success under female choice, suggesting that other factors may have operated in the selection of masculine traits in men.

… female choice doesn’t matter as much as male dominance to men’s mating success, and masculine features aren’t a winning combo by themselves. As the study authors state, masculine traits were favored by evolution for reasons beyond any innate female preference for them.

Given little evidence that men generally deferred to, or that women preferred, men with masculine faces in the present study, perhaps facial masculinity evolved in men not so much as a dominance signal or sexual ornament but because robust facial skeletal structure was protective against facial fractures incurred in physical fights (Puts, 2010).

Veeeery interesting. In related news, Steven Pinker wondered why the world is getting both less violent and more manboob-y.

Overall success under male contests (male acquaintance-rated dominance) predicted mating success, but success under female choice (female acquaintance-rated attractiveness) did not.

In the field, who wins? Answer: men whom other men perceive as dominant. The pretty boys get glowing Facebook likes, but not much real world action if they don’t back it up with a powerful presence.

These results suggest stronger sexual selection through male contests than female choice in the population studied. Much research in evolutionary psychology states or implies the contrary: stronger sexual selection in men through female choice (reviewed in Puts, 2010).

Feminists and assorted butthurt haters who assert that women do all the choosing and solely anoint the male winners in the sexual access sweepstakes are, as per fucking usual, wrong.

At the same time, these results appear incompatible with the apparent autonomy with which Western women choose their mates. One possibility is that female choice determines men’s mating success, but women choose dominant men (i.e., men’s attractiveness and dominance are functionally equivalent). However, women preferred different traits from those favored under male contests, and dominance rather than attractiveness predicted men’s mating success. Another possibility is that women choose from among dominant men—that is, men’s attractiveness and dominance posi- tively interact, so that the influence of attractiveness on mating success increases with increasing dominance. However, in predicting mating success, we observed no statistically significant selection for positive covariance between attractiveness and dominance: in fact, if anything, the correlational selection gradient was negative in sign.

Readers can issue a correction if this interpretation is wrong, but what this study result shows is that dominant men with good looks actually had LOWER mating success than dominant men with rougher looks.

Nevertheless, perhaps women rate men’s sexual attractiveness differently from how they ultimately choose.

Maxim #something or other: Never listen to what a women says she prefers in men; instead, watch what she does.

For example, attractiveness ratings may not adequately capture women’s differential resistance to men’s seduction attempts.

In the future, Chateau Heartiste will devote a number of posts to what we term Monthly Cycle Game. That is, there are two distinct schools of game every man should use: One tailored to women during the one week they’re ovulating and demanding of more dominance signals, and one tailored to women during the three weeks they prefer more signals of attainability and commitment. How will you know when to use each? Stay tuned.

Finally, men’s dominance may limit female choice in subtle ways. For example, in the bars, clubs, parties, and other venues in which sexual affairs are initiated, a dominant man may have little compunction against interfering with the mating attempts of a less dominant man, whereas the reverse would be less likely.

There is also a school of game haters who bleat about how BETA it is for men to actively pursue and woo women. In their warped view, making any sort of seductive effort beyond “JUST BE YOURSELF AND SAY A FRIENDLY HI UNTIL A GIRL TAKES YOU HOME” is the SMV equivalent of crying in public when it rains on your new shoes or begging for sex from land whales. So stupid, it hardly deserves a response, (but here’s one for them: are women losers when they try to improve their mate prospects by wearing make-up and sexy clothes and keeping fit?), but luckily ♥science♥ has stepped in to put the lie to their fantasies of how sex relations work in the real world. And the obvious is made more obvious: When you are the only man out of ten men in a room to approach a cute girl and try to seduce her, you just DOMINATED the nine other men who stood around waiting for traddork-approved female recognition. See how that works, good family men?

Despite the coherence of these results, we note several limitations. First, although we measured what we believe are some of the strongest candidates for sexually selected traits in men, traits that exhibit large sex differences that emerge at sexual maturity and have been implicated in men’s mating competition, we did not assess all possible traits. Among those that we might have included are psychological traits, such as aggression (Archer, 2009) and humor (Miller, 2000).

A scientific study of that nature would be the gold standard in game studies, and the results you can safely bet would lay to rest any lingering doubts about the efficacy of game. We live in a fluid world with a sexual market that responds to attractive male mate cues on a dime, each cue winning and losing all the time in context with competition from other male attractiveness cues. How will the laconic meathead do against the loquacious funnyman? How about the suave smooth-talker versus the caustic frat boy spitting one-liners? The pimp full of promises versus the brooding artist full of torment? Men simply have more options for sexual market victory than do women, who must rely almost entirely on their looks. It’s just a shame that most men don’t realize this and choose the road of dreary corporate paper pushing to get their shot at settling for chubby chicks with vaginas scarred by years of cock pocketing.

Third, the use of hormonal contraception may have affected some female participants’ and raters’ mate preferences (Roberts, Gosling, Carter, & Petrie, 2008) and decoupled male participants’ copulatory patterns from their reproductive success. However, copulatory patterns can predict the reproductive success that would be realized in the absence of effective contraception (Perusse, 1993).

CH has predicted that widely available cheap contraceptives encourages women to sleep with cads more than they would in an environment where non-marital pregnancy was a real and constant threat. However, this encouragement would only be incrementally stronger than the sexual urges that women inherently feel for cads. Copulatory patterns would remain roughly the same between environments of available or absent effective contraceptives, with the former somewhat favoring a higher cad notch count. The reason is that cultural or technological incentives can exert only so much influence on the mating market, since the psychologies of the players originate in the primal limbic system of the brain, which is more resistant to social conditioning.

Fourth, our data on mating success were based on self-report, which may be unreliable. However, we found a highly significantly correlation between self-reported numbers of sex partners and male peers’ assessments of men’s numbers of sex partners.

Dudes know who’s winning the only game that matters.

Fifth, although we measured success under female choice and male contests, sexual selection in men likely involves other mechanisms, such as sperm competition and sexual coercion (Goetz & Shackelford, 2006).


Finally, we measured men’s mating success by their number of sex partners, but additional variables are clearly relevant to mating success, such as the quality of men’s mates, the number of copulations with each, and mates’ fecundability at the time. Nevertheless, the number of women with whom a man has copulated likely strongly reflects his ability to obtain mating opportunities (Faurie et al., 2004; Hodges- Simeon et al., 2011).

Das true. If you bang nothing but fugs and fatties, your artificially pumped notch count is like a nationally ranked college football team going undefeated against Male Feminist Community Colleges. However, the notch count measure is still fairly predictive of a man’s womanizing skill. The few rare fatty fuckers aside, most (non-black*) guys with big numbers have got the talent to score with some bodacious babes.

*Come on, man, you know the bros love swimming in the bottom of the barrel.

The present study begins to fill significant gaps regarding the mechanisms and forms of sexual selection in men and the relative salience of men’s traits to different mechanisms of sexual selection. We do not, however, consider these questions resolved. Future research should explore additional traits and other measures of mating success in different populations, especially in traditional societies.

Next big study: The neg, and why men who use it have higher mating success than men who talk about the weather and their jobs.


  1. Maxim #something or other:

    Well, that’s going to play hell with the maxim lists.


    • That maxim could just be stated as — don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do. It’s my personal Commandment #1 in all dealings with XX chromosome units.


      • Or, more succinctly…”don’t listen to women”.
        Really, you can get an idea of what they want by the tones. It’s just like my dog, she barks and I have no fucking clue what she is actually saying but from the sound I know if she wants food, to go out, or even just some attention. I don’t have to “listen” to her to “hear” her.


  2. There should be a maxim list somewhere Just point by point..


  3. “However, in predicting mating success, we observed no statistically significant selection for positive covariance between attractiveness and dominance: in fact, if anything, the correlational selection gradient was negative in sign.”

    Readers can issue a correction if this interpretation is wrong, but what this study result shows is that dominant men with good looks actually had LOWER mating success than dominant men with rougher looks.

    I’d interpret it as due to the Tall Good-Looking Beta effect. If a man is tall and good-looking, he can get away with more beta behavior than if he was shorter and uglier. I’ve said it before, but I’ll restate: the most nauseating betas who somehow get hot girlfriends are always tall and good-looking.


    • Unfortunately other betas see these tall and good-looking betas pulling some tail, notice that these men act just like them, and draw the “admittingly logical based on shallow observation” conclusion that women judge mainly on looks just like men do. If you’re like me and you care about the future of the Western man as a whole this is one of the most difficult ruts to force these men out of.


  4. In the future, Chateau Heartiste will devote a number of posts to what we term Monthly Cycle Game. That is, there are two distinct schools of game every man should use: One tailored to women during the one week they’re ovulating and demanding of more dominance signals, and one tailored to women during the three weeks they prefer more signals of attainability and commitment. How will you know when to use each? Stay tuned.

    But how are you going to know, for sure, when she’s ovulating?

    Regarding the rest of the article… it’s absolutely correct. In men looks do not matter NEARLY as much. A man can make a woman only have eyes for him if he knows how to conduct himself in a way which showcases his masculinity.


    • Take her temperature every day. “It’s for science.”


    • Note when she starts her period. Add 2 weeks. That day, and the 2 following, are egg-dropping time.


      • on July 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm OralCummings

        What if the broad I’m promotin’ is past menopuase?


      • Actually, ovulation only lasts a few hours, around day 14. Sometimes, it can occur on day 12 or 13 if her cycle is shorter, and sometimes it can occur on day 15 if her cycle is longer. However, if a woman’s cycle is shorter than 23 days or longer than 32 days she doesn’t ovulate/can’t conceive. Most healthy women have 28- or 29-day cycles.


      • on July 22, 2013 at 6:17 pm Zombie Shane

        “That day, and the 2 following, are egg-dropping time.”

        NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!

        Assuming a 28-day cycle:

        {First Day of Period} + {Two Weeks} = Ovulation

        But the sperm must be deposited about two days BEFORE ovulation, so that the little fellas will have enough time to swim up the fallopian tubes and be ready and waiting to meet the little lady after the follicle pops.

        More exactly: For conception to be achieved, coitus must occur 72 hours to 0 hours prior to ovulation.

        If coitus occurs at any point AFTER ovulation, then there is essentially zero probability of conception.


      • on July 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm Modern Primitive

        What? Really? Are they still horny as hell after ovulation or is it in the period leading up to it that they go haywire for Alpha thug cawk?


      • on July 22, 2013 at 9:18 pm Zombie Shane

        If you want a baby [and presumably that’s what she wants, too], then there are only about three days a month when it does any good to shoot your wad:

        DAY 3: 72 to 48 hours prior to ovulation
        DAY 2: 48 to 24 hours prior to ovulation
        DAY 1: 24 to 0 hours prior to ovulation

        The other 27 or 28 days each month are essentially a waste of time.

        FIRST DISCLAIMER: Chicks can ovulate off-schedule.

        In particular, if a chick senses that some especially good Alpha seed has been dumped in her cooch, but just a little too early, then her brain might decide to burst that follicle ahead of schedule, in order to compensate. [Been there, done that.]

        Also, it’s theoretically possible that you could have especially vivacious seed, and MAYBE JUST MAYBE yours might still be alive, say, 84 hours post coitus, but, from the point of view of the statistics involved, that would be getting way out into “struck-by-lightning” territory.

        Again, what’s much more likely is that she [i.e. her reptilian brain stem] got all excited and sent an order down to the follicle, commanding it to burst a little early, so that the prized Alpha seed wouldn’t go to waste.

        SECOND DISCLAIMER: Remember that in calculating the days involved, there is a massive difference between, say, 12:01 AM Sunday morning and 11:59 PM Sunday evening.

        I.e. “I started my period on a Sunday” doesn’t give you a whole helluva lot to go on in and of itself – it just gives you a good ballpark estimate of when the next ovulation will occur – she might ovulate late on a Saturday night [not quite two weeks later] or she might ovulate very early on a Monday morning [slightly more than two weeks later].

        But what is known with certainty [“scientifically”] is the 72-hour window prior to ovulation.

        By contrast, what’s always in question is the precise moment at which the ovulation will actually occur.

        THIRD DISCLAIMER: She might be honestly mistaken about when she started her period. For instance, she might be certain in her mind that her period started on a weekend [because she remembers clearly that she was at home, not at work], but she might have gotten Saturday honestly confused with Sunday.

        FOURTH DISCLAIMER: Or, she might have known damned well that she started her period on Saturday, not on Sunday, but she lied through her teeth about it anyway.

