Chicks Dig Jerks: The Photographic Evidence

Ever notice how it’s the cute chicks who glom onto assholes and JERKBOYS the most, utterly belying the assertion by sexual market denialists that the kinds of girls assholes get are low self-esteem skanks and warpigs?

So what kinds of women do the world’s biggest assholes — serial killers — fuck (and, tragically, chuck)? You’d have to be a detective investigating one of these demons to know the quality of girls he’s boning. Well now, photographic evidence has surfaced supporting the anecdotal impression that hot babes dig the biggest jerks of them all.

Rodney Alcala, a serial killer who fulfilled his grisly urges in the 1970s (and was even a contestant on a dating game show, which he won), was found guilty in 2010 of killing four women and a 12-year-old girl. He is a former photographer who took many pictures of the women who accompanied him to his various haunts and lairs. Police found the photos in a storage locker rented to Alcala, and posted them online for information the public might have about any of the women in them, (presumably some of the women in the photos are still missing). You can see a slideshow of the photos here.

Observe anything about the photos? Besides the shadow of death that lurks in them. A theme, perhaps?

With the exception of a handful of photos, most of the women look happy to be in the company of Alcala, posing for him, often seductively. And while not every woman is attractive, enough are bangable that the stream of them eagerly acquiescing to Alcala’s charms — “You want me to go *where* with you, Rodney? Ok! Yay!” — should inflame the envy and ire of your typical niceguy beta male who’d be lucky to enjoy the intimacy of two chubby girls his entire life.

In related depressing news about the nature of the female species, a Mexican man who padlocked his younger girlfriend’s pelvis in a chastity belt avoided prosecution because the poor, abused woman just couldn’t find it in herself to send him to the clink.

To the surprise of authorities, the woman refused to press charges once the man was detained.

Not a surprise to anyone who knows women well. The lovers of sociopathic jerks may occasionally, in a histrionic fit or when their bladders are about to explode, call in for white knight assistance, but when push comes to shove the ladies are loath to permanently part with their mean men. After all, the sex is SO GOOD.

Story also says the woman has been his lover for twelve years, which would mean this man was 28 years old and she was 13 when they started dating. Ah, Mexico. May you forever stay south of the border. Or, failing that, may you move en masse into Bryan Caplan’s McMansion in Northern Virginia, and vibrantly pop his bubble.





Comments


  1. This is dead true correct. The most success I had in college with women was the combination predatory stare, finger point, “come here” gesture. First words: “Let’s get out of here.”

    (NOTE: Do not do this too early in the night. This is a ’round midnight move.)

    Any reader under 25 on here: I dare you to try this. And thank me later.

    Their eyes would light up. The more you talk and “relate,” the further into the “no bang” zone you fall.

    Like


    • if you can do it convincingly and commandingly, it definitely works. i have a tough time getting my head to forget how ludicrous it is, but when i do it right it is gold and it jumps so many early hurdles without a word. she’s well into the process before she gets to you.

      Like


    • I call it the “Hells Angel” gambit.

      invokes “don’t hurt me, fuck me instead”.

      Like


      • “Don’t hut me; fuck me instead.” That’s a mnemonic to remember, along with an image of Harley Quinn with the Joker.

        Like


      • Regarding the nexus of women who date killers, and Derbyshire’s “The Talk”:

        Sioux Falls Police: Adrian Peterson’s Son Has Died
        http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/10/11/adrian-peterson-dealing-with-tragic-situation/

        “…the boy… had been allegedly beaten severely by the man who the mother of the boy is dating…”

        You people who think that there isn’t “regression to the mean” amongst Africans are simply delusional.

        Adrian Peterson has at least 3 years of college under his belt [University of Oklahoma], and he has one NFL MVP award in his trophy case, and yet even he can’t protect his own offspring from the insanity of the ‘hood.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Peterson

        Like


      • Check that link a little more. Peterson just learned a couple of months ago that the kid even existed. Plus, the mother is white, so I don’t think this is exactly “the hood”. (The charged “boyfriend” is black, yes.)

        Like


    • “The most success I had in college with women was the combination predatory stare, finger point, “come here” gesture. First words: “Let’s get out of here.”

      That’s because women are very attracted to aggressive men who exude danger. The predatory stare conveys this better than anything, short of being a real serial killer.

      The serial killer is a bit of an extreme, and many women would steer clear of such a man, but then there are certain women who actively go looking to for such ugly. They need that danger to feel alive.

      This is why some women purposefully put themselves in positions to get raped by strangers. On a deep instinctual subconscious level, they wanna get raped. This happens a lot in clubs. They overdrink and flirt with lots of slimy guys who look like they can carry out the deed so that rape is a possibility.

      Like


      • That’s because women are very attracted to aggressive men who exude danger. The predatory stare conveys this better than anything, short of being a real serial killer.

        On this point, at least, we can agree. This has been a large part of my game for years and in an increasingly sissified country and city, in particular, the dividends just got higher as time passed. Guys in their 20s in DC have had their nuts surgically removed by the iron hand of feminist indoctrination since grade school. So when you walk in the room looking like you would just as soon punch one in the face as shake his hand, you look “different” in a way that they simply cannot.

        Side note: Alpha Predator game drops off precipitously in effectiveness the farther you get away from metropolitan areas full of nancy boys.

        Like


      • “So when you walk in the room looking like you would just as soon punch one in the face as shake his hand, you look “different” in a way that they simply cannot.”

        Which is why women in metropolitan areas like older men from a previous generation who look dominate and ominous. They’re thirsty. Just his scent as he enters the room is enough to create quivers.

        Like


      • Saw this in Ukiah, CA a few years ago. Scruffy, old biker/ pot farmer dudes with hot 20-somethings who wouldn’t give the local hipster dork 20-something beta males a second look. And the old dudes treated these women like rag mops. And the women loved it.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 6:24 pm Hammer of Love

        So is this how your current boyfriend picked you up ?

        Like


  2. One has to wonder after being around all those women and learning their true nature…if it drove him to serial killing.

    Besides I don’t take beauty as any indicator of a woman’s personality. They could be as messed up in the head as he was.

    Like


    • on October 11, 2013 at 7:45 am The Burninator

      Nothing “drives a man to serial killing” outside of his own lost, dark soul. It is the trait of the weakest men that they cannot handle the truth and seek to destroy it. To discover the empty nature of women is to confront a truth; a strong man accepts the truth of women as reality and works with it or rejects women and goes on with life, a cowardly sniveling beta attempts to destroy that which represents the truth in order to avoid it dealing with it.

      All hail free will.

      So much for serial killers.

      Like


      • Heh…so much for the “alpha theory” on serial killers.

        It should be no surprise whether it comes from religion…or the Heartiste’s love affair with precious science.

        Women are attracted to evil…always have been, always will.

        Like


      • I don’t think serial killers are alphas. I agree with Burninator,” Nothing “drives a man to serial killing” outside of his own lost, dark soul. It is the trait of the weakest men that they cannot handle the truth and seek to destroy it.”

        Those men can’t cope with reality or the truth, and they have no sense of accountability and of accepting responsibility for their lives. This is not an alpha make. The women attracted to such men, are really attracted to the suggestion of danger these men radiate, not their real personality, cuz if they knew the real personality lurking inside they would be disgusted.

        I couldn’t be attracted to a man who kills people. And, besides, I am too judgmental and morally governed to allow such a man to touch me.

        Then again, did these women know he killed people and still went out with him?

        Some women purposefully do this – date killers. They go to prison to see them, end up marrying them, and having conjugal visits. How can a woman have sex in jail with a guy who killed people? I can’t get it. In addition, once he’s locked up, there is no suggestion of danger anymore as he can’t really hurt her, so why is she getting turned on by him? Is it the warped idea she can change him, another fantasy women have?

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 10:53 am The Burninator

        “I couldn’t be attracted to a man who kills people.”

        Yes you could. Put a uniform on him and shiny metals won from battles where he killed lots of other human beings, and you’d go head over heels and rip off your clothes just to get a chance to bed him. Or less obvious, if we were walking down the street together and a man jumped out and tried to rape you, and I drew down on him and dispatched him with my 1911A1, I guarantee I’d get laid like a prince for the next decade.

        A more apt thing to say, I suspect, is that you wouldn’t be attracted to evil men who kill people.

        Like


      • “if we were walking down the street together and a man jumped out and tried to rape you, and I drew down on him and dispatched him with my 1911A1, I guarantee I’d get laid like a prince for the next decade.”

        If this man jumped out of a car, my reaction to you killing him would depend on the kind of car it was.

        I’m not kidding.

        Like


      • Yes, you’re right.

        I should be more precise in my language – I couldn’t be attracted to a man who murders people.

        There is a difference between killing and murder. They are not the same. Murder, there is no justification for it. It’s evil, and not a self-protective reaction.

        Killing is a necessity – like in the scenarios you outlined. Someone out to murder you, and you kill them first, is not murder or evil. It’s a necessity and a duty incumbent upon you to protect yourself. It’s legitimate self-defense. You can argue a war is also a legitimate self-defense.

        Appropriately enough, they are discussing the OT and the story of Adam and Eve below. In the Ten Commandments, in the original Hebrew, it’s “You shall not murder” as opposed to the foreign translations of “Thou shalt not kill.”

        Boy! Liberals hate this when you bring it to their attention. I love the mental twists they do. They clearly don’t have a moral compass to understand 1% of this concept.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 11:51 am The Burninator

        Your reaction, or lack thereof, not being the motivator. When I have a woman, she is mine, I own her and she longs, desires and craves to be owned by me. No man touches my property without my consent. In such an arrangement, you would understand implicitly already, ergo, you’d get wet tinglies for the next ten years.

        If you instead said “Wait, he was in a late model Mercedes, you only have a BMW, how dare you!” I would still have no regrets about pumping 238 grains of sweet, sweet death into his skull, just as I’d have no regrets about turning to you when you protested and saying “Next” and walking away. I’d leave you to find your own way home out of a neighborhood where men appear to rape you at random and any items of yours in my home would be found on the public sidewalk outside of my house. It would be the end of an arrangement, as it were. Your name would be forgotten and I’ll be sexing up your BFF before you could spurt a tear from your eyes over your loss.