        I mean – hell, if I were a bitch, and if I had a chance to get some of that Zombie Shane seed up near my ovaries at the precise moment when that follicle was gonna burst – then I’d lie through my teeth about it.

        Shit damn.


      • “Are they still horny as hell after ovulation or is it in the period leading up to it that they go haywire for Alpha thug cawk?”

        If you lived with a woman for a while, you’d be able to tell the difference (see Moses’s comment below). Once ovulation is complete, it’s like getting off a high. A woman is more mentally unstable before ovulation, and she’s more calm and level headed after. The difference in behavior, awareness, and sensation is like the difference between night and day. A woman’s cycle should be divided into two sub-periods. The period before ovulation and the period after. This is why the man should tailor his behavior accordingly.


      • It’s easier, obviously, for men to learn their women’s cycle and coordinate their game attack plan if they are already in LTRs. But there are also subtle tells that a man can learn to spot which will identify with decent accuracy which single women are ovulating. So Monthly Cycle Game can be used by both single men and married or otherwise committed men. These tells will be discussed in future posts.


      • on July 22, 2013 at 9:17 pm Revo Luzione

        The Zombie Shane has it correct mostly. In a 28 day cycle, women can ovulate from about day 11 or 12 up till about day 17 or 18. The more well-regulated her endocrine system, the more it would be centered in the cycle, around day 14. She’ll get horniest in the few days leading up to day 14.

        Thinks to look for:

        1. showing more skin
        2. wearing bright colors, especially red.
        3. more flushed face
        4. more shit tests
        5. more vocal intonation of sexuality.
        6. more bedroom eyes.

        But the most important sign of ovulation is a lot of clear, slippery cervical lubrication. If it’s sticky or chunky at all, she’s probably post-ovulatory.

        In other words: If you want to know if a woman is horny, the best way is to get a couple of fat fingers up inside her.


      • “In a 28 day cycle, women can ovulate from about day 11 or 12 up till about day 17 or 18.”

        No. In a 28-day cycle, ovulation doesn’t occur at day 17 or 18. It usually occurs at day 14 (although it can occur at 13.5 or 14.5 days). It’s rare for women with cycles as long as 34 or 36 days to ovulate. Some women do ovulate earlier, at day 12 or 13 as they have shorter cycles. However, it’s rare for a woman to ovulate at day 11, since 22-day cycles don’t involve ovulation either.

        “She’ll get horniest in the few days leading up to day 14.”

        True, but her sexual hunger starts a couple of days before the onset of menstruation, building up in her as she approaches day 14 (or her day of ovulation). So it’s a two-week period of this heightened sense of sexuality which tends to drive her crazy, as well as excites her beyond control. All she needs is a man who understands this to turn this period into bliss for them both.

        “But the most important sign of ovulation is a lot of clear, slippery cervical lubrication. If it’s sticky or chunky at all, she’s probably post-ovulatory.”

        True, lots of slippery lubrication occurs from the end of her menstruation through day 14. However, sticky chunky doesn’t characterize post ovulation. Post ovulation sees a reduction in lubrication. Sticky chunky usually means the onset of a yeast infection (yuck). Healthy vaginas don’t have sticky chunky discharge.


      • What’s ironic is I found my GF is most horny *during* the menses and she’s like “too bad I have my menses” and we have sex during it except at the most bloodiest part in the middle. Just put a towel under her ass. She is horny as hell and I think appreciates me even more for not caring about the blood and fucking her during it.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 10:04 am Revo Luzione

        Having a vagina and a set of ovaries does not make you an expert on female reproduction, thus you should be making sandwiches, gluten-free of course, because the educated men are talking here.

        For your edification on your own lady bits, its not only fairly common for women to ovulate as late as day 17, some non-zero percentage, maybe 1-6%, can actually be fertile the day before menstruation.

        Yes, it’s supposed to occur on day 14, but that doesn’t mean it always will, especially in this day of deranged femininity, the shit is all over the map. I would vituperate you further on your lack of erudition on the physiology *of our own fucking gender* but I already expect women to run their mouths without knowing a thing about that which they voluminously pontificate. That’s simply gender-appropriate behavior, par for the course.

        Nor does the rest of your silly proof-by-assertion, this-is-my-experience, so-it’s-all-women’s-experience texual diarrhea merit any further response.


      • “Yes, it’s supposed to occur on day 14, but that doesn’t mean it always will, especially in this day of deranged femininity, the shit is all over the map.”

        Silly, there is always abnormality. There is always one month a woman’s body is acting differently. Why do you think once in a while a woman might get her period a week late with no chance that pregnancy is the culprit? Every woman has experienced this at some point. Likewise, there is always the wayward egg that is late or too early to drop. But, we’re not discussing weird occurrences. We’re discussing regular menstrual cycles. The fact is, younger women have more accurate cycles with less erratic occurrences. Older women experience a lot of irregularity. However, the best thing to do is to tack your cycles over a few months to determine your body’s behavior. Some younger women also have irregular cycles.

        As far as you being an educated man, that’s debatable. You sound more like a man who is trying to defend what he wrote, as if he’s embarrassed I’m refuting it. I wasn’t refuting it, just making it a bit more accurate. Low self-esteem much?


      • “What’s ironic is I found my GF is most horny *during* the menses”

        This is the experience of most women. Progesterone, a libido inhibitor, is at its lowest just before or at the onset of menstruation. This is why women experience a surge in sexual desire during that period of the month.


    • “But how are you going to know, for sure, when she’s ovulating?”

      Obviously, these instructions are for men in relationships, not for one-night stands. Unless a man is a complete idiot who doesn’t know what’s going on with his woman, most men do know when the woman is menstruating. Ovulation usually follows 14 days from the onset of menses, give or take a day or two as some women don’t have a perfect 28-day cycle. Many women make it a point to mention it to their men, and some women just mark the first day of menstruation on their calderas. So it’s very easy for a man to know what’s going on with her body. All it takes is the will to control the relationship, and women love men who take control.


      • “there are two distinct schools of game every man should use: One tailored to women during the one week they’re ovulating and demanding of more dominance signals, and one tailored to women during the three weeks they prefer more signals of attainability and commitment. How will you know when to use each? Stay tuned.”

        This is very important information. It’s absolutely true that women behave differently during the week of ovulation. Women look and feel sexier during this time of the month, and they want (expect) a more dominating male to mate with. Except, this period lasts longer than a week, and doesn’t include just the days preceding ovulation. Triggered by hormones, a woman starts feeling this way even a couple of days before menstruation begins, all the way up to the actual day of ovulation. This is the time a man should be his most dominating and aggressive with her, even if they don’t have sex during the days she has discharge. He should start acting aggressive and dominating, building up tension between them until she stops bleeding and they have sex.

        After ovulation, the man can ease off a bit and focus on other aspects of the relationship. Anyway, this means the man always has to lead and dominate. This is hard work, and some men don’t care to put so much effort into their relationships, but it’s worth it. To understand a woman’s psyche, is to understand hormones govern women. Just as hormones trigger their menstrual cycle, hormones is the reason they crave masculine dominance during certain days.


      • Did you get married yet, Lils? Bun in the oven yet? When are you going to give me grandchildren?

        I am hopeful. You seem to be locked in like a smart bomb onto your cycle.


      • Oh….the tales we weave over matrimony these days, eh? Ha, ha.…you seem to be thinking everyone around the corner is getting married while you’re left in the dust. Are you melancholy? Am I detecting a surge of interest in you over tying the knot? Talk to me.

        I’ve been away for 7 weeks traveling with my family in Europe. It was a wonderful trip and nice seeing relatives. Some of the places we visited: Rome, Milan, Zurich, Geneva, Paris, London, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Helsinki. Shopped until we dropped too. We brought so much stuff back and got in trouble with the airlines. I’m still unpacking lol.

        On a side-note, I was reading a couple of back threads to see what I missed and I noticed that Kate is getting married. Did I get this right? Kate, if true, congrats.

        “You seem to be locked in like a smart bomb onto your cycle.”

        Every women with a bit of smarts should know her body. It’s good for her health and good for her psyche. Of course, you would be one to appreciate that. Don’t you Catholics practice birth control according to the woman’s cycle? It works without going on the pill and tampering with hormones.


      • Thanks, Lily. Yes, I am engaged. And preparing for battle. I had a couple of days of pure happiness before people started googling him and reading his writing in the sphere. Now the parents are upset and informed me of an appointment they have made for me with a counselor today. I am insulted, but I understand why they are concerned. I will go and hopefully their concerns will be allayed. I guess I should be grateful they’ve decided to take an interest in my life.


      • I’m happy for you, Kate. Why should you be alone? I believe a woman’s utmost happiness stems from being in a relationship with a man, in spite of what the feminists would have us believe. You found love again, kudos to you.

        That said, your statement left me a bit concerned. What did you mean by: “I had a couple of days of pure happiness before people started googling him and reading his writing in the sphere.”

        What sphere? Where is he writing and what did he write? Did I miss something?

        Is this an internet connection you have with this guy? How long have you known him?


      • Now the parents are upset and informed me of an appointment they have made for me with a counselor today.

        Hahahaha. Fucking people.

        No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse. …

        They are clever and know all that has happened: so there is no end to their derision. People still quarrel, but are soon reconciled — otherwise it upsets their stomachs.

        They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

        “We have discovered happiness,” — say the Last Men, and they blink.

        Zarathustra, prologue

        I wouldn’t go. I would play up the crazy because fuck them.

        Whatever possessed you to send the bourgeois fam to these precincts, however, I have no idea. It’s like sending out your Save The Dates in Persian cuneiform and expecting them to comply.

        On the other hand, I have no idea who this guy is, and the relatives might just be saving your body from its journey to being half-eaten in the bottom of a dumpster.



      • Thank you very much, Lily. The “sphere” is short for Manosphere- this set of blogs. Try to keep up, Matt, please 🙂 I did not send them here. They were concerned about me and looked him up and all these articles came up: “Who is Mark Minter,” etc. And let me tell you, the answer in that article is not really what you want your parents to read. Anyway, it is all sorted out now. Apparently my dad was already won over by my explanation of our plans last night and today was just a chance for my mom to voice her concerns. The next time someone ’round here even thinks about criticizing me, I hope they will remember I went to fucking bat for the way of life we believe in and a woman’s right to marry a Man.


      • I see, he comments on the Manosphere, and you met him online. I think I remember a Mark Minter occasionally commenting on CH.

        I’m not surprised your parents freaked out. They wouldn’t understand Manosphere philosophy. I’m sure they think such men are abusive, especially parents raised in the 50s and 60s and bought into feminist philosophy of egalitarianism. Anyhow, I hope you know him well, and you’re right for each other. Hate to see you unhappy once more.

        See Matt, this means there is still hope you’ll find your soul mate on the Manosphere after all. Feministx too, has a chance of exchanging that sugar daddy of hers for some alpha blood 😉


      • There is an ehow void on the topic of “how to marry a man your mother thinks is a misogynist.”


      • Of course I have an interest in seeing young women participate in the sacrament that most defines her life. I’m not sure what you mean by a “surge.” And I’m not sure how young you are, actually. Either way:

        The future belongs to us. All of these conversations with sterile swagga artists and leftwing life-haters are just diminishing noise. “But a moment’s sunlight / Fading in the grass.”

        Some may come and some may go
        We shall surely pass.
        When the one that left us here
        Returns for us at last.

        C’mon, people now! It’s the One Needful Thing. The unum necessarium. (Luke 10:42)

        Anyway, I note you avoided my question.



      • LOL – a guy asked how do you tell if a female, a total STRANGER, is ovulating – That cracks me up. I don’t know whether to laugh,
        guffaw, or bust a gut. I think I lost a few eggs over that


      • “Obviously, these instructions are for men in relationships, not for one-night stands. Unless a man is a complete idiot who doesn’t know what’s going on with his woman, most men do know when the woman is menstruating.”

        When I have blood on my penis.


      • There’s a lot of inaccurate information floating around out there regarding ovulation. I researched the hell out of this before I used the rhythm method (successfully) with my wife for about a year. When we abandoned it she got pregnant immediately.

        Ovulation occurs between 12-16 days (average 14 but with variation) BEFORE the beginning of her next cycle. Cycles are measured from the first day of bleeding.

        Track your woman’s cycle on Google Docs. If she’s regular you’ll be able to predict with some accuracy the beginning of her next cycle. Find her ovulation window by subtracting 16 and 12 days from that date, e.g. if she’s on regular cycle and your predicted cycle start date is August 25, her ovulation window is between August 9-13.

        Sperm can survive inside a woman for 4-ish days and as long as 7 days. If you want to be certain to avoid pregnancy don’t come in her for at least 7 days before the beginning of her ovulation window and at least 4 days after the end of the window. In our example that would mean no coming in her between August 2 and August 20.

        As a rule of thumb you can safely come inside her from the first day of her cycle until about day 10 of her cycle. But you should do the math yourself and build in margins of error/safety after collecting minimum 4 months of cycle data.

        If your girl is irregular you have to increase the margins of error substantially. If you’re a finance nerd like me you can calculate averages, medians and standard deviations, but it’s not worth much if she’s widely different each month. My wife is way irregular so I had to be super conservative with margins of error.

        Once I knew her ovulation window I did notice that she was hornier, loved rough sex and was particularly submissive and during this time. Thoroughly enjoyable.


    • Okay, sorry I made a mistake. I thought we were just talking about random women/strangers here. Not spouses. and I was a little confused as to how one would consciously be aware that a complete stranger was ovulating. LOL.


    • “But how are you going to know, for sure, when she’s ovulating?”

      We’re a bit old now but when we were younger mine used to hook her ankles behind her neck and sing dirty versions of recent pop songs with the words changed – so that made it pretty easy to tell.


  5. Nothing to say about that beyond, “hella.”


  6. I know this to be true because on the occasions I have found myself interested in a member of the opposite sex it has not been because of his pretty face.. it was much more. It was a genuine, “I know I’m in control” attitude among other attributes, I won’t list them all as I’m sure you all know what makes a man attractive.


    • on July 22, 2013 at 5:43 pm Zombie Shane

      > “It was a genuine, “I know I’m in control” attitude among other attributes”

      Your greatest problem, as a female, is that you won’t be able to tell when he’s faking it.

      Or when he’s so damned delusion that he actually believes it himself.

      That’s one of the best things about being a guy – you can see right through these bullshit artists and psychopaths.


      • Who are you talking about? What are you talking about?


      • Zombie Shane.. In my opinion that’s not really of so much importance. What is important is the way a woman perceives him. A man could be a “beta”, but as long as he knows how to assert himself with one woman, even if he’s faking it.. then he will become an Alpha male and respected in that woman’s eyes. A man could be a lovely, soft, kind gentle person.. but if in my encounter with him he is rude and arrogant what am I going to conclude of him? That he’s rude and arrogant of course, because that’s how he presented himself to me, and that’s really all that matters..MY perception of him, if he’s an Alpha male in front me, I’ll believe that it’s his nature, and I’ll believe he is in control.

        When a man can exhibit this kind of dominant behavior even with just one woman, he is on his way to becoming more dominant in other areas of his life too. Better to fake it until you become it.


      • “you can see right through these bullshit artists and psychopaths.”

        Yes, this one is scary for women. I am very careful because you never know who is a psychopath. A guy can seem completely normal but then all of a sudden you witness psychopathic behavior.

        I am a little weary..I find it really shocking how fast some men can fly off the handle too. Like from normal to crazy in under 10 seconds. I’m not saying some women don’t get so angry too.. but for me, it’s just very alien- the rapid change in nice guy to psycho. Or sometimes even a man that seems very decent and normal will say something that it just sounds so wrong, like something from a horror movie. And it shocks me so much..Maybe I have just been too sheltered.


      • “A guy can seem completely normal but then all of a sudden you witness psychopathic behavior.”

        It’s because a man has two different brains and a switch in the middle. There’s the rational, calm, orderly side…and the idiot side. Usually what switches it from one side to the other is a woman.

        But if a guy gets good at it…he can make that switch flip when he wants it to.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm Zombie Shane

        > “When a man can exhibit this kind of dominant behavior even with just one woman, he is on his way to becoming more dominant in other areas of his life too. Better to fake it until you become it.”

        Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you on that point.

        It’s also a disagreement which I started to have with Heartise a few weeks ago, but unfortunately I can’t come here often enough to keep a good disagreement alive for very long.

        ANYWAY, it most certainly is entirely possible for a man to “fake it” damned near his entire life.

        Or just luck his way through things almost forever [compare “Being There” or “Forrest Gump”].

        An author named Nassim Nicholas Taleb made a career for himself from a handful of simple observations and rules of thumb, which he would relate in his books, one of which was his oft-repeated warning not to fall prey to “Survivorship Bias”, because he had witnessed so many of these sociopaths on Wall Street, who had bet right and bet right and bet right and bet right, to the point that they started to believe their own publicity releases and press clippings, only to suddenly bet wrong, and lose everything in the blink of an eye.

        At which point it invariably became abundantly obvious to everyone involved that when it came to Mr Sociopath, not only was there was no “there there”*, but there had never been any “there there” in the first place – he was just another Con Man, who rode a lucky streak as far it would take him, before he crashed and burned and was unmasked for what he really was.

        Which was nothing at all.

        Point being that a fellow can choose a path of fakery for damned near his entire life, or he can spend a little time in solitary contemplation, thinking over and over and over again about a certain maxim from one of GBFM’s Great Books, which instructs a young man: KNOW THYSELF**.




  7. Anyone that works out, I would highly reccomend APE from AE Nutrition. By far the best test booster I have ever taken. Get 2 bottles, follow the instructions, and feel the results. I guarantee it will help in the aggressive/dominant department and enhance your game.


    • on July 22, 2013 at 3:32 pm Harry Morgan

      Anyone else had experience with it? I took a look online and it had some positive reports, but other than “APE™ Pro-Testosterone/Anti-Estrogen Complex Blend” it seems to have about the same ingredients as a multivitamin.


    • One you will be able to present an article from A class journal or pubmed with the results on APE of the following format:

      placebo double blinded,2 groups with large enough sample size,one with APE as of insturctions,another on Placebo,conventionally measured testosterone levels after 1-2-4 weekspaired T test and p<0.05 …ONLY THAN please post your "advices".

      Othwerwise f*ck off with your voodoo bullshit to the freaks forums (aka as bodybuilders ones).


      • on July 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm OralCummings

        A guy says eat broccilli.kale and other such,uhm,garbage to get the estrogen out yer ass,and use yer T more effectively to make da honeys scream. They also rec. stuff called DIM,a supplement.Its supposed to do the same thing.


      • Geez, chill out. Just a recommendation from personal experience.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 10:19 am Hugh G. Rection

        Most likely placebo effect. There aren’t a lot of natural compounds that boost testosterone and usually you’ll require a far higher dosage than you’ll ever find in such a product. That’s why they never specify exactly what’s in it and how much – you read proprietary blend, you run.

        And Fenugreek? Really? That’s been around for ages.


      • Anything with D-Aspartic acid works and is proven to work, Testforce, etc.


  8. Does this support flat out being aggressive physically? They want that. I don’t mean rape. If it becomes clear that she really does not want to have sex, okay, stop. But you gotta go for it to find out. I fucked up my last date real bad, besides it being a dinnerview (bad to begin with), but being too shy/gentlemanly when the girl liked me. I didn’t do kino. I should have literally grabbed the back of her head and started making out with her at dinner….everyone else had left, restaurant was closing (weird week day date in suburbia)….had nothing to lose. Either she wanted that or it woudl ahve been awkward but over….she of course flaked on 2nd date and blew me off, probably BECAUSE of not kissing her, actually. Even if she would ahve blown me off, I’d have kiissed her at least once. I need to really drill this into my beta head before I go out next time.


    • If you’ve just come out of the Matrix I doubt your general attitude would be congruent with spontaneously making-out. Kind of like if you’ve been an orbiter for a year and you learn game you can’t just show up at her door Alpha as Fuck and expect her to just fall on your dick like she would have if you hadn’t been her orbiter.


      • I’m even worse than that. I’ve been red pill-aware for about 8 months, but I don’t seem to be able to escape my betaness even though I know CH’s teachings are correct.


    • I’ve always got my best results with that, talking sucks.

      The trick is getting them alone.

      Things like sweep them off their feet, tickle them until they fall down then get on top, dry humping etc. work great.

      Picking her up unexpectedly and swinging her around is fun and can be done around other people, if there is another girl there I say “here catch” and they’ll go noooooo.

      Helps if you’re strong, can be a DHV.


  9. on July 22, 2013 at 3:22 pm Cragsleeper

    Projecting more dominance may lead to higher stress in one’s life as it entails frequent confrontations and swatting away challenges by competitors. However, it might ultimately lead to lower stress in the long run once everyone around you has finally accepted your role. I wouldn’t know, but I suppose most would consider attempting to avoid stress a beta concern.


    • I thought that higher testosterone meant you are more able to deal with stress? I read something recently that women are more easily stressed than men, thus the higher the testosterone the more able the man to be strong and pass through stressful situations more unscathed? Perhaps I have this wrong..


    • Difference between having testosterone and faking it.

      [CH: Faking alpha male postures will increase T levels. This has been proven by studies.]


  10. doesnt the pill halt ovulation and make women like lower-T guys?


    • on July 22, 2013 at 3:42 pm RappaccinisDaughter

      Halting ovulation, yes, definitely. Making women like lower-T guys…that’s where the research seems to be pointing at this time.


    • I wouldn’t say they like them…but they are more willing to marry them.

      From what I’ve seen they have the same level of contempt to those guys…but they don’t have the sexual fire to go out and find some alpha until they are off the pill.


    • The short of the study is:
      “There is emerging evidence that the use of the pill by
      women can disrupt: (i) the variation in mate preferences
      across their menstrual cycle; (ii) their attractiveness to
      men; and (iii) their ability to compete with normally cycling
      women for access to mates.” Basically they like more feminine men while they are on the pill and more masculine men when they go off of it for that one week. The study also mentions the difference in tips that strippers received during periods of the menstrual cycle. It makes me wonder what all the phthalates and synthetic estrogens from the plastics are doing to us.


  11. on July 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm Regular Haterboy

    Jesus Christ the writing just gets more and more insufferable here. Stop trying so hard.

    [CH: And yet you continue reading.]


    • It was too long. I got “Being dominant more important to looks.” Then minimization of the unchangeable height issue PUAs hate, because it’s almost identical to inherited money.

      A lot sounded like gloating, in the bad sense.

      [CH: If it got under the betaboys’ skin, it wasn’t bad gloating.]


  12. What is the good number of notches for a man to have by his 20s,30s and 40s if he is to consider himself successful on the market?Anyone?

    Let’s be honest,no wishful thinking here (this is not a pua forum lol ).

    [CH: The only notch count that should matter is whether you are getting all the sex and love you want. For some men, that will be with one woman. For others, with one hundred.]


    • I knew a natural with a relatively low notch count. He had a few steady girlfriends and could have been mistaken for a schlub–except he was banging the hottest babes in the city. He never had a major dry spell, and if he ever settled for less than a 9, he kept it under his hat.

      When you’re doing the math, two 5’s do not add up to one 10. They always equate to half of what you wanted. A guy with three 10’s (and no dry spells) is batting 1000. What’s the probability of pulling 3 10’s in a row? One in a thousand, in mathland. For either a 9 or 10 three times in a row, the probability’s 0.008, so you can still assume luck has nothing to do with it.


    • on July 23, 2013 at 5:02 am Master Beta

      Who the heck considers number of notches to be a thing anyone cares about ever? Only teenage boys think it matters. Quality over quantity.


  13. Doesn’t part of this study’s findings contradict at least part of this site’s message?

    [CH: No. If you think that, you haven’t been reading for comprehension.]

    It says that male to male status assessment is more important to success at hooking up in comparison to female ratings of male attractiveness. This implies not that women don’t know what they are attracted to. This implies that status among males counts for a lot.

    [Hypergamy uber alles.]

    Previously, this site was saying that females determine who is alpha male, not men.

    [You haven’t read the same study everyone else is reading then. Women aren’t actively choosing the highest relative status men as much as dominant men are aggressively pursuing women and outcompeting lower status men.]


    • Regarding your point below-

      “Recall what this study is saying: What women prefer is not as relevant to male sexual success as how aggressively men try to satisfy their lust.”