        No woman puts conditions on my use of force, ever. She accepts it or rejects it, but she cannot and will not put conditions on it. It is my sole prerogative.

        And, I’m not kidding either.

        All that to the side, I did not mention an automobile being present. And it was beside the actual point anyway, the point being that violence comes in flavors other than Evil. Good violence should be embraced and celebrated, especially coming from Men. It’s our birthright.

        Like


      • Burninator, thus far you appear to be an infinitely better man than my previous internet crush,

        Like


      • “the point being that violence comes in flavors other than Evil. Good violence should be embraced and celebrated, especially coming from Men. It’s our birthright.”

        Agreed. We have the 3rd world and Islam at our doorstep because we don’t have real men that mean business.

        Like


      • “I don’t think serial killers are alphas.”

        Disagree. If Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and John Norman Collins(google that one – dude got laid like nobody’s biz in his day, esp. w/young hotties that he didn’t waste) weren’t alpha, the Chateau needs a new definition.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 12:58 pm The Burninator

        Ted Bundy: I wasn’t aware that alpha encompassed having sex with decomposing and dismembered corpses until they decomposed too much to tap. Now me, see, I consider that highly omega. Rape through deception and trickery is also omega, it is the explicit confession that a man cannot obtain a woman by any other means and has obtained the highest level of desperation. Rather than settle for a blow up doll, he goes and rapes women, kills them, then screws their corpses until there are too many maggots wiggling around in themt, in order to compensate for his shame of being an illegitimate child. The ultimate “waaaa, I’m a victim, I need to compensate for my status!” How utterly un-masculine and un-alpha.

        Manson, maybe. I don’t consider sociopathy and hard mental illness a sign of any kind of “type”, since it involves things over and above free will. An insane man is not alpha, omega or beta, he’s insane until such time as he can consciously direct and control his impulses and actions. That said, Manson was a master manipulator and could get women to go out and murder for him, so there is that I suppose.

        Like


      • “I don’t consider sociopathy and hard mental illness a sign of any kind of “type”, since it involves things over and above free will.”

        Exactly. I always roll my eyes when people argue serial killers are alpha by definition. On one end you’ve got high-functioning sociopaths like Manson who attract women with their aura of danger and charisma, and on the other end you’ve got freaky, obese basement dwellers like Dennis Ng who can’t get laid except through rape. I’d say they run the range from alpha through to omega, because mental illness in and of itself doesn’t denote levels of Game.

        Like


      • Bundy’s proclivities with what he did with his victims are irrelevant to his alpha status. He was universally described as charming, charismatic, good looking, and was able to “date” scores of women. A monster, no doubt, but a gina tingler nonetheless.

        Collins likewise did sadistic things with his victims, and was a legendary poon-scoring machine, getting same day lays with attractive young women who often had steady boyfriends.

        To deny the tendency of females to experience physical arousal when in the presence of evil men is to deny reality.

        Like


      • > “Women are attracted to evil…”

        Are they attracted to evil, or are they attracted to violence and dominance?

        From the evo-psych point of view, wouldn’t a woman be drawn to a man who was prepared to [and entirely capable of] killing – without compunction or remorse – in defense of her and her children?

        Prior to The Frankfurt School flexing its muscles in the 1960s, and replacing the John Waynes and the Gary Coopers and the William Holdens with the likes of an Alan Alda or a Dustin Hoffman or a Richard Dreyfuss, American boys knew perfectly well how to act like men.

        The problem nowadays, though, is that The Frankfurt School has poisoned the culture with 50 years of sexually androgynous emasculated boy-toy losers as role models, and, with the exception of the young sociopath, most boys nowadays don’t have any clue how to act in a masculine fashion.

        So that we [even here in the Dark Enlightenment] have come to confuse masculinity with sociopathy & evil, even though as recently as about 50 years ago, almost all normal, decent, moral men projected to women the very same “smell of the killer” – if for no other reason than that a huge proportion of American men had indeed been actual killers in Europe or the Pacific or Korea.

        Like


      • “From the evo-psych point of view, wouldn’t a woman be drawn to a man who was prepared to [and entirely capable of] killing – without compunction or remorse – in defense of her and her children?”

        Yes. I think most women are attracted to dominance and violence paired with protective instincts. Serial killer groupies are a special kind of broken and likely have some latent sadistic impulses themselves. Chicks dig jerks, yeah, but different kinds of chicks dig different kinds of jerks. I find the idea of a man who would kill to protect me kind of sexy, but serial killers repulse me because they kill due to weird psychosexual mommy issues.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 7:58 am gunslingergregi

        they born that way
        and really if you are born a serial killer
        it ain’t like the movies
        chicks will of there own free will let you kill them if you want

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 8:33 am gunslingergregi

        so that’s the truth of woman get em to love you and they will do anything
        including let you kill em
        that’s pretty profound
        that’s some dedication

        Like


      • or fucky brain chemistry. either one.

        Like


      • “To discover the empty nature of women is to confront a truth; a strong man accepts the truth of women as reality and works with it”

        That’s the best option. And, believe me, it’s what women want too. A woman wants a man who understands her – the good, the bad, and the ugly – because she needs to have a strong man to lean on. Women need a cane, even if they don’t admit it. They feel protected when a man knows and can handle their bullshit. They like the control.

        In addition, understanding and controlling a woman is fun for the man too. It provides lots of sexual energy.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 10:49 am The Burninator

        Absolutely correct. That men need this pointed out to them with such frequency is alarming. It’s written as plain as day, and any honest woman will admit it (if alone, quietly, and none of the Sisterhood are around to hear her). The clues are practically screaming at men about this (the dominance of BDSM and rape fantasies amongst a lot of women, 50 Shades of Gray, women swooning over the assholes on cue, etc), but they refuse to see or acknowledge it. It upsets their happy little world of marshmallows and unicorns to think that pretty Sally Anne isn’t interested in the bleats of wimps trying to placate her and that instead she sits home at night and rubs out to fantasies of aggressive, dangerous, dominant men who control her and put boundaries on her behavior.

        That leaves a small handful of men who know. Of those, one set deals with it and profits; the other set rejects it and either goes the MGTOW route or become seething, violent cretins.

        Like


      • “They feel protected when a man knows and can handle their bullshit.”

        Most men have lost the ability to handle their own bullshit because apparently we needed to get in touch with our feelings.

        Here’s what I would tell every guy that I wished I knew younger….your feelings don’t mean shit. It’s only your actions.

        Like


      • [quote]“To discover the empty nature of women is to confront a truth; a strong man accepts the truth of women as reality and works with it”[/quote]

        Hey Lily,

        how would a female (as you) explain this ‘phenomenon’ anno 2013?

        Could you explain this sentence / meaning using your own words or examples as a female ?

        I’m just curios …

        Thanx

        Like


      • Balkan Man,

        “Could you explain this sentence / meaning using your own words or examples as a female ?”
        .

        Burninator is spot on with this statement of his.

        “To discover the empty nature of women is to confront a truth; a strong man accepts the truth of women as reality and works with it”

        .

        Look, hating women for their natures is stupid and wrong, because that’s how women were purposefully created. I know a lot of people here are God-centered, like Earl, for example. Therefore, they must believe the Creator created women’s natures intentionally. Either believe God, or believe evolution made women this way. Hence, hating them is not in order, and will only backfire on men. It will hinder their ability to bed females, because such men are not sexy in the eyes of women. A woman wants a man who knows her inside and out (since that implies control – when she can’t hide things or lie about herself to him, has to bear all, and be vulnerable), as opposed to a man who like a little boy is scared of her “evilness,” or her manipulations. A woman manipulating is a given. Learn her ways, and manipulate her while she is trying to manipulate you. That could be a lot of fun for the man who knows how to play the game. Face female challenge (shit testing) upfront; don’t hide from it. It’s the best sex game – you manipulating her manipulating you – or using her own nature against her. Who’s going to win in the end? You (with the right attitude). LOL, she wants you to win. That’s why she is doing it and testing you. Accept it lovingly and happily (because it means she is attracted to you), and your sexual relationships with women will flourish.

        Read up on any ancient war, the vanquished men were killed, and the women taken hostage and sexed. Even if women could rebel against their conquerors, they wouldn’t, because the idea of being captured and forced to have sex with a brute (never mind that he killed your entire village) is very appealing to the female psyche. Is it right? No. It’s evil. Therefore, I think women should learn to transcend their natures and do the right thing. Of course, with feminism this is becoming a more distant possibility than ever.

        Yesterday I wrote in another thread that men should transcend their natures and learn to do the right thing when choosing a mate. So, both sexes have to learn to go against their basic instincts and primitive impulses to curb bad behavior. The only thing is, I don’ t consider the male/female mating game a bad thing within the confines of a real relationship.

        On the other hand, think about women who hate men solely because of their natures – aggressive, sexual, dominant, dump a woman when they used her, divorce fat wives etc….Yet, it’s how men were intentionally created. Furthermore, male was created before female, which means male is the default model of a human, not female. Female is auxiliary. So, when women hate men for those traits, or try to replace men in importance, they become feminists. Are feminists attractive? Not in the least! Forget their looks, which is usually awful, but their attitude is a turn off for most masculine men who live in reality and know the true nature of women, as opposed to what feminists tell them.

        Therefore, all this talk of women being evil, I think is childish. Women are attracted to danger, aggression, sexual expertise, power, and strength, from men. Sometimes, any hint of it can generate attraction, or to a stronger extent, pussy tingles. But is the man truly that way? Many women mistake the serial murderer or the cad for alpha. Neither one of them is. Alpha is an emotionally strong male that can handle responsibility and reality, has honor, expects his woman will please him, leads the relationship, provides dominance and protection to her, has options, and especially if he gives up other women for her, she needs to respect this and know he can change that at any minute if the relationship isn’t working out. His faithfulness should not be a given, but a gift. For the male-female relationship, there really isn’t anything that could make a couple happy than a male-lead relationship.

        Like


      • Women are capable of overcoming any evil feelings like this – with God. If women were damned to forever be slave to their own whims and the evil of the world, why does God give us the proverbs 31 guideline as to how we should be? And Titus 2? and 1 Timothy 2:15—”Women will be saved through childbearing.” With faith and being raised by a good father, and following the guideline set out for us we definitely don’t have to fall to such evil desires as wanting serial killers. It only all goes wrong like this when women are given full reign and rule to do as they please.

        Like


      • I agree, though believing in God and learning to transcend their evil inclinations, both men and women can reach the highest spheres. The story of Adam and Eve was partially about learning to do the right thing, not just what feels good, specifically after eating from the fruit of knowledge, which brought with it the ability to discern good from evil. There are no excuses after that.

        “If women were damned to forever be slave to their own whims”

        No, they have to make a choice; there is no easy way out. That said, it’s up to men to guide and show the way, especially in this day and age where females have been stripped of all wisdom by a predatory liberal society.

        Like


      • For the record…I don’t think women themselves ARE evil. They are easily attracted to it though. Which is why God and a good man are necessarily in their lives. The father at first…and then her husband.

        Evil can put on a dazzling display of power…but there is nothing behind it. Like a PUA wearing fuzzy hats to get your attention but then you find out he was covering up his hurt feelings in the past.

        Good however doesn’t have to boast about anything…it goes about its business and it is powerful nonetheless.

        Like


      • “Which is why God and a good man are necessarily in their lives. The father at first…and then her husband.”

        Bingo!
        .

        “Good however doesn’t have to boast about anything…it goes about its business and it is powerful nonetheless.”

        Good is always more powerful. If it weren’t, our world couldn’t survive. Evil is here so that we can make the choice of good.

        How do you know what’s good if evil didn’t exist and you never seen, experienced, or heard of it? Good can’t exist without evil. They’re symbiotic – meaning, good can’t live without evil living as well, and evil has no business being here if it’s not to hold up good. Therefore, God created both of these inclinations in us, and in the world around us.

        Without evil existing, we are entering utopia territory, and we all know utopia doesn’t exist. Every society that tried to instill or create utopia (by supposedly removing evil) was evil itself.

        Free choice is the only way to true good – when you choose good over evil, that is.

        Now go forth and choose wisely! (lol I feel like a preacher man)

        Like


      • Lily, have you considered writing a blog? You have many words to say, it would be good to see it in blog form.. you seem clever. Are you Christian? – I haven’t been able to figure out from your comments.

        Like


      • Lily, have you considered writing a blog? You have many words to say, it would be good to see it in blog form..

        This is EmbracingNonAmericanForeignHottie way of saying you are fucking long winded all day every day. I can’t lie, I generally skip over most of your shit. B R E V I T Y is lost on you, as it is on most females with a brain (that was a compliment, by the by) but as I said short of you losing oxygen to your big ass brain via choking I don’t know how to get you to put your thoughts into less paragraphs aka shut the fuck up… *shrug*

        Like


      • [quote]A woman wants a man who knows her inside and out (since that implies control – when she can’t hide things or lie about herself to him, has to bear all, and be vulnerable), as opposed to a man who like a little boy is scared of her “evilness,” or her manipulations. A woman manipulating is a given. Learn her ways, and manipulate her while she is trying to manipulate you. That could be a lot of fun for the man who knows how to play the game. Face female challenge (shit testing) upfront; don’t hide from it. It’s the best sex game – you manipulating her manipulating you – or using her own nature against her. Who’s going to win in the end? You (with the right attitude). LOL, she wants you to win. That’s why she is doing it and testing you. Accept it lovingly and happily (because it means she is attracted to you), and your sexual relationships with women will flourish.[/quote]

        @Lily

        Ok thanx for the explanation.
        It’s interesting to hear this stuff from a female.. I like the 2-way communication because it gives me the information & a possibility to rule (“Learn her ways, and manipulate her while she is trying to manipulate you”) without becoming an obvious Dictator.
        Still, the biggest obstacle here is: find that fine thin line between the learning process and having enough with someone’s ‘bullsh|t’ (male logic). ‘Next-ing’ is becoming very easy in that case.

        Like


      • >free will.

        you still believe in that shit?

        how old are you?

        Like


      • Yes, I do. And if you don’t believe you have free will, then it means you feel powerless and formatted by nature like an animal. No, human beings are higher than animals. We have intellect, and we can also make choices that have far-reaching effects, where animals can’t.

        While we are subject to our primitive subconscious nature, we can also transcend it by our choices and decisions.

        Like


      • >it means you feel powerless and formatted by nature like an animal

        Don’t tell me what I believe.

        What I do not believe, but know, is this: Everything is part of nature, the universe or whatever you call it. It all follows predictable patterns, that is, with enough information, anything can be predicted. The human psyche is all-natural. It follows the laws of the universe just as everything else does.

        >we can also transcend it by our choices and decisions.

        Where do you think choices come from, Lily? They come from pre-existing factors. They are the direct physical result of everything that’s going on inside your skull. It’s all a chain reaction, though a very complex one. We are only chemical robots.

        To insist that the human psyche can somehow transcend the laws of nature and do things that are independent of the physical factors already in place is sheer superstition.

        I’d stick around to argue with you, but I have to go to work.

        Like


      • He’s right. Unfortunate as it might sound, he’s got a point.

        The reason why you insist on “transcending” is because of what you have seen and experienced in your life so far.

        You are merely a product of everything. Free will is an illusion. The desire to choose one way in and of itself is evidence of a lack of free will.

        Like


      • “We are only chemical robots.”

        Who is this “we” paleface?

        Like


      • @ sigmatika

        “What I do not believe, but know, is this: Everything is part of nature, the universe or whatever you call it. It all follows predictable patterns, that is, with enough information, anything can be predicted. The human psyche is all-natural. It follows the laws of the universe just as everything else does.”

        This is a discussion for physics. Of course, everything is already built into the universe, duh. Different aspects of life have a set of possibilities. Sometimes, the possibilities are endless, but most of the time there is a finite number of possibilities and we have to choose one of the built-in possibilities. This doesn’t mean free will doesn’t exit, or that it’s pre-determined
        .

        “Where do you think choices come from, Lily? They come from pre-existing factors. They are the direct physical result of everything that’s going on inside your skull. It’s all a chain reaction, though a very complex one. We are only chemical robots.”

        Pre-existing factors? Indeed. There is a finite number of possibilities and we have to choose one from the available possibilities. For example, you go to a restaurant and you choose a dish. There are a finite number of possibilities – as each dish is a possibility. Right? Therefore, making an order is not an endless choice; it’s a finite choice. Nevertheless, it’s still a choice. So, even though the possibilities are already built-in, you still have free will to make a choice form the available possibilities. Therefore, what you order at that restaurant is indeed an exercise of your free will. The only difference is you can’t choose to buy a car there because it’s not that kind of an establishment. You can only buy food there, and only what they are already cooking (what’s on the menu). Does it mean you don’t have any choice in what you order for dinner that night? Of course, you have a choice.

        Life is very much like this. All the possibilities within a situation exist before you. The only thing left for you is to choose from within the confines of the set of choices. You’re still choosing, but you’re choosing things that are pertinent to the situation, not irrelevant things, such as buying a car at a restaurant. This merely means that we have boundaries; we’re not God and therefore we can’t do what we want without boundaries. We can do what we want only when it’s pertinent to the situation. Think about it in terms of a democracy. In a democracy, we have lots of personal freedom, but we still don’t have endless freedom to do everything we want. Does it mean we don’t have a democracy? Of course, we have a democracy, but with some limits.
        .

        “To insist that the human psyche can somehow transcend the laws of nature and do things that are independent of the physical factors already in place is sheer superstition.”

        No. It’s not superstition. Rather, your belief means that you feel helpless. You feel your life is predisposed to be a certain way, and no matter what you want or choose, it will not make any difference on your happiness. This is what you are driving at. It’s sad because it’s hopeless.

        For the record, by transcending I mean that we don’t have to be stuck doing whatever we’re programed. Both men and women have an obligation to manage their innate nature, and change their predisposed inclinations when they’re clearly self-destructive and not in their best interest. Otherwise, if we think we are stuck doing only what our basic primitive instincts tells us, we are not higher than animals. In fact, whatever feels easy for us to be is exactly what we have to change about ourselves. We are not here just to follow a predicted path, as this has no purpose. It is useless, and I doubt life or the universe exists for useless reasons. It must have a meaning, and we are partners in that meaning.

        Like


      • @RP
        “You are merely a product of everything. Free will is an illusion. The desire to choose one way in and of itself is evidence of a lack of free will.”

        Wrong! My restaurant example above is proof otherwise.
        .

        “The reason why you insist on “transcending” is because of what you have seen and experienced in your life so far.”

        No. it’s because we’re not programed robots. That’s why we could transcend, or exceed our nature and go beyond our predisposed inclinations. We are not here just to follow a predicted path dictated by our basic primitive instincts, as this has no purpose. It is useless, and I doubt life or the universe exists for useless reasons.

        Like


      • You can choose good or evil at anytime. This life is nothing but free will.

        Like


  3. To be fair, at the point these photos were taken, none of these women know he’s a serial killer. I saw a documentary of this guy that included the Dating Game clip and he was indeed very charming, outgoing and chatty. Anyone would be fooled. It’s not like he sat there glowering with a bloody knife in his hand.

    [CH: You’re missing the point. It appears over and over again that women glom onto society’s evilest men. So apparently whatever it is that makes these men evil also makes them attractive to women. You can call it charm, but there are plenty of non-evil men who have the basics of charm down. No, I see it as something much more telling about women’s mate choice radar: women are drawn to the subtle hints of evil lurking behind a bad man’s phony smile.]