      I do not understand. The conclusion of the study is stated as follows:

      “These men also assessed each other’s dominance, and 72 women from two socially affiliated sororities assessed the men’s attractiveness….Results indicate that dominance and the traits associated with it predict men’s mating success, but attractiveness and the traits associated with it do not”

      In the link to the paper, male contests is defined as follows:

      “Each male participant’s success in male contests was measured as the mean rating of fighting ability that he received from the male participants who rated him”

      It is a rating based on male to male perception. It does not provide actual evidence of which guy is in reality aggressively pursuing women. The statement you make about outcompeting and aggressive pursuit appears not to be a direct finding of the study. Rather it is a theorized interpretation of the researcher-

      “Finally, men’s dominance may limit female choice in subtle ways. For example, in the bars, clubs, parties, and other venues in which sexual affairs are initiated, a dominant man may have little compunction against interfering with the mating attempts of a less dominant man, whereas the reverse would be less likely.”

      There is no actual evidence of the above in the paper. The paper merely shows data that male to male ratings of ability to fight correlates with number of female partners. It does not provide evidence of who is more likely to approach or more likely to interfere with other’s attempts.

      Where does this study collect evidence on male willingness to satisfy lust?


  14. As for why women prefer men with prettier faces- This appears to change with age. Young girls like Justin Bieber. Women my age tend not to be attracted to faces like that. Sorority girls are quite young. Women my age would might not rate men with pretty faces as the most attractive, and you might not see the discrepancy between physical attractiveness rating and physically masculine features.

    On the other hand, women were historically somewhat more likely to reproduce than men, so there is a real advantage to preferring men with pretty faces. It will get you pretty daughters. If you have sons who are pretty, it won’t hurt them much. If you have daughters who are not pretty, it will hurt them at all. It is most advantageous to have a bunch of pretty daughters, on average.

    I also wonder if prettiness is not the only great attribute women can have. If dominance is so great for men, are characteristics of submissiveness associated with attractiveness in women?

    [CH: Recall what this study is saying: What women prefer is not as relevant to male sexual success as how aggressively men try to satisfy their lust.]


    • on July 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm Hector_St_Clare

      Feminist X,

      Re: On the other hand, women were historically somewhat more likely to reproduce than men, so there is a real advantage to preferring men with pretty faces. It will get you pretty daughters.

      You have a good point here. Another point that’s worth making, is that women don’t just have one reproductive strategy, they have multiple ones. Women with more strongly ‘feminine’ personalities, lower IQ, and higher desired number of children tend to want the good provider, ‘dad’ type, whereas women with more ‘masculine’ personalities, less interest in children, etc. want the ‘cad’ type, and these strategies correlate with different facial features.


      • on July 22, 2013 at 7:40 pm Modern Primitive

        Considering the ancestral environment where most men perished without passing on their genes, I’d take a stab at facial attractiveness not being all that important for women as a favourable WHR and being young n fertile. Attractiveness helps, but only the alphas would have discriminated based on looks with the greater betas and lesser alphas picking up the scraps.

        For a woman engaging in a reproductive strategy, having good looking male offspring is less relevant than having dominant alpha offspring, as she is seeking the genes with the best chance of reproductive success, not the genes that are the most attractive to her (we all know men’s looks matter less to women than men’s attitudes.)

        TL;DR, thug cawk beats Beiber lookalikes.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm Hector_St_Clare

        Eh. The Biebers of the world may get less play than the Tavon Whites, but they still get plenty (especially from the much coveted 18-24 age group).


      • on July 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm Hector_St_Clare

        The Biebers of the world may get less play than the thugs, but they still get a lot. Particularly from the much coveted, 18-24 demographic.


    • on July 22, 2013 at 5:39 pm OralCummings

      Isnt this a chicken & egg thing yaz got here? If a guy is good looking he will go thru life being treated better byboth females & males. It will surely enhance his confidence.Take the A Team. I think its fair to say that that goofy guy was every bit as horny as Face,but Face got pussy much easier than the goofy guy,so he would be far more assertive and dominant re the 2nd sex. (Mr T of course was swoopin dem white honeys like mad. “Get awn ma dick bitch…”)


    • The comment about a sex having only generational longevity is correct. However the comment that women being more likely to produce is a bit off. The female risk reward ratio is skewed to less risk of not reproducing at all against the higher reward skew of the male. The reproductive potential must essentially be the same, all things being equal. If I roll 4 six sided dice, I can do no less than 4 and no more than 24. If I roll 2 of twelve sided dice then I will have as low as 2 but a much higher chance of 24. Its 143 to 1 vs 1295 to 1 for 24. Much higher chance at other extremes as well. If I had to roll above 20 to save my life, I am rolling the 2 twelve sided dice.

      Of course given that dice have a minimum value of 1 then in this case throwing 2 twelve sided dice needs to have 1 point in compensation if we are looking at a mean equality.


  15. on July 22, 2013 at 3:59 pm Libertardian

    Zman following the truck rescue


    • on July 22, 2013 at 4:03 pm Libertardian

      Meanwhile, ABC frantically deleting pro-Zman comments on the article. Keep it classy, MSM.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 10:23 am Hugh G. Rection

        I actually saw that comment when it had around 2000 thumbs up.


      • maddening cathedral illuminati BS. CH answer me this please: why does the Cathedral want to actively encourage black rioting and violence against innocent workers who pay taxes? As if it’s not already bad enough. Their children are in danger too!!! Even if they live in gated communities. First, obviously, people leave their gated communities to shop, go to college, participate in life. Second, of course, even gated communities are easily breached.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm Libertardian

        My guess is, black rioting = a lever to demand more gimmedats and police state power. For instance, during the riots in Sweden, the Left immediately blamed the Swedes for not bending over far enough. What they continually put me in mind of is Hitler demanding more concessions, which are, of course, never enough.


      • One part of propaganda is to always have some insurmountable evil one is battling, so if you can get enough people to believe, without evidence, that they are screwed before they are born to outcome x then they become unwilling to be their own individual and more willing to be be wards of the state.
        Rewind to 2007, when obama was campaigning and asked if retributions go far enough to bridge the racial divide in marica(im paraphrasing but look it up on youtube), and he said they do not. So imagine yourself a scenario that would go far enough… the next step beyond retributions is a communism with the afflicted race in charge. Rewind to 1970’s, in a black panther national convention, they said that in order for this to happen they would need to kill about 20,000,000 white people. Rewind to 1966, Cloward and Piven devise a strategy to collapse the american economy. In other words, crash the economy, kill whitey, and put blacks in charge. That is the agenda here.


      • I would also add, that you dont just have to kill whitey to kill whitey, there are other ways to put whitey out of commission, such as birth control, never ending wars, frivolous litigation, encouraging a lifestyle that leads to cancer and heard disease, and finally government edjumication.


      • “why does the Cathedral want to actively encourage black rioting and violence against innocent workers who pay taxes?”

        To distract attention from what they’re doing in New York, LA and DC.


  16. Interesting. My gf of 8 months broke up with me because “it will never work”…

    I was dominant and we constantly battled for control of the relationship.

    She would act out on something, I would disappear. She would figure this out. Things were great…then the cycle would repeat itself.

    Finally she asked to move in with me for 6 weeks because her crazy mom wanted to move into HER apartment. I said no. Two weeks later she broke up with me.

    She would only say it would never work. But when she came to pick up her stuff, all she would say was “I love you, I love you…but it will never work”.

    I didn’t say anything at this point but was physical, just held her, let her cry, told her I loved her and walked away.

    I wondered, what was the rush. Two weeks, no discussions, just goodbye.

    A few things: a woman’s logic and her emotional side (Forebrain and hindbrain) are in constant conflict.

    Yes, they want a “dominant” man, but then after the age of 30 they want to betacize that man or have been socially conditioned to expect that their man will become a doting beta.

    I think the idea that I wouldn’t let her move in rubbed against the “protector of women and children” aspect of attraction and she lost attraction,

    So if women shit-test, that’s considered a “default” position.

    But dominant men—guys who parry shit-tests, do their own thing, lead, assholeish…it works and at some point things will fall apart.

    However….in EVERY cast this has happened to me….the girl has come back…

    In EVERY case, I have moved on.

    This study seems bang on. Guys just tend to cave in to the pressures of shit tests and feminist social conditioning to be “nice”…


    • Incidentally because from your writing I’m not sure if you realize it:

      You’re in the middle of a large shit-test. Stop all contact with her entirely, don’t text or call her for anything, put a Z in front of her name in your phone so it’s way at the bottom of the list and you remember not to drunk text her.

      She’ll txt you to get back together within a year, probably under 6 months.

      This is called an LSTFNE. Read this:

      Of course by then you won’t want her. 🙂


      • (just to clarify, the LSTFNE is relevant to your situ because while she’s not leaving you specifically for another existing guy, she’s leaving you for the theoretical imaginary guy who will do whatever she says that she THINKS she wants…so a few months of missing you and/or trying other guys and realizing they either won’t put up with her bullshit or if they do she loses attraction for them, and you’ll get a 2am “hey” txt or, following Blackdragon’s advice in that thread (seriously, read his whole post), you can throw out a feeler and re-stoke the fire)


      • @Ya….thanks, after our “Casablanca” goodbye, purposely amped up by me to create that memorable goodbye.

        It’s a shit-test because she wants to know that she has more of a hold on me. The fact I was always disappearing freaked out her controlling mindset. She’d mentioned once before she’d bolted on a previous bf while on holiday in Europe and went on a holiday by herself. I took note. I’m sure that guy chased and chased.

        The whole urgency of 6 texts Sunday to pick up a bag of Q-tips…was designed to make me feel shitty. I ignored all of them until she texted some convenient late night time and I replied “Come over 10pm”.

        I could have banged her, she showed up all dressed up. But…given how shitty she had been I instead just kind of made out, said “if you don’t leave I’m going to fuck you” and pushed her into a taxi with her shit.

        Since that night, she immediately sent some photo meme suggesting it was us.

        I ignored.

        My birthday is approaching.

        The whole thing is something oddly familiar to me.

        Things go great, then girl has melt-down, says either “It’s not fair” or “it will never work…” or “You don’t care” etc etc.

        We break up.

        I ignore.

        Time passes and they reconnect.

        By then I’m over it.


      • @Ya…clearly. The whole 6 texts to find a time to pick up her Q-tips and shit she already has tons of…a chance to come over and meet me, or bang me.

        I didn’t bang her. I just didn’t feel like it though she came over dressed up. That must have fucked with her head.

        I just embraced her, said goodbye, Casablanca moment—and the last image she has is not a last fuck, it was me walking away.

        Dominance and the battle for it was played out in many ways.

        But all these girls have a similar “half-life” of around 4 months. That’s the time they start to “go off” like a banana in a fat kids lunch box.

        My birthday is approaching. I’m sure that “trial text” she sends will come.

        The point of this is to illustrate that while women want a dominant male, like that praying mantis who kills her mates after they fuck her so they won’t bang anyone else, women want their men to turn into pathetic losers so that no other girls will want them….

        I read somewhere that you’re doing it right if her friends hate you—hers hated me—because it means that they see you as attractive and they don’t want one of their friends to have something they don’t.

        This also plays in to the “dominance” theme set out in OP.


      • @Ya Really. I have a question for you. As predicted on my birthday, the now ex gf who 1) dumped me by facebook and 2) insisted on claiming all her shit 5 days before my birthday did the following:

        1) Sent me not one, but 2 birthday greetings, the first was a bland “friendzone” type Happy Birthday —-but it was sent 2 minutes before midnight.

        2) I got like 60 birthday greetings from girls on my FB page, so she sent one.

        I ignored both.

        Then she posted some nonsense, a scene from some recent film with a comment “Learn to let go, fight for what you deserve” with a photo of Brad Cooper and that chick from the recent movie.

        Do I respond to any of this nonsense?

        Is this all a “shit-test”? Should I just blow it off and remain silent and aloof?

        What is all this conflicting nonsense: break up, then wish happy birthday, then attention whore about how you need to “let go”….

        My game must have been awesome to get this reaction. But now I’m in a funk….


    • Wala– she did the most hostile thing possible– leaving– and you rewarded her by hugging her and telling her you loved her. It seems like you’ve got it all backwards.

      How about while she acting all unhappy about what SHE CHOSE to do:

      “Wow, sorry you feel so bad. I going to go…….”


      Unless you think she’s going steal stuff.


      • @Subway…yes. In this case it was a calibration. I had been tough and aloof for a few weeks. To continue acting that way on this last LAST day would have embedded more negative feelings.

        I did it this way as a “surprise” to flip the script. She would never have expected this and it surprised her so much she started babbling all her feelings, apologizing etc etc.

        I just let her talk. Then said “Goodbye”.