    Like


    • on October 11, 2013 at 9:09 am gunslingergregi

      yea chick that stayed at my house while ago for three days tagging along with my chick buddy came back gave me the big hug with another chick got raped by dude she said pregnant and beat crap out of her
      yea she with the dude
      true evil don’t give em a choice
      maybe its cause she ugly I don’t know

      Like


    • @AMY, sorry honey. Whether the Garden of Eve story is true or not, I believe it is, it is trying to tell you your nature. The old ways are the best ways and have worked for a long time for a reason. The ancients are, not using were because their legacy lives on in their books, smarter than us. They were trying to tell you something about EVE. She was drawn to evil. Truth sucks darling. Accept it but your DNA tells me you won’t.

      Like


      • people had no fucked up societal distractions and they could observe nature.

        Twitter has replaced observation and thought.

        Like


      • Accept what, honey? That I’m attracted to serial killers? Lol. This place never disappoints.

        I did go out with a drug felon with tattoos, if that makes you feel better.

        [CH: whoomp there it is.]

        I prefer badboys who aren’t actively trying to kill me.

        [difference of degree, not kind.]

        Like


      • You think that is a comeback. You see how you use your emotions. Don’t forget you already have a strike against you in this convo because you are female. . LMAO. Iwould hope not about the serial killer. I was not saying that and YOU KNOW it in your heart. You are a woman. And yes someone like me would pull you right by your hair and you would love every second of it.

        Like


      • “And yes someone like me would pull you right by your hair and you would love every second of it.”

        Lol. Hairpulling does not make a guy a serial killer (I speak from considerable experience) nor does it make the guy evil. I think most of you have a very broad definition of evil.

        Like


      • @Amy
        “I did go out with a drug felon with tattoos, if that makes you feel better.”

        Haha….you just confessed. This is exactly the stuff they wanna hear. It’s all downhill from here.

        @LexSex

        “I was not saying that and YOU KNOW it in your heart. You are a woman. And yes someone like me would pull you right by your hair and you would love every second of it.”

        As long as you’re not a serial murderer or a drug felon with tattoos. Although……a drug kingpin is a turn on – now that we’re confessing.

        Like


      • Sigh. I didn’t confess to anything; I’ve agreed all along that women are attracted to badboys. I said so in my first post. My point was that women aren’t attracted to serial killers per se (I know some are), they’re attracted to certain traits he has, the same traits that normal alpha males have. They’re not attracted to the fact that he’s going to slice them up with a knife.

        Folks…. drugs are bad, but murdering people is a lot worse. You do know this, right?

        Like


      • Murderer? NO. only if in self defense without even thinking about but that would be killing and not murder. For example, one of the commandments is thou shall not murder. It is not kill like most believe. Murder and killing is different. Tattoos? No my body is perfect why paint crap on it. Drug kingpin? not currently.

        Like


      • “Haha….you just confessed. This is exactly the stuff they wanna hear. It’s all downhill from here.”

        Uh no Lily…when you confess then you can finally admit to yourself the actions you did. Who cares what anyone else thinks?

        You women and wanting to keep sins covered up…that will end badly.

        Like


      • OMG! I just posted this up top as a response to Burninator. It’s not showing on the board yet.

        Clearly, you know the truth about the difference between murder and killing. You’re my type of man. Keep on posting.

        LexSex – great moniker too.

        Like


      • I don’t know about this.. women loving psychopath men, I never thought about it before. I have seen women are attracted to bad men, mafia men, drug dealers etc. But I thought it was just because they were attracted to the money, power, status and the aggressive attitudes.
        I like aggressive, but I like it in the context of “Revolutionary type” man. A man of the people, a man who will be aggressive and use it for the greater good, who is not afraid to rebel against society for his beliefs. That was my “dream man”.
        Maybe they like that aggression, just in a different form.

        Like


      • @ Amy

        “Sigh. I didn’t confess to anything; I’ve agreed all along that women are attracted to badboys.”

        I was joking with you. I was “confessing” too. LOL.

        Like


      • @Embracing

        “Maybe they like that aggression, just in a different form.”

        The source that we draw from is the same basic instinct to kill. That’s why we “kill it” in business deals, “destroy opponents” in sports, and “blow things up” in wars.

        Like


      • RP – Yes, I understand..that’s a good analogy.

        Like


      • If she had gone out with the serial killer she wouldn’t be here to tell the story. Self-selection.

        Like


      • “I did go out with a drug felon with tattoos, if that makes you feel better.”

        Emotions could care less about truths.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 11:06 am gunslingergregi

        yall killing me today

        Like


      • on October 12, 2013 at 10:08 am gunslingergregi

        look at the sick bitches on here I need to get the fuck out of dodge

        Like


      • Pay attention gentlemen:

        Like


      • “They were trying to tell you something about EVE. She was drawn to evil.”

        Wow! Interesting idea. This puts a deeper meaning to the story.

        Like


      • I know alot of girls from college to today. Guess what? I have asked many times, “How come you don’t have many girlfriends”? The answer was ALWAYS “Because they are evil”. I said, “but you’re a girl”. they said, “Exactly. Thats why I know”. But then, when I can use their statement against them for something stupid they did like backstab one of their friends, they still deny they are evil but the other girls are. WOWOWEEWOWOW!!!!!!!!!!

        Like


      • If it wasn’t for love, sexual desire, and reproduction purposes…women would have been eliminated by early men pretty quickly because of their evil tendencies.

        Like


    • Women are attracted to evil.

      From Eve to today.

      This should be in plain sight now that all the guardrails and covers have been taken off. At least in the bad old days it was under control and the societies that allowed women to do whatever they want fell apart.

      Feminine mystique is long past gone…another wonderful fruit of feminism.

      Women are attracted to evil. Don’t fight this statement…it is in your nature. Which is why it is important you find a man who is strong and teeters more on the good side of things.

      Like


    • “No, I see it as something much more telling about women’s mate choice radar: women are drawn to the subtle hints of evil lurking behind a bad man’s phony smile.]”

      MiMight be true. This would certainly explain why some women marry serial killers in jail. Serial killers don’t float my boat (they disgust me), but some women clearly actively look for such men. I can’t even bring forth the excuse they are attracted to danger, because how dangerous can he be in jail? Clearly, such a woman likes his nasty evil hands touching her.

      Like


      • Well, these women might also have highly dysfunctional “savior” impulses. They need to help rescue someone; they seek out bad men who (they perceive) have good hearts and need their help and taming influence. I have this problem myself, but like most normal women, there’s a limit. It doesn’t include saving serial killers, violent criminals, and the otherwise viciously cruel.

        Like


  4. on October 11, 2013 at 7:56 am gunslingergregi

    would bang the first one

    Like


  5. Somehow, this is less accentuated outside of the West. I guess this is what you get when hypergamy is allowed to rampage unchecked

    Like


  6. “which would mean this man was 28 years old and she was 13 when they started dating”

    I’m 28! I still have much to learn…….

    Like


  7. Wish I could find the video clip but I once saw a documentary interviewing a woman who survived the socialist death camp called Auschwitz where Dr. Mengele operated. She recounted how Mengele was a dashing figure who wore crisp blue shirts and cologne and incredibly how a young Jewish woman who was also a prisoner confided “I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND THE NIGHT WITH DR. MENGELE”.

    Ugh. That was disturbing to my very core, but I’ve since noticed that women seem to have a thing for authoritarian politicians. We all know about the huge gender gap where women favor American fascists, er, “progressives” like Barack Obama, but it’s a lessor known fact that in the critical election that swept Hitler into power, it was women in Germany who found Hitler’s idealism, passion and hope so enthralling that they used their newly won suffrage to give him the keys to the German nation.

    I think the problem is that women tend to view government as a corollary to a family while men are more suspicious of trusting other men with power over them. While an authoritarian man may work well for a family where the children share 50% of the DNA with each parent, it’s a disaster for a government where power must be constantly checked.

    Mercy

    Like


    • which means we’re hosed, since women are happy to abdicate responsibility to government and consider a problem ‘solved’. they’ll always have enough weak-ass males along to dominate, and later subjugate.

      the whole women-shouldn’t-vote thing won’t probably ever fly again, but if i had a new country i’d definitely go for only property taxes, and then only property owners voting.

      Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 10:01 am The Burninator

        If there was one mistake I’d go back in history to correct, it would be to ensure that the year 1920 had a whole different outcome and that the suffrage movement was killed, burned and its ashes scattered to the four winds. All the other wars, dictators, famines, etc. pale in comparison to what the female vote is creating across the West, and promises to create more of in the future. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

        For added emphasis, I’d ensure that kids under 22 couldn’t vote either. But that may just be a “me thing”. And the property owner requirement as you say, was sound as well.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 12:33 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        We’re not giving up suffrage and property rights. That’s just not going to happen.

        But it doesn’t have to. You want the problem fixed? Nobody votes who doesn’t pay tax*. It doesn’t have to be a lot; it just has to be something. People who get all of their taxes back with earned income tax credit don’t count, either. As soon as the majority can’t vote themselves raises out of the pockets of the minority, shit’s going to get back on track quickly.

        Now, here’s the part where I admit freely that this will disenfranchise a disproportionate number of women, especially single mothers. And that’s sort of the point. But it’ll do it without removing the vote from those of us who manage to possess both a vagina and a sense of responsibility for ourselves.

        * I am going to exempt disabled veterans and law-enforcement officers; they have contributed to society already.

        Like


      • That’s actually pretty smart. Single moms vote heavily dumbocrat, but respectably married women vote more like men.

        Like


      • Hmmm, the ideal would be that only those who pay taxes and ARE in army combat positions can vote, so only those who put blood and money have a say in state matters, the rest can get along with this or move to another country.

        Like


      • Considering the prefrontal cortex does not fully mature until the age of twenty-five, that might be the optimal age. Makes you wonder what the evolutionary advantage of that was…we undergo risky behavior (such as childbirth/military service) before we can think about it too clearly?

        Like


      • Kate

        Considering the prefrontal cortex does not fully mature until the age of twenty-five, that might be the optimal age
        ——————————————————————————————–

        *flame on*

        Fuck you Kate; and the kotex you rode in on.

        All over the world men and BOYS are expected, and if need be, FORCED to defend the tribe from any and all threats.

        Ain’t nobody concerned about our “maturity” then?

        WTF?

        Or, in the words of that old white man who couldn’t renew his ID because he didn’t have his birth certificate:

        “you didn’t ask for a birth certificate when you sent me to Iwo Jima?

        Like


      • I’m sorry, thwack. I don’t understand your point, nor the need to express it with such hostility. I said it would make sense to have the voting/property ownership age be twenty-five and wondered why we would be designed to not be fully mentally developed till then (especially if lifespans used to be shorter).

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm The Burninator

        You can keep property rights, as well as equality before the law in all other matters. However come a civil war, you won’t get a say about giving up suffrage, it will either happen or not happen based on how the men fighting to save you and your family decide once the shooting is done. There’s no gentler way to put that I’m afraid, but it’s no secret that a large and growing number of men whisper quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, to each other now that suffrage for women was a mistake (it’s even starting to find itself spoken in the mainstream as “jokes”). Give us one society destroying war and it’s a mistake that will be corrected, assuming the world doesn’t nuke itself as a result.

        That being said, there likely won’t be any society shattering war in our lifetimes on U.S. soil. Few men posses the spirit of resistance or rebellion any longer in the West. I have no idea why this is so, but it is.

        I do like the idea about not letting deadbeats vote. Paul should never get a vote on how to defund Peter, it is illogical on its face.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 1:03 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Should there ever be a civil war on our soil—which I highly doubt—I will indeed get a say about suffrage, because I will be fighting in that war. The side that I will be on will be the one that supports my right to vote. Either I will win, or I will die. It’s quite simple, really.

        Like


      • Armies that include feminists get their collective asses handed to them, so it sounds as if you’ll die. Democracy is bad enough when the franchise is limited to landed males. Anything beyond that is cultural suicide.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 1:23 pm The Burninator

        Then you will side with the society destroying Left. And, in that situation if they’d win, outright totalitarian communism. But at least you’ll have a vote, right? Beats a small government society with little taxation, little regulation, no infringements on your right to bear arms and no burdens of being forced to confess yourself electronically to the government every time you post on Facebook. The tyranny of not being able to vote in that society, gasp, the horror (and honestly, I’d personally give up the vote if such a society were to re-establish, voting is over-rated and has become little more than a ruse to make you think you took part in the decision making process). Best stick with the totalitarians, it’s what they want anyway, they’re counting on it actually.

        You’ll be fighting only insofar as it becomes too hard. Real war and fighting of that kind is not a one day affair and it is something that exhausts and destroys stronger men, let alone women. If you stay only a sniper under deep cover with a male spotter to cover your rear, or a no uniform assassin of the enemy (think cloak and dagger stuff), you may do ok, anything else and you’ll be out quickly. I have enough real life experience with women in the military to understand why there is always a truck/auto nearby during long runs/marches or long missions in the field; to take them back to the barracks when they break down. And they break down. Fast. G.I. Jane is a fiction. The few women who cut it or get close to cutting it, even marginally, are the highly masculinized extreme butch lesbian types who are two testosterone therapy treatments away from sprouting a dick. I still harbor doubts about trusting even them, to be frank.

        In WW2 Russian women who acted as snipers did ok, kinda, during city sieges; anything else and they got to visit long trains of eager German soldiers, or worse, their own comrade “brethren” in the vacant, deserted remains of buildings at midnight. Yay voting.

        There are better “rights” to live and die for, imho. In a just society where your rights were guarded zealously by a stronger Constitution and more robust and honest legal system, I would give two shits about pulling a politician’s lever, as he wouldn’t have that much power anyway (what, with the Constitution restraining him mightily and such). Beats siding with a communist/progressive any day of the week, wot?

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 1:43 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        “a small government society with little taxation, little regulation, no infringements on your right to bear arms and no burdens of being forced to confess yourself electronically to the government every time you post on Facebook.”

        No, it doesn’t beat that. That’s the society that I want, and that I am working for. But only if I get to participate in it as a full and free citizen. It doesn’t matter how awesome the society is if I live in it as chattel.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 1:52 pm The Burninator

        Logically unsound. Women were not chattel in 1915. They had all the rights of a man, except voting. They owned and inherited property, they ran a business if they were ambitious enough, they could go armed as they wished, they even held appointed government positions. They participated in the civil societies of the time, they held high station in private industry if they could demonstrate real competence, they wrote and published novels, they engaged in universities and all other areas of life if they were ambitious enough. In fact, the only thing they couldn’t do, was vote. And wouldn’t you know it, we had low taxes, low regulation, hard gun rights and no government spying on us. 1920 hits and very shortly thereafter we take on massive amounts of “progressivism” and now, here we are. No coincidence, and other nations have experienced the same thing. Switzerland now has “gun control” being whined about, for the first time in its history. They only allowed women the privilege of voting in the early 1970’s and almost to the day the words “gun laws” came into vogue. Prior to that, what is “gun control”?

        Your humanity is not and has never been connected to voting, that is a lie that the left keeps telling everybody, man and woman, and it is simply rubbish.

        As I said, I’d easily give up the “right” to vote (it’s not a right, btw) to live in a truly free society, since voting has little to anything to do with actual liberty. I don’t tie my identity as a human being to standing in a voting booth, there are better ways to construct my identity than the way the Left wants me to.

        This is all, of course, not even marginally related to the original topic. Sorry CH for diverging so much.

        Like


      • You won’t die. You would be captured and fall in love with your captor. Bear children for him and become a nice submissive wife. You would be angry at first but will grow to love the men with time.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 2:15 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        RE: life as a woman in 1915. Sure, that doesn’t sound “so bad.” But sans the right to vote, any of those rights could be taken away at any time. Please scan the commentary above and below our little discussion to see multiple examples of men who would very much like to do that as soon as possible.

        [CH: FACT: The government and its apparatuses have moved left since suffrage. FACT: This inexorable and unending leftward movement, almost entirely facilitated by the introduction of women voters, will mean the end of American greatness. CONCLUSION: You can have your “rights”, or you can have a prosperous nation. Choose wisely.]

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        @Pavlov:

        http://tinyurl.com/pla9ns4

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm The Burninator

        In a Constitutional society based on natural rights, one cannot remove a right, nor is there any solid societal push to do so. And life in 1915 was not bad at all, and far less under attack were our liberties when the ballot box was more governed by reason and sound logic than by emotion driven reactionary fear based voting.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 2:39 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        @CH: There is no need to choose. I’ll C&P my solution from above:

        You want the problem fixed? Nobody votes who doesn’t pay tax*. It doesn’t have to be a lot; it just has to be something. People who get all of their taxes back with earned income tax credit don’t count, either. As soon as the majority can’t vote themselves raises out of the pockets of the minority, shit’s going to get back on track quickly.

        Now, here’s the part where I admit freely that this will disenfranchise a disproportionate number of women, especially single mothers. And that’s sort of the point. But it’ll do it without removing the vote from those of us who manage to possess both a vagina and a sense of responsibility for ourselves.

        Like


      • “honestly, I’d personally give up the vote if such a society were to re-establish, voting is over-rated and has become little more than a ruse to make you think you took part in the decision making process).”

        Can’t agree more with everything you are saying. I’ll gladly give up the vote if it meant “a small government society with little taxation, little regulation, no infringements on your right to bear arms and no burdens of being forced to confess yourself electronically to the government every time you post on Facebook”

        as well, as the return of strong men and end to culture feminization. I rather, only males who own property and are over age 22 vote than allow feminist tyranny. It used to be like this, and it worked. Less chaos.
        .

        “There are better “rights” to live and die for, imho. In a just society where your rights were guarded zealously by a stronger Constitution and more robust and honest legal system, “

        Exactly. And, I would add, a society where strong husbands and fathers (who have been stripped of all their powers under the statutes quo) are brought back. Where there is a strong male presence, the people don’t need the government as much.
        .

        “In a Constitutional society based on natural rights, one cannot remove a right, nor is there any solid societal push to do so. And life in 1915 was not bad at all, and far less under attack were our liberties when the ballot box was more governed by reason and sound logic than by emotion driven reactionary fear based voting.”

        RD knows this; she loves the Constitution. She is just unwilling to go that far for it, yet.
        .

        You really outdid yourself in these collection of comments in this subthread. Every word true. It’s like food for the soul reading this stuff.

        The only thing, do you really think there will be a revolution and things will be going back to pre-1920s? Seems more fantasy than reality.
        .

        Really, in Switzerland women only allowed the privilege of voting in the early 1970′s?

        Like


      • “[CH: She’s just another dumb feminist broad who mixes up symptoms with causes.]”

        My categorization of cause and effect is difficult to prove as correct because causation is always difficult to prove. However, your assertion that I reverse symptom and cause doesn’t seem any easier to prove.

        [CH: Feminism is a luxury afforded by modernizing nations, such modernization which is a function of the applied native genetic inheritance of the nation’s people. Handing out affirmative action goodies to women is nowhere near a first cause of national prosperity. The evidence is strongly on my side and against yours.]

        You can avoid that fact and settle for calling me dumb though.

        [If the shiv fits…]

        Like


      • BTW, I don’t have any vested interest in my categorization of cause and effect being correct. I am not RD. I have no psychological need to be allowed to vote. I don’t need a guarantee of child support or alimony. I will not experience psychological duress if you make my rights what they would have been in 1813.

        I think that feminism is a positive because it correlates with positive outcomes. That is all. If you can prove that this is not correct, then go ahead.

        Once I believed that all races were effectively equal in innate ability. A lot of people argued with me there and I found a number of trans-adoption studies and other research and more or less isolated causality. So, I changed my mind. I will change my mind if you present me with good evidence. But regarding your opinion that the western world would be even better than it is now without feminism- I have never seen the evidence for this belief.

        “Feminism is a luxury afforded by modernizing nations, such modernization which is a function of the applied native genetic inheritance of the nation’s people. Handing out affirmative action goodies to women is nowhere near a first cause of national prosperity.”