        It was the exact opposite of what she would have expected.

        I’m having trouble with “dominance”—being dominant I get, the “soft dominance” is a constant struggle.

        I didn’t feel hugging was beta in this case because the context was “Goodbye”.

        The last image she has is me walking away without looking back.

        It’s an image of “dominance”.


    • Also, it’s a bad sign when you take what a woman says as the actual reason she’s doing something.

      It’s almost always not what she says. What she says is her best effort to smooth things over and provide herself with a plausible rationalization for why she’s abandoning you, and still preserve her self-image as a “good” person, and not a slut.

      Remember, women think of the reason AFTER the emotional action, they do not act based on rationality. Her words are basically hysterical babbling.


    • Bro, I am a slow learner compared to many, but I am old and a few things have finally sunk in. What leaps out from you post is “…her crazy mother…”. An old bit of wisdom holds that if you want a preview of what a woman will be like in 20 years, look at her mother. What I have learned from experience is that inherited traits are the most important thing about a person and most of that traditional wisdom is true. Her mother is crazy therefore … BTW your refusal to let her move in was very wise. Good move.


      • Yes, scary. I didn’t argue or question her decision to leave.

        It is interesting how women project their anger and deep-seated disappointments on others.

        I think other beta guys she would have been with probably came running back or begging.

        The minute it ended, I ceased all contact.

        Women can’t face their own decisions when the guy is dominant and accepts it and moves on.


  17. Ok, so I’ve been a beta male for my entire life, taught from an early age (and religion) that I need to be the “nice guy” to get a woman and that women that don’t want a nice guy are usually psycho, and have massive self-esteem issues – and, should be avoided at all costs.

    Experience is teaching me differently. While it’s true that women that are attracted to the “dark triad” are usually pretty messed up themselves and would make horrible long-term mates, even most regular women tend to want dominant personalities and some alpha traits. I’ve noticed the most reasonable women in good relationships will tolerate some beta-ness every now and then, but if it’s long-term then the gal is gone.

    Alright, so I get it now. The problem is, at nearly forty years old, HOW DO I CHANGE? Make a post on that. Do I seek a behavorial therapist who specializes in teaching how to gain alpha traits? Does that even exist? Assertiveness training? Find a buddhist temple and meditate on this for a year?

    Also, no, I don’t want to become some a**hole. I don’t think you need to be a d!ck to be dominant.

    I want to do this right. Help?


    • If you are 40, I would hit the weight room and go on a diet. Get your body in shape first then worry about the psychological stuff. Especially since you are conflicted about the psychological stuff.


    • hey man, let me just say that you’re basically me. i was brought up by a single mom in a christian household. “be nice.” “be yourself.” i was raised to be what she wanted after being left by my father the cad, father of multiple families, etc.

      the truth is, the nice guy will attract women _after_ they’re tired of bad boys, after the fun’s over. i ended up with women that dominated me because i let them choose me instead of me making my choices. and women that want a beta are women that want to take advantage of kindness and accomodation. it’s not fun.

      it took me 15 years from the moment i told my first love that i loved her (during sex), and she stopped and said “why’d you ruin it?” endless platonic nights being a gentleman in my own bed with a girl didn’t teach me.

      so i was in my thirties when i ran across the fastseduction 101 guide, had a couple buddies going through divorces, and just started getting drunk enough to start reading palms and asking girls who cheats more men or women. and as old school as all that might be, the big part of it was that we lost the fear of approach because we were just screwing around, laughing when we’d see a buddy reciting the cube to some girl or whatever. it’s fun. which they sense.

      i think in your case a big part will be overcoming the thought that attracting and taking women home is asshole-ish. it’s what they want. and it’s what you need, if you want to actually control what kind of woman you end up with. my nice-guy self disappointed dozens of girls that wanted an excuse to let go for a night because i didn’t see it.

      as for what to do, you’re my age– so just go out to bars that you’re comfortable in, do it consistently, and try some material. you can use any material. i guarantee fast seduction 101 would all still work fine. since you know that what you’ve been doing doesn’t work, you’re a long way down the road. most of your problem is internal in how you feel about actually doing it. i don’t think you need a therapist, you know your results suck.

      positive news is, you’re here already, so read up. you’re not too old. young guys have no money today, so younger girls are more open to older guys. it’s wonderful out there. there is nothing asshole about having fun, giving people what they want, and being what you want to be.

      that’s not necessarily all that helpful, it’s just that i don’t think you need anything more complicated than to just do it. forty is not a problem. decades of wasted time is only a problem if you continue the pattern. you take the same approach as anyone else and get after it. is there really anything to lose?


      • [i]my nice-guy self disappointed dozens of girls that wanted an excuse to let go for a night because i didn’t see it[/i]

        I winced at your “why’d you ruin it?” story, that could have been me if I didn’t deep six so many obvious chances for sex in the first place with my beta niceguy anxiety.

        A girl invited me over for 3rd date at her house which happened to be empty b/c she was in the process of moving and almost everything including the TV was gone – except the bed. The bed was definitely there. I failed to get laid that night (she chided me for asking for the kiss, then went cold when I did kiss her). She broke things off the next day. That night still haunts me. It’s humiliating to recall how poorly I handled myself. I even tried to grab her and go for a big kiss before leaving to try and salvage things. It was just horrible like almost all my experience with women has been for the past decade.

        Your story is so similar to my own and so many other guys lied to during our youths. It’s not that we were left uneducated; we were flat out lied to and it is abhorrent. My domineering Southern Baptist mother told me the same kind of crap yours did but she has no excuse whatsoever for her actions b/c she has been married to an alpha the entire time. Her every effort since my birth was to make me different from my father – no, you can’t ride motorcycles like him, no you can’t drink, no you can’t go out tonight, that girl’s bad for you end it now, etc. Anyways. that’s cragsleeper problems, not your own. I’ve left her bereft of grandchildren so I suppose she’s getting her comeuppance.

        Seems you’re having some success like I am just hitting up local nightspots with a changed attitude and a little material. I really try not to use the canned routines but they are handy when hitting a lull in the convo. I really wish I had a good wingman though; I think that would make this pursuit more enjoyable.


    • There is no shame in getting some professional help. I’ll let the guys duke it out about whose course is best. Just don’t sit on this. This is a great age to get started, so then even if you’re in the unlucky 2/3, you can extend that time of getting joy from your sexuality.

      I sincerely wish you the best of luck. 🙂


    • My 2c:

      I began my slow transition to alpha in early 2005, operating on little more than a couple of Doc Love articles and a desire to get over a 7-year long oneitis and to no longer be pushed around in relationships. I was mostly successful at changing my prior beta outlook but was still largely floating in a vacuum with regard to the next steps. I was wholly unaware of game or the manosphere until about a year and a half ago when I stumbled upon a site called which makes occasional references to the manosphere but is otherwise largely self-contained. I don’t know why that particular site is so overlooked by the manosphere, but it changed my outlook on life in a profoundly positive way. It’s red pill through and through but is positive and inspirational in a way that much of the rest of the manosphere is not. The gist of it is this: always challenge yourself and aspire to a life worth living. The challenge itself is the payoff. The power of dark triad is acknowledged but self-determinism is more the thrust (either way, a “me first” attitude definitely is required–you need to be prepared to be a somewhat of a dick, and you need to be prepared to make other people uncomfortable–there is no getting around this). Anyway, Shark stopped posting a year or so ago but the archive is still maintained. But I’d start there. Powerful stuff in a call to action sort of way.

      BTW, I’m 44 and have gotten action with more girls in the last six months than in the 10 years prior to that. Understand why you think the way you do, but more importantly, ALWAYS be acting upon that understanding. A long-term goal of always taking action is more important than short term successes or failures. Also, testosterone. Build, maintain, employ. Absolutely essential, particularly after 40. Good luck.


    • “Also, no, I don’t want to become some a**hole. I don’t think you need to be a d!ck to be dominant.”

      You are correct. But you also have to learn that some of the stuff you think is “assholish” now only seems that way to you because of how you’ve been socially conditioned. Dominance and assertiveness doesn’t blend with always being politically correct and allowing everyone around you to do anything they want with no ones feelings being ignored so everyone feels like a special snowflake.

      “Do I seek a behavorial therapist who specializes in teaching how to gain alpha traits? Does that even exist? Assertiveness training? Find a buddhist temple and meditate on this for a year?”

      You could do all these things, and they might help…but why not just admit you want girls and go right to a pickup bootcamp? If you wanted to get in shape you’d go to a personal trainer and hire a nutritionist to teach you proper diet shit, you wouldn’t go to a Tony Robbins seminar…so why dance around seeking direct help when it comes to success with women and finding a quality girl for a relationship?

      I pretty much never recommend taking bootcamps because they’re expensive and people already think I’m secretly an RSD employee lol and I think most guys can learn what they need to via a combo of the free game information on the net and going out a fuckton and collecting reference experience.

      But as an older guy who doesn’t have his 20s and 30s to spend learning on his own, if you have money to burn and want to really handle it, a bootcamp with Ozzie from RSD might be good for you:

      Dude’s teaching style doesn’t gel with me at all personally, but he’s an older guy who’s in his 40s now and gets a lot of older clients and he’d understand the kind of shit you need to rewire in your head and might be able to jumpstart you.

      A bootcamp won’t fix you. It’s not a magic pill. At best it’ll give you a roadmap to follow and open your eyes a bit to what’s possible. You can come back from one and go right back into your old habits and beliefs and continue down the path you’re on right now…you have to keep your momentum up and work at it on your own as well.

      You can absolutely fix your shit. 40 isn’t even old these days. But it’ll take a fuckload of work on your end. It’s not something you’ll fix in a weekend. You either want it or you don’t…nobody gives a shit if you fix yourself, you won’t get a report-card on your death bed. You’ll have a few years of hard work in front of you but you can do it if you want to. 🙂

      Also watch everything here:

      Good luck. 🙂


    • on July 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm Rihanna Deserved It

      Don’t set out to dominate others; dominate yourself first. Do the one thing you’ve been most afraid of. And for the love of god please say asshole without putting asterisks over the s’s.

      I’m guessing talking to a therapist would be an easy way out for you.


    • read this blog, its contents and comments in it’s entirety, then hop over to Rational Male and do the same.

      pay very close attention to a commenter named ‘ya really”.

      stop being a bitch.



    • on July 22, 2013 at 10:19 pm Backdoor Man

      1. Work out. If you are out of shape and carrying extra weight, a CrossFit gym will give you the fastest results.

      2. Work on body language. This is a rapid way to “fake it until you make it.”

      These two improvements alone will change your confidence and attitude, and thus, your attractiveness to women.


    • on July 23, 2013 at 7:49 am Master Beta

      It’s not game, but read this:

      In particular, regret before dying number 1:

      “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.”

      Also, note how there is nothing in there about being in a relationship, no one regrets “not making my marriage work”, “I didn’t have enough sex” or anything like that. The moral is: People place far too much importance on their relationships with the other sex. Go on an adventure holiday with some man-friends. If you don’t have any man-friends, make some. If you meet some nice lady and hit it off, by all means indulge, but if she starts demanding that you change YOUR life to accommodate HER desires, then she is the one being an a**hole not you, and you need to tell her to fuck off. If you don’t, then like the people in the above article, you will have the same regret before you die – not living a life true to yourself.


    • Start with asserting yourself more, gently first then more forcefully as you get more comfortable. Start changing the things you have immediate control over such as posture, vocal tonality/ volume, body language. The above responses all provide valuable insight also.


    • Simplest thing is to make yourself physically stronger. A lot of things about you will change just from that like posture, how you walk etc. Anything else that signals protective ability like martial arts, gun club etc. Mine used watching me fix the car as girl-porn so any activity a particular woman sees as particularly masculine would probably work the same way.


  18. Higher testosterone also makes you more honest.

    So when beta boy is trying to hide his manhood and all it entails out of fear of her reaction or rejection…

    I proudly display it…and could care less about her reaction. Why be a liar? That is against one of the 10 commandments…and should be added to the 16 commandments.

    I’d rather be honest.


  19. Funny how the game “experts” who claim that looks don’t matter

    [CH: Oh you malformed creature of the basement hovel, no one at CH has claimed that male looks don’t matter; only that looks matter less than shut-in dorks without a lick of experience with women insist they matter.]

    are the same people that later will qualify this by calling other men “man-boobed” and “pencil-necked”.

    [You forgot “walrus jowled”.]