        The second sentence I agree with. The first sentence I am not sure about. However, I can accept your first statement as true and still I have the question- why should I believe society would be better than it is now if it did not have feminism?

        Like


      • ……and here we go again, with RD out to earn her man-card and prove she’s just as good as a man.

        I nominate RD for this site’s Feminist in Residence.

        Like


      • “FACT: The government and its apparatuses have moved left since suffrage. FACT: This inexorable and unending leftward movement, almost entirely facilitated by the introduction of women voters, will mean the end of American greatness.”

        More evidence that you are wrong-

        [CH: so certain are you?]

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/2884/big-gender-gap-distinguishes-election-2000.aspx

        “Looking at Gallup’s long-term pre-election trends, it seems clear that women have tended to vote more Democratic than men have in recent years, starting with the 1980 presidential election. Prior to 1964, women tended to vote more Republican than did men. ”

        Prior to 1964 is when the US became a socialist state with a significant portion of income taxed. Look at the table of top bracket tax rates over time here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

        Notice that the tax rate was highest when men supported left wing parties and women supported republican parties.

        [first of all your gallup link proves my point: women vote more left than do men. and this trend has been underway for fifty years. second, you make the classic libertardian error of assuming higher tax rates are the sine qua non of leftward drift, when the reality that is so obvious to anyone with a foot in the real world is that socially and culturally, the country has been on a relentless leftward jag for a long time. third, you misread the historical tax charts and leave out the data showing a large dip in tax rates in the 1910-1930 period, when mostly men voted. fourth, women voted at much smaller numbers after suffrage was passed, so any impact they might have had on the nation’s policy was muted, until they began heading to the polls in much greater numbers around, ta da, the late 1960s. fifth, you’re a slippery little lying lawyerly type aren’t ya?]

        Your kind did this, not mine.

        [wrong.]

        Don’t blame women for what they did not do.

        [but they did do it. and i do blame them. how much do i blame them? oh i dunno. let’s say 70%. sounds about right.]

        Women didn’t vote for democrats more than men did until democrats were the only party supporting abortion (another policy which is a great boon for this country).

        [wrong. see here. bottom line: women voters increased the size and scope of government.

        game set match homewrecker bindi.

        ps abortion is not the only issue driving women to vote leftward. it’s not even the primary issue. after all, MORE WOMEN THAN MEN support 20-week abortion bans! (total pro-life support is about equal between men and women.) women are, by their natures, more redistributionist and conformist than are men. as leftism accelerates into majority ideological status, women cleave to it like a life vest.]

        Like


      • 99.9% of civilizations have been patriarchial. Modern white majority western society is the sole exception to this rule. I do find it likely that after some time, this society too will return to our natural tendency where women are restricted by men.

        However, modern white majority western society is the best civilization to ever have existed. The most feminist countries within western nations are the best countries out of all western countries. Women got the vote in the early 20th century. The world got better after that. The male led nuclear family started to break down in the 60s. The world got better after that too. Better means better according to any reasonable measure of betterness. We have lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, we rarely fight wars amongst ourselves, we don’t enslave people etc. 2013 is better than 1913. And Finland is better than Albania.

        Also, it is not often noted, but the most feminist countries actually tend to have higher birthrates than less feminist societies in prosperous countries. Feminist countries are better all around. Yeah men might get divorced and stuck with alimony, but this seems like an idiotic reason to throw out a system that actually correlates well with so many positive outcomes.

        If you look at what works in the world, it is a homogenous high IQ society with highly feminist values. Yes, the last part of that is important and you can see it in the comparison of Scandinavian countries (feminist) and northest Asian countries (well off but non feminist in family structure). Scandinavian countries have much higher birthrates and higher rates of happiness.

        The worst countries in the world are the most patriarchial. Look at Afghanistan. You can lie to yourselves and say that they are awful because of their genetic stock, but those are people in the middle of Eurasia. They’re not sub saharans. And they aren’t that far from whites.

        The modern world shows that society is better off when men aren’t left to make decisions all by themselves. They are outwardly vicious creatures and they will do outwardly vicious things if left in charge.

        But despite the extreme success of the modern feminist world, someday the day will come when men go back to their meglomaniacal violent instincts and disenfranchise women again because that is just what they do.

        Like


      • “We have lower infant mortality,” LOL tell that to the fifty million dead babies legally slaughtered over the last forty years.

        “we don’t enslave people” Who doesn’t enslave people? Liberty hasn’t expanded or deepened since 1913. Precisely the opposite has happened. Instead of strongly independent families and tight-knit local communities, we have fractured franken-families, rampant divorce, cubicle slaves of both sexes, and a runaway Leviathan Federal Government. Slavery is the default position of the vast majority of people today.

        Feminism has wrecked the West.

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 2:30 pm The Burninator

        So our 17 trillion dollar debt, most of it incurred due to either military adventurism (unconstitutional) after 1945 and social programs (unconstitutional), combined with 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, our rampant “spy on the citizen” programs, our off shore torture camp, our fast eroding rights to freedom of speech and assembly, the removal in fact if not in form of the 4th Amendment and 5 Amendments, the idiotic emotion driven “war on drugs” and “war on terruh”, “free speech zones”, the declining literacy and intelligence rates and such, that’s better then? Those silly pre-1920 patriarchs, living unmolested, untracked, virtually untaxed, free to what they wished as long as it was peaceful, now that, that was oppression! heh

        It is true that we are medically better off. No worry, huge government is here to stop that as well, thank you Obamacare.

        And that whole Natural Rights, government restricting, peace embracing Constitution put together by violent, savage men. I mean, what else is to say?

        Weird.

        Our birthrates are declining precipitously. Europe’s is in a tailspin. Except of course…the non-patriarchal cultures of hispanics (the U.S.) and muslims (Europe).

        Tell me your post was tongue in cheek.

        Like


      • Look what countries are the happiest (and the wealthiest): mostly Northern European

        http://io9.com/a-map-of-the-worlds-happiest-and-least-happiest-coun-1292985564

        Like


      • You’re a fool.–

        The “world” did not “get better” as a result of feminism or anything related to women.

        [CH: She’s just another dumb feminist broad who mixes up symptoms with causes.]

        The great powers of the west have not gone to war due to the threat of nuclear exchange. When nations realize that this threat is exaggerated, the long peace will end, and the reality of total war will resume.

        The long peace is now stale and total war is required to create new technologies.

        The only role of the female in this process is to give birth to men with significant mathematical and engineering talent.

        Like


      • There is no question that patriarchial societies have higher birthrates. This is their one advantage. It’s a hell of an advantage to have though. Literally, it’s the only advantage that counts.

        But it’s basically only productive to go one of two ways. Either you enjoy the comforts and living standard of the modern world and you go full feminist or you stay 100% patriarchial and keep the birthrate above replacement. If you try to aspire for first world living standards without feminism, women have enough options to avoid having children but not enough incentive to actually have them. Hence, the low birthrates of countries like Hong Kong.

        Afghanistan is the most patriarchial country in the world. It is also one of the worst countries in the world in terms of life expectancy, poverty, stability and everything else worthwhile. But it also has one of highest birthrates in the world.

        Go Iceland or go Afghanistan. On average, either looks more sustainable than the happy medium.

        Like


      • Scandinavia is imploding, mostly under the weight of its bullshit (feminist imposed) gender-erasure politics and immigration (Muslim) problems. They’re happy because most people aren’t looking at it, and are still having a good time mooching off the central government, a situation which is fast becoming unsustainable. And Iceland? They put on a good front for the tourists, but the country is struggling.

        Scandinavia is enjoying its last hurrah. The last party of the patriarchs before the Visigoth mob burns it all down.

        When it comes, places like Iceland and the Faroes will starve.

        Like


      • @feministx-get it thru your head. Inflation is a created purposeful hidden tax. It is not natural. The powers that be created it so the wife has to work. The man couldn’t keep up with bills because his pay is suppose to rise with inflation but didn’t. Main reasons for this is to tax the other half of the population and destroy the family because now the roles are confused. They picked this up from edward bernays and the cig trick at the parade. It was not a noble call this alien thing called feminism. Read adam weishaupt quotes, dont know how to spell the last name, he said we gotta get the women to think they are working for themsleves when they are really working for us. Its in your dna to serve man. Let me get this straight motherhood and serving your family is slavery, but serving a company who doesnt give a f about you is liberating.

        Like


      • 99.9% of civilizations have been patriarchial. Modern white majority western society is the sole exception to this rule.

        This is so historically and intellectually bankrupt and false that I can’t believe you even said it here knowing the average IQ of CH readers. It speaks volumes about you personally. What is not going to happen; I’m not going to put up 100 links of evidence to the contrary. I’m not going to attempt to repudiate you in any way for such a blatant lie, I’m not going to…

        You know what? Your face is horrific, but your body is dope. Just post pics of your bangin’ ass brahmin body naked and be done with it please. Either give us some good wank material to remember you by of fuck off directly, post haste.

        Like


      • Well, it seems that I’m the only one who agrees with you (at least with 50% of your post). But, I think you confuse causes with effects: it’s not feminism, but highly civilized men in Northern European countries, from Ibsen and pre-WW1 German socialists to “global left” ideology in its soft form of social democracy that gave women more rights & better life for all. By the way- most of the comments are clouded by American parochialism. You guys & gals just don’t know history, ideology, national strife, ….. Perhaps the entire Anglosphere is a success story of empirical, courageous, but ultimately shallow mind.

        Like


      • burninator,

        “So our 17 trillion dollar debt, most of it incurred due to either military adventurism (unconstitutional) after 1945 and social programs (unconstitutional), combined with 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, our rampant “spy on the citizen” programs, our off shore torture camp, our fast eroding rights to freedom of speech and assembly, the removal in fact if not in form of the 4th Amendment and 5 Amendments, the idiotic emotion driven “war on drugs” and “war on terruh”, “free speech zones”, the declining literacy and intelligence rates and such, that’s better then”

        Why are women being blamed for this again? Who voted in the guy who enforced the patriot act? Women are responsible for gitmo how again? Women are responsible for a govt spy program they never heard of when it was created how? CIA and NSA are run by dudes mainly.

        And yes, with all of this, we are still measurably better off than 1950. Literacy rates are at least what they were then and we have a higher standard of living.

        Like


      • Your experiences with demented Asian cultures have distorted your view, as if women were angels with no defect…hahaha, the West is declining and you seem to be proof of our declining intelligence as well…enough said. By the way Scandinavian days are numbered and the West is living on the Heritage of the “evil and megalomaniac men” who built 99.99999% of just EVERYTHING you see around…

        Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 3:22 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        @Lily: Agreed, Burninator’s a solid dude and his shit scans. The fact that he would be willing to give up his own right to vote in exchange for a return to a society based on natural rights proves his dedication, and I admire that. But I don’t think that would be a smart thing to do, for any of us.

        I’m sorry to Godwin this discussion, but it’s relevant: There are people in this comment thread who think Mustache Boy had the right idea. As long as they’re voting, so am I. (And stockpiling .223, because hey: soap, ballot, ammo…check the boxes, in that order.)

        Like


      • “I’m sorry to Godwin this discussion, but it’s relevant: There are people in this comment thread who think Mustache Boy had the right idea.”

        I know. I’m distressed by it. They’re evil people, and we must defeat their ideology.

        However, I don’t think women voting will stop them, since women tend to vote exactly for such ilk. If only most women thought like you and me, this country wouldn’t be such a disaster, and the prime example of soft tyranny. Well, on second thought, places in Europe are worse. They are facing both communism and fascism at the same time. However, it’s coming here faster than we think. What do we call a government that has features form both of these evil ideologies?
        .

        “As long as they’re voting, so am I. (And stockpiling .223, because hey: soap, ballot, ammo…check the boxes, in that order.)”

        As long as you know what you are doing. Me, I need a man to protect me from their shit.

        Like


      • on October 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        It’s really not hard, Lily. You could learn the basics in a two-day class, and you’d only want it to be that long so you could go over the laws and how they work. Actual gun handling is rather simple. Guns are designed to be easy to use.

        Like


      • +1,000.

        No female suffrage, ever.

        Like


    • “Every woman loves a fascist” as Saint Sylvia Plath put it. (A woman told me, of course.) And as it happens, the poem, “Daddy”, will seem strangely familiar if you’ve read this blog for a while.

      Like


    • “, but it’s a lessor known fact that in the critical election that swept Hitler into power, it was women in Germany who found Hitler’s idealism, passion and hope so enthralling that they used their newly won suffrage to give him the keys to the German nation.”

      BTW, this is absolutely contradictory to fact. Hitler never won a majority. He won a bit over 1/3 of the german vote.

      Also, historically, women were originally slightly less likely to support left wing parties both in the US and in Europe.

      Regarding Nazi and left wing support by gender in Germany-

      http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

      “Women were less likely to vote for left-wing parties than their menfolk, though there was an increase in the percentage of female votes that went to the SPD in the 1920s. In fact around 3.5 million women cast their votes for Social Democracy by 1930; and far fewer female than male SPD voters deserted to the Communists in the Depression. ”

      “Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler. However, the early 1930s did see a narrowing of the gap between male and female voting patterns, especially in Protestant areas.”

      Like


  8. What does it make me to see CH as a genius of our times? Is civilization built on the self-deluding pretty lies of a beta who so wants to believe that women are sugar and spice and all things nice? Can there be a decent version of beta game in modern life?

    Like


    • “Can there be a decent version of beta game in modern life?”

      nope 😐 i occasionally even slip up and ‘try’ it. universally humiliating.

      Like


    • “Is civilization built on the self-deluding pretty lies of a beta who so wants to believe that women are sugar and spice and all things nice?”

      Civilization is built by men who know the true nature of women. They shouldn’t be given as much power as they have now…they obviously don’t use it correctly.

      Civilization is destroyed by the pretty little lies of the beta.

      Like


  9. on October 11, 2013 at 8:45 am RappaccinisDaughter

    Alcala may have won the “Dating Game” show, but the bachelorette refused to go out on the date with him, saying he was creepy.

    [CH: Speaks well of her. However, she is the distinct exception to the rule.]

    As far as his photography schtick, that’s a pretty good ruse to get targets who are otherwise low-risk to go be alone with a man they don’t know. Unfortunately, there are many more girls interested in modeling than there are people willing to represent them and make sure they’re doing shoots with reputable photographers. Because the average model starts her career at 15 or so, many of these girls just don’t have the judgment and decision-making skills that an older woman would have…they’re easily tricked.

    Like


    • Seems easy enough to tell the photographer to call her agent (mummy-ji), or say okay but only if mom/dad can sit in while we’re shooting. But then, where are the tingles in that?

      Like


    • As far as his photography schtick, that’s a pretty good ruse to get targets who are otherwise low-risk to go be alone with a man they don’t know.
      ———————————————

      It used to be; but since the advent of digital photography, anybody can take a decent photograph.

      Being a photographer used to be panty remover.

      Like


    • “Because the average model starts her career at 15 or so, many of these girls just don’t have the judgment and decision-making skills that an older woman would have…they’re easily tricked.”

      Uhh huh. That’s why.

      FYI, older is worse. desperation and hunger for the tingle is overwhelming. but whatever makes you feel better and keeps your herd instinct flowing I guess.

      Like


      • on October 11, 2013 at 11:31 am RappaccinisDaughter

        Dude, face it. Fifteen-year-olds just don’t have the same decision-making skills that adults do. They don’t understand consequences the same way. That’s why they’re treated differently, legally, than adults.

        But hey, whatever makes you feel superior, I guess.

        Like


      • face it, a 40 year old and a 15 year old act entirely the same when the tingles hit full on.

        I don’t blame you though pumpkin.

        Like


      • Twat, face it.

        You are a female.

        Meaning: you are inferior to a man in every way. Morally, intellectually, physically, you name it.

        Aristotle had it exactly right when he stated that women are somewhere between infants and adults.

        Deal with it.

        Like


      • Lol, face it. You’re an angry loser whose seething contempt for women wafts off you like a smell. Tip: Get yourself in some therapy, and out of mom’s basement.

        Like


      • But you ladies deserve contempt!

        After all…isn’t that the entire point of this article — and, indeed, this site?

        ?

        Like


    • could it be she was just in it for the money or to be on tv. there has to be an easy and simple explanition for this outlier.

      Like


  10. I doubt women are ever really that happy choosing good or evil. It’s all the same to them.

    Chicks do dig the devil and all his pretty little lies, empty promises, and dirty tricks for the tingles. But they also do like that God will give them cool stuff as long as they give up something…it’s just doesn’t have as much approval by the herd anymore.

    So you become a smoother talking serpent…and you chain up their desires in a belt. They’ll love you either way.

    Like


    • it’s a little like how infants respond to being swaddled, it’s reassuring to be constrained.

      i think they’re happy being dominated by a man with authority– the actual d&d character alignment doesn’t really matter. evil, good, chaotic, lawful. it’s the tight swaddling that settles them down.

      Like


    • Chicks dig power and status and will act out their own self interests every single time. They don’t just love the psychopath/sociopath, they are the original founding clubmembers. they respect that duality in a man. add aggression and viola. poosy.

      Like


      • Now they’ve been brainwashed into thinking evil is powerful.

        It really isn’t.

        Like


      • respectfully disagree.

        evil is acting without regard to social and civil norms.

        that kind of shit gets the baby fed and through the winter.

        I think you are giving humanity way too much credit.

        Like


      • “evil is acting without regard to social and civil norms.”

        Well now evil is the the social and civil norm.

        So I guess going good is the new evil.

        Like


      • nah bro. its about a girl knowing you can and will do anything at all. violence and aggression comes in physical, social, psychological, and financial forms.

        master all.

        Like


      • Yeah it’s all about male action…and good and evil are all the same to them in a functioning society. In the past…responsible men were powerful with their actions and cads were shunned for theirs.

        But they’ve been brainwashed into thinking evil actions are more powerful than good. That’s why the cads have been cleaning up and the responsible men haven’t. I’m saying in reality…evil is not as powerful as good.

        Like


    • This comes from their limbic reptile brain as much as some highly educated feminist would try to deconstruct it with hollow logic and argument. You simply -cannot- destroy 100,000 years of evolutionary adaptation in 50 years of disgusting lies.

      Witness as referenced in another post, the absurd “Twilight” phenomenon. Why are legions of preteens, teens, and adult women flicking their bean over this? The vampire has long held a very special place in the hearts of women.
      Handsome and ageless. Charming and seductive. But a vile killing machine at the end of the day. You know what he does to other women like you, but… it is the same said thing that keeps your persistently dehydrated because you’ve been flooding your panties non-stop.

      There is nothing new under the sun, in spite of what of current crop of aggressive historical revisionists would have you believe.

      Like


      • Twilight removed any female obligation to acknowledge vampires as evil. So now it’s just about the sexy, dark and angsty, not the sexy, dark, and murderous. Most of today’s pre-teen girls aren’t creaming themselves over David from The Lost Boys. I get your point, but Twilight’s something entirely different.

        Like


  11. humor;
    enemy of the mind-controlling

    Like


  12. oh yeah

    Like


  13. Male lions kill their rivals and cub right in front of the female lioness’/mother. The mom lionness quickly comes around and mates with the killer of her cubs.

    [CH: Lesson status: imparted.]

    Like


    • This is Rollo’s “War Brides” theory. Women still have this as an evolutionary adaptive technique, but its clearly outdated. Lions aren’t going to get on match to find a new lion to mate with, but women certainly have other options now than the murderer of their family.

      Like


      • It’s not outdated. The specifics may be different for human fems in this day and age, but the premise still applies. Hmm, women never could think abstractly.