    Not disagreeing with the assertion that looks are less important for men, but you definitely need some kind of physical masculine presence to be taken seriously

    [Masculine presence != looks. Not according to this study at any rate, which you would have known had you bothered to read it before shooting your mouth off like a wind-up manboob.]


    • on July 22, 2013 at 4:25 pm Harry Morgan

      I think it’s like the inverse of the Hot/Crazy scale with women (a women may be equally crazy as she is hot, without men losing interest); a man may be equally ugly as he is socially dominant, without losing women. Real life examples abound, at least as the sort of thing you notice from observation. In fiction, good examples would be James Gandolphini / Tony Soprano, who many women admit to having found attractive, or Steve Buscemi (in Boardwalk Empire). I’ve heard women say they find Buscemi sexy in that show, and he is a notably ugly (skinny, weird looking, bug-eyed) man.


    • So you respond with name-calling and strawman

      [CH: Name-calling, yes. Strawman, no.]

      when someone light-heartedly pokes a couple of holes in your ideas?

      [Comeon dude, I’ve got your IP. You’re a regular troll. Not foolin anyone.]

      Not very alpha of you CH, I’m not impressed

      [My heart will go on.]


    • you are fucking retarded.

      dismissed incel.


  20. How many Brits does it take to change a light bulb?. Just one, but back in the day of the glorious empire millions of subjects would have changed billions of lightbulbs because we ordered them to.


  21. Isn’t this data old hat? I can remember way back in junior-high hearing about how under testing conditions women found ugly men in business suits more attractive than handsome men in a fast food outfit.

    In other words, women are not in love with you (what’s inside), but with your clothes and what they signify.

    As Jackson Browne sang in the ultimate beta-male tribute song: “Of all the times that I’ve been burned by now you think I’d’ve learned that it’s who you look like, not who you are.”


  22. I need help Heatiste members,

    Little background:
    I discovered this about a year ago, with random women and over short periods of time I have become very succesful, usually though after pumping and dumping I have no interest I move on, these girls range from a plain 6/10 to stunning 8/10 but they aren’t quality material for LTRs

    My problem comes with those I would consider for a potential LTR, In the last year there have been 2 memorable in particular, both I had limited short term success with but didn’t manage to seal the deal, both eventually went from attracted to ‘Only see you as a friend’ now I don’t get one-itis anymore so I carry on with my usual game of picking up girls.

    The question is what could I possibly be doing wrong and how do I rescue a situation and push it onwards when this ‘only as a friend’ stuff happens?


    • What do you mean by LTR girls? Do you mean not as hot? More conservative/less sluttly?

      If you actually are having having PIV sex consistently with 8s and not just talking shit, one reason for fumbling with girls that aren’t as hot or are more conservative is over gaming them.

      You see them as LTR worthy precisely because they don’t drop their panties at the first whiff of a jerky swagger.

      Be a little more vulnerable.


    • “both I had limited short term success with but didn’t manage to seal the deal”



      • hey yareally, are you going to get to my FR’s anytime soon?


      • Check your last one (where you talk about your sticking points and 30 day challenge) this week sometime. Gotta play catch-up at work lol


      • Sweet! Thanks, man. Seriously thought you forgot…


      • Nah they just take a loooong time to write-up and I got rent to pay so work comes first lol

        plus a lot of it will sort itself out for you by being in the field a lot and you sound like you’re putting in the hours so I know by the time I get to some of your sticking points you’ll already have fixed them. 🙂


    • This is and followup comments are how to keep her in the kitty without getting friend zoned:

      > The question is what could I possibly be doing wrong

      Not treating them like your pump and dumps. Fuck them first—then worry about whether they are LTR material.


      • “Not treating them like your pump and dumps. Fuck them first—then worry about whether they are LTR material.”

        This lol The “Why?” question was going to be followed up with “And what do you think you’re doing different with these ones?”. You’re subconsciously treating them different because you’ve categorized them Madonna/whore style.


      • Lumpy. Thank you so much for the new additions to the YR Archive.

        Announcement: Lumpy is a beast and made some tweaks.

        Comments from Ripp and The Shocker have been archived in chronological order. Also, all of Scray’s Field Reports and his subsequent break-downs by YaReally have gotten the same treatment.

        Seriously thanks so much man this is one of the coolest things I have ever seen,


      • Dude. Check your gushing. Effusive public hero worship is unbecoming a man.

        The lack of restraint in dick-sucking even a worthy idol like CH goes beyond positive feedback into creepo-obsessive fanfic. Superfans should be discouraged by their idols, not encouraged, if they care about their charges’ path to independence (or at bare minimum, their mental health).

        Does “Lumpy” have an entry on that phenomenon?


      • I’d suck CH’s dick if that’s the question… but only if I could spit out in your mouth.


      • lol’ed hard at this. Wasn’t expecting that response at all lol

        It’s called gratitude, Matt. That’s what happens when you actually contribute useful shit that helps other people…you should try that sometime.

        Also Lumpy’s YaReally archive is fucking amazingly done. I hope it helps a lot of guys out…it’s made commenting a lot easier, being able to quickly link to shit I’ve already written about instead of repeating myself lol. Massive props for the hard work!


      • ‘Lumpy

        I’d suck CH’s dick if that’s the question… but only if I could spit out in your mouth.’


      • Nothing wrong thanking and praising someone for helping you — especially when that help came free of charge.


      • Gratitude is different from gushing like a chick at a Tom Jones concert throwing her panties on stage.

        Try a simple nod, eye contact, hand shake, a word or two (not “ZOMGGGG!!!”), something brief. That’s how men communicate gratitude. When you overdo it, you make a genuine expression of manly respect impossible.

        Mostly it’s just unbecoming. It weirds me out to see dudes in a mutual masturbation circle, with some other dude happily aw-shucksing his way through the praisekkake.



      • Matthew King.. does this apply also to women? Is it not good if we women verbally express too much gratitude and praise toward a man?


      • “It weirds me out to see dudes in a mutual masturbation circle”

        That’s weird, I thought that was your thing.

        Nobody cares about how you think men should act.


      • YaNotReally sniffled:

        Nobody cares about how you think men should act.

        To answer your question, Embracing, man or woman overdoing the praise devalues its currency. If you are going to give max props all the time indiscriminately, then you will be unable to present a genuine sentiment of gratitude.

        On the other hand, female approbation is the spur to manliness, always has been, always will be — “The face that launched a thousand ships,” etc. It is a primary asset. If you give out praise promiscuously, you are not embracing your femininity.

        But when a man deserves gratitude, a woman can overdo it in a way a man cannot/should not. It’s the difference between heaping praise on a superior and acknowledging the good performance of a peer. The more ostentatious a man is, the more he debases himself. The more ostentatious a woman is to her man from whom she derives the chief part of her self-respect, the more she dignifies herself.



    • on July 23, 2013 at 8:00 am Master Beta

      “My problem comes with those I would consider for a potential LTR”

      You should only consider candidates that apply for the position.


  23. on July 22, 2013 at 5:03 pm Joe Sixpack

    “Readers can issue a correction if this interpretation is wrong, but what this study result shows is that dominant men with good looks actually had LOWER mating success than dominant men with rougher looks.”

    This may partly correlate with the fact that women often deliberately choose a less good-looking guy over a prettyboy, due to the fact that the prettyboy most likely has more options in the dating market.

    Often women will not feel worthy of an exceptionally attractive guy, feeling intimidated, fearing competition and quickly summarizing in her head that “I can’t compare with the kinds of girls he’s used to being with”. She prefers a more “real” man who she can relate to.

    Even though she might really, truly prefer to date the prettyboy (assuming he would only have eyes for her, etc.), she, instead, actively chooses to orbit the lesser goodlooking guy until he approaches her. Hence, the more rugged, rougher looking guy appears to have more mating success while the woman actually, in her heart and mind, is captivated by Mr. GQ.

    That could be one component to this. Although I do think much of women’s mating with lesser good-looking men has to do with the fact that women, really do prefer a man to be a bit rough around the edges (a project for them to fix up), as well as conveying masculinity, handyman and protective potential.


  24. The paper uses weird statistics. This paper describes some of what the statistics mean:

    I am just confused. Since they are looking at mating success they seem to be comfortable using equations designed to evolutionary success?

    Table 1 indicates that “girth” is the source of most of the mating success ( Hit the gym) and height is negatively correlated with mating success? Maybe. I don’t understand their statistics at all.


  25. Wait a minute…

    No argument from me that charisma far outweighs looks.


    It’s not insignificant that the study subjects were from a fraternity and sorority from a large university.

    These are NOT random samples of men and women who span the bell curve gamut from alpha to beta.

    Generally, fraternity and sorority members have self selected and been screened for inclusion in these groups, largely based on their charisma/social prowess(men) and looks/herd mentality (women).

    While there will be some distribution between the male subjects on the observed criteria, compared to the general population all of them probably trend towards the right (alpha) side of the bell curve.

    This is important if the argument is not that male looks and female choice don’t matter at all, but that male dominance and charisma are incrementally more influential to female sexual choices.

    Those increments can be affected by the sample.

    “On a large American university campus, 63 men from two social fraternities provided anthropometric measurements, facial photographs, voice recordings, and reported mating success (number of sexual partners). These men also assessed each other’s dominance, and 72 women from two socially affiliated sororities assessed the men’s attractiveness.”


    • They picked the fraternity because they would be able to accurately rank who would win in a fight. They picked an associated sorority since they know most of the men in the fraternity.


    • Agree- the sample is both ridiculously small and clearly skewed, and so incapable of supporting the broader assertions- no matter how many mentions of eigenvectors and regression lines they throw in. That doesn’t mean the assertions/conclusions aren’t true- just that the small pool of data in this study can’t support them for the broader population.


  26. This is like a sexual enlightment


  27. Speaking of universities… Just started college, and I was out fliering for a white student union today. I spot this babe, approach with fliers in hand, joke around a bit and give my little speech, then we sit down and talk a bit. She reaches into her purse to put the flier away, bends over and BAM see down the shirt, no bra, total nip just hanging right out there. She had to have known. How could she not have? Hope she joins the Union. 😉


  28. on July 22, 2013 at 5:38 pm Beautiful Truths Ignored

    Here’s some text game for y’all: If a girl asks you out via text, respond with a single digit answer, “Y”. She’ll be wondering if “Y” means “Why?” or “Yes!”

    “LOVE LOVE LOVE”: By the way, did Whiskey notice that an all female jury just pronounced uber-beta George Zimmerman not guilty? Can’t use women as a scapegoat for the misdeads of the Extranasty anymore, my friend.


  29. When I was in the Philippines, in the 70s, I had sex with about 200 women. 99% of them were prostitutes but I did not always pay for it. It was my challenge to myself to get whores to give me free pussy. I was successful about 10% of the time. Some of them were married women whose husbands didn’t know they were part-time whores.

    When I got back to the states, I got more free pussy than I had ever had before. I think that just the fact of having sex with lots of women gives a man a sense of confidence that women find attractive.

    When I got engaged to my present wife, I had girls calling and wailing on my answering machine. It was sad, like having to put down a good loyal dog.


  30. Veeery interesting, indeed. You should’ve disclosed that dominance was determined entirely by “perceived fighting ability”, though. It by no means necessarily negates your assertions, but it does put extra emphasis on the disclaimer about number of fucks over quality of fucks, and it says nothing about the potential difference between genuine alphaness and emulation. The guy with the wide face thick brow bone who’s leaning in with his eyebrows in a slight V is probably going to have a stronger, less relenting sex drive than a noodle neck, head cocked back slightly, mouth agape.


  31. Actually, someone should go drop this bomb on PUAhate, which will probably destroy their LMS model.


  32. on July 22, 2013 at 6:50 pm Bill Brasky

    extrapolate female attractiveness in coming years…have alcohol handy.


  33. Golly gee, I seem to remember someone mentioning this at some point. Oh ya, this guy here, about a million times lol:

    It’s cute that science is finally catching up to what us PUAs have been telling everyone for years. Like I’ve said before, PUA is not based on “theories” or “ideas” or mental masturbation…it’s based on cold hard mass Field Experience followed by analyzing and cross-referencing that experience.

    If looks or money were relevant, we would be the FIRST ones telling guys to go get a 6-pack and a 6-figure salary. It just doesn’t line up with reality. It’s brainwashed mass social conditioning at play.

    Go out. See it all for yourself. The second you tell me looks matter is the second you give away how little Field Experience you have.