        Like


      • What’s the premise? That women are sexually drawn to men who kill their children? Because I can’t think of a real life example of that. (Thank goodness)

        Like


      • The premise is that thousands of years of inter-tribal warfare, wherein the men of the losing tribe were killed and the women enslaved by the winning tribe has resulted in a certain adaptive psychology in women that allows them to rationalize and/or enjoy sexual relationships with men who are otherwise not objectively decent human beings. Thus, female solipsism developed as a method of surviving the brutality of the ancient world.

        You can read the whole thing over on The Rational Male.

        Like


      • I’m familiar with the concept, I just don’t see the relevance. Is this offered as proof women are evil? It definitely doesn’t prove women are inherently attracted to evil; only that women know how to adapt to it if it’s necessary for survival.

        Like


      • @Amy

        Ah, yeah, I think it’s one of those things that men hold up as evidence that women are somehow genetically predisposed to be prone to [insert behavior that men don’t like] and therefore, can’t be trusted.

        It’s more of a neutral difference between the genders, though. Men are monolithic when it comes to beliefs and ideology, women are more likely to bend their value systems around whatever they need to in order to survive.

        Neither of those qualities are inherently bad in and of themselves, but can become bad; a man in poverty might starve his children because he refuses to take charity, a woman in the same situation might smother them because she believes it preferable to seeing them go hungry.

        Both men and women, I think, have an obligation to manage this aspect of their innate nature, but since we don’t tell women to behave any more, while men are still beaten into compliance, it’s become unbalanced. I think that’s where the frustration’s coming in.

        Like


      • There should be no arguing around this new holiday: National Bruce Jenner Liberation Day 🙂

        Like


      • ….but maybe they can find the lion equivalent of Mark Minter?

        Like


    • Lion is black

      Like


    • Lion ghetto

      Like


    • Good for them.

      What does that have to do with humans? Since murdering is considered one of those icky sins we have to deal with.

      Like


  14. How about this for a theme to the slideshow: the police, or whichever authority arranged the photo’s, deliberately re-arranged, de-arranged, or avoided ordering in any logical way –by girl, in chronological, in geographical order, to obfuscate certain patterns. For instance, #’s 29, 34, and 45, (and 31 (shorter hair cut?, see below)?), appear to be the same woman (girl).

    Why not have them grouped closer together and ease the comparing of different photos? Further, I realize metadata back then may not have been what it is today –maybe the photos weren’t automatically marked with the date and time to the second, but still I suspect a good faith effort might have been made to put the photo’s in chronological order also.

    I can think of a legitimate reason: To avoid overly suggesting that these are the the same women.

    However, I suspect there may have been a further, reason: So that other patterns remain unclear. See, for example, Day Game, compliment approaches, appeals to vanity with the use of a camera, insta-dates, escalation and intimacy in a private place at a later time.

    Like


    • …I realize metadata back then may not have been what it is today –maybe the photos weren’t automatically marked with the date and time to the second…

      Heh, that’s actually kinda cute, and an interesting insight into the mind of someone who’s grown up knowing only digital.

      Just for the lulz, what do you imagine ‘metadata’ was, back then?

      Like


  15. Related to fakeemail, that shit happens all the time in the animal kingdom.

    Look at these monkeys:

    Like


  16. Taylor Swift says she is sick of alphas and is going to wait on a white knight:

    “The 23-year-old Grammy winner admits that in the past she’s been drawn to the bad boy and tells the mag, ‘I think it needs to change. My friends tease me about the fact that if someone seems bad or shady or like they have a secret, I find them incredibly interesting. That’s just a phase I’ve been in lately. I don’t think this should be how I proceed in life. It’s important to be self-aware about these things because you don’t want to end up with that guy.’ ”

    In other words, she is finished with high-profile whoring and is now prepared to switch to private whoring and the facade of high-profile matrimony.

    http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/taylor-swift-dating-sit-while-225432704.html?vp=1

    Like


    • Pish. She’s 23. More womanspeak.

      Actually, considering she’s in entertainment, she’ll likely never have a stable marriage.

      Like


    • Instead of songs about guys doing her wrong…she wants to write songs about how great she is without guys.

      She’s trying to make the transition to Pink/Kate Perry music.

      Like


  17. OK, so how DO we discern whether a gentleman–say a handsome one like Bundy, Manson, or this guy–is a class A psychopath and not just an “alpha.” Prior to finding the bodies, what do we look for?

    Keep in mind that Vox’s description of the alpha as a man who has a use for women but not especial fondness, or the “commandments of poon” here, show a LOT of the same characteristics as these guys.

    Now I understand that women can and do find a man who is a little bit dangerous quite attractive, but it seems that some in the “manosphere” here are going whole hog and suggesting that it’s not just the capacity for violence, but rather the fulfillment of the same.

    Like


  18. AMY,

    You are wrong.

    see: Adrian Peterson’s son murdered by step – father

    Like


    • Al,
      that may be a different situation.

      How?

      I suspect the “boyfriend” ONLY murdered the child because the mother was trying to kick him out. He knew that child was her “meal ticket”, so when she kicked him out, he killed “it” instead of her.

      Tommy is the only one who called this correctly:

      Like


  19. on October 11, 2013 at 11:07 pm crimbo the king

    this is stupid. for all you know this chump could have been acting like a loser/beta when those photos were taken. most of the people that are capable of being serial killers are mentally messed up or in a state of psychosis at the time they commit their crime. as well as being the type to act like needy betas then kill someone out of rage and frustration. some posts here are cool but this one is not

    Like


  20. How many men are attracted to ladies behind bars? You could count them on the fingers of one hand.
    How many women are attracted to men behind bars? Well we all know the answer to that one.
    There are reasons why all successful civilizations placed limits on female sexuality. Anthropologist J.D.Unvin in his “Sex and Culture (1934), studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.” It should be that Ancient Greeks only placed this restraint on women and not men who had availability of Prostitutes outside of marriage. I will go on a limb and say that a virginal bride can inspire a man and be his muse sort of speak so he can be productive and able to create ever greater cultural achievements. Unfortunately 30 something post wall career cunt that was used as cum bucket by Alpha males cannot do that. She can only bring shame to the poor Beta provider, and every time at the party when he is introduced to one of her Alpha ex-boyfriends he bows down in shame unable to shake of the image of her being impaled by the Alpha ex and doing things for the ex that she never did for him. She is damaged goods even if she possess child bearing hips and athletic boobs. We are not naive men. We know that we cannot go back in time. We do not hold any delusions that will turn time back, BUT we have a say in the future.
    1. We can demand virginal brides.
    2. We can stop marring used up cum sockets.
    3. Meanwhile use the PUA strategies and Pump and Dump the Sluts until they smarten up. Than we can go back to number 1. if not continue mode 3.

    Like


  21. […] Ever notice how it’s the cute chicks who glom onto assholes and JERKBOYS the most, utterly belying the assertion by sexual market denialists that the kinds of girls assholes get are low self-esteem skanks and warpigs?  […]

    Like


  22. Shallow & disappointing. CH’s contention that young females are, somehow, irresistibly drawn to jerks and “dangerous” types is simplification. He’s right that it’s not only landwhales & desperate, fugly girls that fall for aggressive psychos. But- these girls, whatever their looks, are mentally instable & riddled with God knows how many complexes & projections. In short, they’re nuts. The possible answer would be: they’re ALL nuts. Well- they aren’t. You’re judging from a limited experience, confined mostly to uber-liberal decadent US culture.

    Like


    • on October 12, 2013 at 10:15 am gunslingergregi

      truth is look good get bitches its easy or have money or look good have money
      the shit really is easy
      but yea sometimes it gets complicated
      when ya don’t want to have to give a fuck and get bitches

      Like


    • Sooo,
      What you’re telling me is that other cultures are keeping their women in line?

      Like


  23. This is easily explained, in that the strategic optima of genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness) is short-term mating, and thus anything that expedites short-term mating traffic(netting males higher fitness gains, and thus an evolutionary advantage) is likewise advantageous.

    It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic(frequently indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study: “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency”

    (Martin L. Lalumièrea and Vernon L. Quinseyb
    a Forensic Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250
    College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1R8;b Department of Psychology,
    Queen’s University at Kingston, Humphrey Hall, Kingston, Ontario,
    Canada, K7L 3N6.)

    Thus, evolutionary success will tend to correlate male physical attractiveness with abusive, delinquent, and promiscuous tendencies (and will limit deviations accordingly). So, when we observe that females privilege such males, it is not that females find these traits attractive per se, but rather that they are selecting for certain desirable traits that have become correlated with negative ones – this is their dilemma.

    In fact, females will be under evolutionary pressure to accommodate such males, as male offspring will tend to share the same inherent advantages as their fathers, resulting in high-fitness male offspring for the mothers (and thus a likewise evolutionary advantage). Females who tend to reject such males will be at a relative disadvantage (producing less prolific offspring), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity.

    To summarize, there are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘nice guys’(females who privilege ‘nice guys’ – by the conventional meaning of the term – incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly).

    Like


  24. It would have been interesting to me to have had the chance to view that slideshow without knowing that I was viewing the contents of a serial killers trophy cabinet. The women/girls in those pics look spookily like the victims you would have seen in the tv cop shows and movies during that era. Life mimicking art or vice versa discussions ensuing and all that goes with it of course, but perhaps more interesting would be to compare those images to the images of the fictional victims portrayed in today’s media. Is there a fictional female victim archetype in today’s entertainment media? how does she compare to those of past era’s? and what does that have to tell us about topics such as perception, narrative, and social engineering. Not strictly game topics but of interest to students of the human condition perhaps.

    Like


  25. It’s kinda sad and pathetic the way you focus on Bryan Caplan. You act like a woman scorned by a jerk. I’m starting to think you’d pose seductively for Caplan, just so he’ll like and pay attention to you.

    Like


  26. […] Chicks Dig Jerks: The Photographic Evidence | Chateau Heartiste […]

    Like


  27. The woman on the Dating Game wouldn’t go out with him. Said he was a creep.

    Like


  28. […] [Chicks Dig Jerks: The Photographic Evidence] […]

    Like