    “Readers can issue a correction if this interpretation is wrong, but what this study result shows is that dominant men with good looks actually had LOWER mating success than dominant men with rougher looks.”

    No surprise. Who’s more of a boss: a normal healthy adult male climbing Mount Everest or a guy with one arm and one leg? They both accomplished the same feat but one overcame a fuckton more challenges to do it…the guy missing limbs comes off as much more of a badass than the guy who we expected to be able to do it.

    A short or fat or ugly guy being dominant and assuming attraction and being socially proofed by other women etc. is a mind-fuck to girls because its something they never run into and for that guy to exist means that he must be a badass to overcome his socially conditioned limitations and EXPECT to get hot chicks.

    We all expect Brad Pitt I have girls on his arm…and if he DOESN’T, he looks even lamer. He has to be EXTRA dominant because girls just assume he should be naturally dominant. This is why girls get pissed/frustrated when they go up to a tall good-looking guy only to find out he’s a big sloppy vagina. They thought his externals meant his internals would be solid but 99% of the time they don’t (despite the myths, again go out in the Field) so it’s extra frustrating to them to be “duped” like that.

    As I’ve said before, I routinely game in venues where the guys are all taller, buff/ripped, richer, driving fancy cars, etc and the girls are all legit 7+ (they don’t let ugly people in (“dress code” and all lol) so girls know to bring their hot friends). If I’m talking to a girl, other guys don’t exist unless my game is off and I drop the ball. And most of those guys are too chickenshit to approach, don’t know how to escalate when they DO approach, and end the night by either going home alone, hiring a hooker, or getting into fights lol


    • I was going to ask something along these lines. Like, I’ve noticed that this 7 really likes me. And she’s sure to dote and lovingly talk about every quirk. I wonder if playing against expectation actually reaps you larger rewards, in terms of long-term affection. It’s just a lot of ‘I’ve never done/thought/felt this before…’ So, if anything, getting into game with a handicap…if you can overcome the handicap…could be such a huge ROI.

      I’d analyze it closer by asking her questions about it but ehhhh most of my energy goes into not fucking up with her. (Srs, like I have to stop myself from just….looking at her….and shit lol)


      • You’re on the right track. That’s why I said way back that your height can actually be an advantage. But most guys won’t believe me when I say that till they have a doting 7 chasing them around. 😉

        Think about it from her perspective: she’s found a secret diamond in the rough that other girls missed out on. She’s found a guy who breaks all the stereotypes she’s been fed by society, what kind of boss must that guy be to spit in society’s face and not accept the role they tried to paint for him? Then on top of it she’s mind-fucked by all the things you do that open her up to a whole new world where she’s just amazed and mystified that her preconceived notions and beliefs could all have been wrong and it was just that she hadn’t met a REAL Man(TM) yet. She looks at you the way you look at her…like a magnificent piece of art you stare at in wonder. 🙂

        And it’ll only get better from here. You’ve got your whole life ahead of you. Like I say, in 5 years you won’t even recognize Old Scray. And you EARNED it by putting in the work.


      • on July 22, 2013 at 8:10 pm FuriousFerret

        “So, if anything, getting into game with a handicap…if you can overcome the handicap…could be such a huge ROI.”

        Que Indian/East Asian players. If you separate from the massive betatude of those races, you’re gold. A rare gem.

        One of the coolest guys I’ve ever known was a Chinese guy that looked like your stereotypical short Asian dork. However, when you interacted with him you found out he was the second coming of Chow Yun Fat. Slew the mythical white pussy, the white whale of the Asian male.

        I’ve never believed that looks got you any more than interview. I look very similar to musician Beck Hansen and I would get attention/IOIs from chicks all the time that liked that fair featured northern euro vibe that I would massively fuck up due to being brought up as a fundie Christian. Also what bothers me is that I knew the whole time that it’s bullshit to white knight, pedestal and all that, but my religious indoctrination overrided it.

        As far as I can tell decent looks will only get you direct approached/crushed on by fat/ugly women and cougars. Active IOIs from decent girls and eye pupil dilation from legit hotties sometimes. When you actually approach and talk to them, it doesn’t mean shit. It means you simply get an interview.

        Guys that cry that looks are everything are ugly men that wish that they were good looking. Put those same ugly men in the studs bodies and they would still fail miserably. It’s just that a lot of good looking men have more opportunities when they are growing up to develop because people gravitate towards giving the best genetics an environment to succeed. So they develop more confidence, arrogance and charisma, if they aren’t brainwashed by insane ideological like evangelical pentacostal Christianity.

        Looks matter but not nearly the degree that people that are losers make it out to be, well for men anyway.


  34. Looks matter, up to a point and play their biggest role when a guy is say 16 – 30.
    A good looking (looks + physique) male within this age range will have an advantage; provided he can back it up the other aspects of game; both inner game and outer game.
    Past 30, a mans looks is not as important because the shifting nature of womens hypergamous priorities places greater demand on requiring that the man has dominance/status, confidence, an acceptable job/career, $ assets and the rest.


    • Right. Its like a muscle car with an empty gas tank, Fill it up with social capital.


    • Maybe part of that is because most men under 30 are broke and look like frogs anyway. So women may be more keen on looks in younger guys because between 18 and 30, the one who looks least like a frog is probably more dominant.

      A man is very much shaped by his deeds.


      • Nicole.
        What is a woman shaped by?


      • Her feelings, so go for the ones shaped like desire to serve. Beware of those shaped like selfishness.


      • hamster on lean, baby!


      • Not at all. Women who like men do their best to be pleasant to look at.

        It’s not her problem if her best isn’t good enough for you. It’ll be more than enough for someone else, especially if it really is her best.

        Your job is to try to be the kind of guy who can get whatever you think is best.


      • Oh how thy hamster do spineth.


      • More like desire to serve, if and when it suits her and she has something usefull and important to her to gain from it and as long as this is the status quo, all is fine and dandy.

        The devil is in the detail Nicole.


      • Paul Keating (former Prime Minister of Australia) still quotes his early mentor, Jack Lang:

        ”In the race of life, always back self-interest – at least you know it’s trying”.


      • Well, that’s women. You can accept it or…not. I can assure you though, that you’re not going to find a woman who puts others before herself for reasons other than a martyr complex in Maxim.

        So you have to focus on the service itself, not the reasons for it. If a woman wants to please you or be visually pleasing to men in general because it is in her interest (ego, financial, etc.) to do so, that’s the best you’re likely to get.


      • “If a woman wants to please you or be visually pleasing to men in general because it is in her interest (ego, financial, etc.) to do so, that’s the best you’re likely to get.”

        Indeed; and in the race of life; a woman’s right to self interest ends where a man’s right to self interest begins.


      • Sure, might makes right, but there are different kinds of might. I think this is something women tend to forget these days. Holding a guy by the balls is much easier when he consents.

        Taking care of one’s self and hitting the right spots of his sexuality is much more fun than dealing with lawyers, shaming dudes into “manning up”, etc.

        Thing is, a guy has to be a man, and the woman has to be a woman for this to work in a way that is mutually beneficial, and also good for the children in the way of providing stability and realistic, natural example.

        One of the reasons I am just as supportive of game for men as I am for “game” (which is mostly self care and social navigation) for women, is because it reminds men what they’re supposed to be doing.

        …cause it’s easier to get a woman to touch your balls when she wants to as well. 😉


  35. Masculine good looks are useful for generating initial attraction, but that buys you maybe 2 or 3 minutes, tops. If you’re not self-confident and dominant, forget it.


  36. on July 22, 2013 at 7:30 pm anonymous basement dweller

    Looks are important, more so than in the past for men. Glad they are, as I am quite attractive. lol


  37. If I were way the hell out of my league trying to break in her wild horses where one mistake means a rodeo clown will drag my unconscious, rag doll of a body onto the meat wagon, just maybe I’ll “take her temperature” for cycle game.

    Other than that its just too neurotic for my tastes and I’ll just keep pissing off the coach with audibles when I see the defense for myself.


  38. “Only men who have kids are alpha” game haters wept as well. Alpha’s don’t need to have kids, but it is disingenuous to complain about the demographic shift – will there be any of European descent left in a few centuries, whether alpha or beta, if they don’t have offspring? As the capital of the empire burns, violin lessons are available.

    You missed the adjective – HORMONAL contraceptives, which tend to place women in a state of pseudo-pregnancy. Fertile women generally want the stronger men, already-pregnant (even if it is faked) generally want something else. The monthly game should be interesting and enlightening, but women on the pill are generally stuck a few days before their period in perpetuity, except when they stop long enough to have a period.


  39. Betaness Anonymous.
    In most states, feral hogs can be harvested by a wide variety of means. Trapping, followed by chain-sawing, is not out of bounds. Of course, as a Gentleman I would never go there.
    But keep in mind, women instinctively know that reproduction involves bloodshed, one way or the other. Pig hunting can teach clarity about these matters.


  40. on July 22, 2013 at 9:04 pm PrettyWiseTroll

    How the fuck do i approach a girl when my attitude and looks are intimidating? Coz all the girls i had would get really insecure or just give up? Answer that for me?!

    [CH: Target better looking girls.]


    • on July 22, 2013 at 9:26 pm Revo Luzione

      It was said elsewhere on teh Manowebs: (I think it was LaidNYC) “The hotter the girls you approach, the hotter the girls you will eventually bang.”


    • [CH: Target better looking girls.]

      Yes. This. 100%.

      I’ve gotten to the point where I (usually) only get anywhere with women if they’re hotter than about 7.5, with the 9s being most open to me. It’s completely fucked up, like the reverse of the usual beta AFC problem. Below 7.5, they are cynical, sometimes even borderline nasty, if I try an approach for the heck of it.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with that.


  41. It’d be nice to know which of the sorority girls got banged by which of the fraternity brothers, it’d probably validate the study, but might flesh it out a bit “Maxim #something or other: Never listen to what a women says she prefers in men; instead, watch what she does.”


  42. […] Study: Dominance, Not Looks, Predicts Men’s Mating Success […]


  43. “Readers can issue a correction if this interpretation is wrong, but what this study result shows is that dominant men with good looks actually had LOWER mating success than dominant men with rougher looks.”

    This correlates with an idea I’ve been batting about, namely that dominance must be believable to be effective. It’s more difficult for a “pretty boy” or a short man to demonstrate believable dominance. If it is not believable, it is perceived negatively rather than positively. That’s why short men get hit with the “Napoleon complex” insult.


  44. i was always baffled by women that described me as “intimidating”. personally i think i’m as intimadating as a pillow case of wet kittens, but it goes to show what CH suggests: confidence and attitude bring women to their knees.


  45. somebody needs to beat yareallys ass… guys is fucking annoying


  46. on July 22, 2013 at 11:39 pm Prof. Woland

    I should point out that the two traits are not mutually exclusive. Given a choice between an ugly dominant man and a good looking dominate man and guess which one a woman will choose.

    Another thing. There is an old saying. Men love women, women love children, and children love puppies. If you give a woman a good looking child she will love that child more than anything. If you give her a child she perceives as diminishing her status she will resent it. Women don’t want ugly children and ugly men have ugly children.


  47. I think they are right when it comes to the muscular-jaw-as-a-means-of-protection theory. Boxers with great chins usually have strong, squarish jaws, and fighters who can’t take a punch a pointy chin and thin jaw. There are exceptions, to be sure, and neck thickness is equally, if not more, important, but your punch resistance is largely determined by your jaw size/shape.

    The dominance-amongst-males section was interesting. The good news is the intuition females claim they have is not nearly as sharp as they think. I was recently at a gig of a local band. A former friend/acquaintance of mine was acting like an asshole – putting other guys down and making jokes at their expense. The sluts at the gig flocked to him. In reality he isn’t as bad-ass as his behaviour suggests. On the other hand, I have another former friend/acquaintance who I believe to be a psychopath. He punched the guy I mentioned above, he has punched me, he kicked a family member in the head, he punched another of our friends at a bar, he vandalises shit, he commits break-ins, etc. and that’s just the stuff I’m aware of. God knows what he’s done in private. We’re scared shitless of him to be honest. That’s why I haven’t seen him in 5 years. Despite all of this, he is not successful with women. Like most of the more dangerous psychopaths, he is an introvert. Unlike the guy mentioned earlier, he will not demean people publicly unless it is in retaliation. He is cordial and somewhat low-key in public. You might conclude that the guy who makes a big show of his toughness or assholeness, even if it’s largely a facade, gets the pussy. This is a problem for me, because I don’t like assaulting, insulting, humiliating people unless they’ve done something to me.

    As for the tall-and-handsome thing, I fit that description, and although it will get woman interested, you need something more to keep them keen for more than 2 minutes. Often beautiful girls hang around you and start flirting, but once they find out you don’t have the alphaness to match the looks, they fuck off. This is why I came to this blog, because I’m more beta by nature, unfortunately. The other thing about being tall and handsome is women often use you to make other men jealous, but they have no interest in you. They flirt with you in front of other men, including their boyfriends, but when you approach them afterwards when they’re alone they are uninterested. This happens quite a lot, actually.


  48. Related shit on looks:

    At 6:55 in this video:

    And allllll these other videos:

    For more reference on this, go out and talk to girls. lol


    • Tyler is 34. It will be interesting to see how he “evolves” (if at all) in the next 10 years (and beyond) as he ages well past the age of his clientele.


  49. ironic i was just thinking about this an out comes this article. think women rather fuck the personalty then the man. alpha domince is what gets them wet and subserviant. no wonder you see western women with african n arab men .those guys no how to domibate and inspire femine ans submissive behaviour in them.its like western womens attitude is one big shit test and out dominatin them us what it takes. look at the tsarnaev guy he was in control of his american woman.had she been with a western guy shed xastrate him easy.


  50. Women aren’t happy …. but they can’t work out why (1:18)



  51. on July 23, 2013 at 4:29 am Greatest Beta

    I find it fascinating how so many people have to learn to be aggressive and dominant with women. From the age of 15 I became aggressive with women. I recall my grad party for high school I made out with 3 girls in one night 🙂 that was me.

    Consistently banging girls with the occasional dry spell. Since age 20 I’ve been getting laid on a regular basis.

    Personally it’s biological all these dark triad traits lol all my gfs say I’m a bit “crazy” but they love riding the cockasz. I am a bit looney as I have narcissistic traits and mood swings where ill lean in to my girl sometimes just cuz


  52. I’ll never forget this one professor who had it all – tall, above average looks, status and money. If it hadn’t been for his painful betaness/borderline omeganess (unable to hold women’s gaze, looking away after he checked you out etc.) Like, why dude? Someday a link to this site will find him to end his misery and let him know that he could have gotten it.


  53. Interesting study, but few remarks:
    -Test subjects were Americans.
    -There was no measurement of correlation between hotness of the chick and dominance of the guy.

    I’m in W-Europe. If I look around me I see the OPPOSITE of what the study concludes. Lots of dominant males who have no pussy and resort to prostitutes, violence and drugs. Good looking guys get the hottest chicks. Hell, I even know a good looking autistic dude who has a model behind his tail. Sometimes I see a dominant guy score but most of the time with an under-average chick.

    My interpretation: this study is maybe true for the American sexual market, which implies there’s a difference in culture. Maybe in the USA lots of dudes work out and have good bodies but they are not dominant. In Europe guys are more naturally dominant but don’t tend to work out.

    A better conclusion is maybe that chicks are attracted to the dudes that are rare and in under-supply? I don’t know, more research is needed.


    • I grew up in Europe and I know exactly what you mean.
      Some things are different, some are not. Perhaps the most important difference is that in Europe, a woman’s attitude will more or less match her looks and/or social status. In America, she artificially adds 3-4 points (or more) to herself, because she KNOWS (…) she’s a ‘Goddess’.
      Also, the nerd vs. jock conflict is MUCH less pronounced in Europe than it is in the US. Where you are, cars are luxury toys for most, in the US, you’re not a human being without one. Or even if you have one but don’t use it.
      Many things are more extreme in the US, the dichotomy between the 60%+ of the population who are overweight/obese and the perhaps 15% or so who are super-fit being one such thing.
      Meeting people – including women – also tends to be MUCH easier in the Olde Worlde, there’s downtowns chock full of bars, clubs, cafes, theaters, restaurants, squares, fountains, parks and even shops open late with hundreds of thousands of people milling about until dawn.
      Much of the US rolls up the sidewalks at 5-7 pm, everything is many miles apart, bars close at 2 am, and after that, the only realistic option you have is her truck or yours. Scene downtown USA, Friday night, 10.30 pm: Maybe 20-30 people scattered across 4 or 5 bars, 1 hot dog vendor, 1 homeless guy nursing the last cup of coffee the restaurant will serve before they shut it. 1 guy sweepinfg the floor at the ‘hottest night club’. The rest, a ghost town from a post-apocalyptic movie.


      • I’ve never been in the states so I can’t really compare. Everything I know is 2nd hand. I know my friends can’t get laid in Europe but traveling to the states they had almost every evening pussy without too much effort. American girls are open and slutty and one-nightstands are very common. European people are more social circle oriented and will avoid strangers, even in nightlife. But that depends. Compare Spain and Finland. A huge difference. 2am closing time is crazy. That’s the hour nightlife starts. Also you guys can’t drink before 21. I had my first beer in a bar when I was 14.


      • I’m pretty skeptical, obv.


      • I am capable of creating phony dialects enough to fool Americans. I can tell you that getting an opening is much easy as a foreigner. Sex wants to spread, not too much but certainly its good to get out of town. You will get your 5 minutes.


    • In Europe guys are more naturally dominant but don’t tend to work out.

      There you go. There’s no contradiction. Given the choice between a dominant ugly dude and an equally dominant good-looking dude, the women will go for the good-looking dude.

      In the USA, because our trash culture kind of brainwashes us into being betas and white knights, we have a situation where good-looking dudes are more likely to be submissive betas. The women are sufficiently attracted to their looks to stay with them, even though being beta would normally turn the women off, and so these men continue to act beta because they still score decent women. However, shorter and/or uglier guys who try the same thing don’t get anywhere, so they either slum it with fat chicks, retreat into video games, or learn game and train themselves to become more dominant.


    • ‘In Europe guys are more naturally dominant but don’t tend to work out.’

      I doubt it.

      ‘In America, she artificially adds 3-4 points (or more) to herself, because she KNOWS (…) she’s a ‘Goddess’.’

      Psh. If you can make it in a major American city, you can get puss anywhere.

      And I mean, I’ve seen the pics. A Ukraine 10 is like an LA5 lol. USA for hot chix all the way


  54. This study is flawed.

    They used…..fraternity and sorority students as their subject pool?

    You know what affects mating success more than dominance and looks? WHICH frat you are in.

    [CH: Within frats and sororities, there will obviously be sexual market winners and losers, even if their mating success rate average is shifted from the general population average. So your criticism has less merit than you think.]


  55. on July 23, 2013 at 7:37 am RappaccinisDaughter

    O/T: Clown Rape!


    • That’s Juggalo rape.

      I would think such a connoisseur would be attentive to the finer distinctions.


      • on July 23, 2013 at 2:34 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        I don’t see a bottle of Faygo in his hand. Although the oddly malformed facial features, speaking to several generations of inbreeding, do indicate that there might be a Juggalo angle.


      • “Juggalo” happens to be my favorite pejorative these days. It’s a good stand-in for the Maury-Povich Jerry-Springer no-class trailer-park prole-wigger type who infests and precludes any attempt at an expression of beauty or virtue in our culture. Cuz he’s keepin it realll, or something. The triumph of the underclass, the Revenge of the Nïgger on the descendents of his masters.


  56. I just read an article in the Economist, June 15 issue, about chimps. It said that scientists had discovered that chimps have a dimension of personality that humans did not have—dominance. Makes you wonder about these scientists personal and social life.


  57. They must not get out much.


  58. on July 23, 2013 at 9:11 am betablocker87

    “Let the boys pick first and they naturally and happily provide for the girls. This requires no coaxing or incentives. Let the girls have the power and they naturally shut out all but the most popular boys, leaving the rest to solitude. Everyone was a lot less happy also.”


    • on July 23, 2013 at 5:49 pm Flashing Lights

      Simple and elegant, great case study, even if it’s only on the microcosm. Definitely something that I myself see in my own microcosm, and I bet many others see it as well.


  59. How about this: Physical muscularity, stature and masculine physical attributes in men are evolutionarily selected-for sexual cues indicating male dominance for women:

    Whether that dominance is confirmed in a man’s behavior or character is still up for interpretation once past the arousal phase, but the precursor to discovering if a man is legitimately dominant is being attracted to and aroused by his physical characteristics first.


    • Didn’t read the study but by your description of it, this is what I mean when I say height, muscles to women etc are just like a slutty dress and push-up bra are to men: a very quick easy indicator of “this man is probably alpha high value” or “this woman is probably sexually high value”

      It’s like a shortcut. Sure the mousy girl with the glasses and frizzy hair might turn out to be sexy as fuck when she’s done up She’s All That style, and sure the fat short guy might be a dominant alpha badass, but that’s harder to see at first glance.

      This is why I say, the short far guy just needs to figure out how to demonstrate/display dominant alpha traits and he’ll get attraction, just like the mousy girl would if she did herself up on a night out.

      And it’s also why girls are disappointed to find out the tall good-looking 6-pack guy is a beta chode, the same way it’d be disappointing to a man to find out the sexy Megan Fox lookalike has herpes and 2 kids. Their outward “easy indicators” of their value were false.

      So again like I say, height muscles etc is all just external shit that allows a girl to, at first glance, assume you probably have attractive dominant/alpha traits…but if you’re a good-looking beta chode, you will still lose the girl (again see death row at 2am when these guys are hitting on 4/10s and hiring hookers or going home to jack off to porn), and if you’re an ugly dude who’s more dominant/alpha than the other guys, you’ll do just fine.

      Ideally, ya, be super good-looking and tall and rich and have a Ferrari and be a dominant badass alpha etc etc. but that relies on a lot of luck/flukes in the genetic lottery and quite frankly this combo is like 0.000001% of the population. Most of the guys who THINK they’re this, aren’t. I know cause I’m in the clubs with them every week lol worrying about them is silly.


  60. Off topic, but so what?


  61. This is nothing. There was a study proving that attractive women are attracted to men who are “threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, coercive, selfish, dominant, impulsive” while unattractive women are not.


  62. Moreover, both multiple regression analysis and canonical analysis indicated selection under female choice for negative covariance between girth and facial and vocal masculinity, suggesting that the brawnier a man is, the more important it is for him to have a feminine face and voice, and vice versa. Female choice favored more attractive, but not more masculine, faces and voices, and facial attractiveness became more important as height increased.”

    Does this explain the pretty, yet tall and brawny Scandinavians?


  63. “The only game that matters” is sex? I like you dude, but here you are being just as wretchedly miserable as all the lefties you make fun of. Granted, everyone in the pick-up community is — and HAS to be — as fucked up as you are on this score, but I am only posting this on your blog because it is the best — if not on pick-up issues then certainly on general social commentary issues, which are far more important than pick-up, because guess what: in the grand scheme of things, sex is a fairly minor game..

    “Consider how refined women’s judgement on men is: none of them, and especially the prettier, more demanding ones, wants a man whose life is devoted entirely to them; they want their men to want more. And this makes perfect sense: doubtless the caveman who had no higher desires than a woman ended up a bad husband and father. The ideal of woman as the highest ideal was thus created by men of the second, even third rank: by lower men, who were not good at finding and securing for themselves good women. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, et al.: all of them lower men in this respect, setting woman (or sex, for the less romantically inclined ones like Schopenhauer) as the highest reward. But women themselves have always known better, that the highest reward must and always will necessarily lie beyond woman.”


    • Wow, no one replied to that BS? You’re pushing some pretty lies, bro.

      So the id doesn’t control the conscious. That’s a new one.
      And women know better? Are you kidding me? I’d have to throw out everything my lying eyes and ears have told me over the years to swallow that crap.

      The only game that matters is the same one you forfeited to your nerdery. Here’s something to make you cry: My phone is blowing up by this chick I banged in my car outside the bar I met her in. She’s describing her panties so I know which ones are hers to give back to her.


      • I’d take even leftist liberals over bottom-feeding scum like you whose highest accomplishment in life is an erection. Now take your whore’s panties and shove them down your throat until you choke on them, pls.


  64. […] Control defines a man. Science: Dominance, not looks, matters. […]


  65. […] commenter Kate (who used to go by the handle GeishaKate) reports that she is engaged to a manosphere writer, Mark Minter. Naturally, your genial hosts wonder if the […]


  66. […] week back CH had a study and post regarding the importance of dominance and how it’s ultimately dominance that attracts women […]