A New Theory Explains Why Chicks Dig Jerks

Researchers developed a computer model to simulate the human evolutionary process, and what they discovered was a possible explanation for why chicks dig “less supportive partners”, aka jerks.

We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.

The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.

Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.

We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.

But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.

As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict.

So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them.

This newest theory is interesting because it cuts against the grain of conventional thinking. It’s assumed by the unimaginative masses that the badboy exploits a sexual market niche of fatherless, low self-esteem skanks. The “Forever Seeking Daddy’s Approval” theory of jerkboy attractiveness rests on the premise that women who have been abandoned by their fathers will seek male approval from similarly emotionally distant lovers. A sort of “fuck it forward” karmic philosophy.

But now a computer simulation has spat out a possible new cause of a badboy love phenomenon that no one with any sense denies (even foul feminists can’t deny it). And in this simulation, it’s not the sluts craving daddy’s comforting hug who fall into the jerk’s tatted arms; it’s the daughters of large, intact families who exploit the material generosity of their parents (really, their fathers) by dating jerks who could use some outside support.

Does this new theory square with reality? At the risk of outing myself as a charming jerk, ( 😎 ) few of the women I’ve taken to bed on the first date came from broken families. Most were smart, psychologically balanced, and raised in the bosom of a loving nuclear family. The “first date” qualifier is important, because it’s a simple metric to use in a pinch that distinguishes impulsive, jerk-loving girls from playing-the-long-game cockteases with ice in their pussies.

Naturally, you would be right to protest that those are just anecdotes. But from anecdotes and personal observations, we build theories of the world. Gotta start somewhere. And it’s also true that some of those same night conquests (a notable minority) turned out, upon later inspection, to have a closet full of family strife skeletons.

The “Parent Exploitation” theory is not without its flaws. For one, it does not, as far as I can tell, include male mate choice in its algorithm. This is a huge oversight. Men, by nature of their reproductive expendability, may not exercise as much choice in the mating market as do women, but they exercise some choice. The pockets of exceedingly beautiful women around the world prove that men, when the ecological conditions are favorable, do adhere to standards when choosing long-term mates. This theory has nothing to say about that. For instance, what is the SMV of the women who choose unsupportive partners and fill in the gaps with their parents’ assistance? How does female SMV inform jerkboy choice? How does a daughter’s or a suitor’s SMV influence parents’ willingness to provide support? What about the kinds of men who choose sexytime women over coy princesses, and vice versa?

Then there’s the issue of declining fertility. How well does the model work when there are more one-child families? It’s not a leap to imagine that a one-child dystopia would encourage the parent exploitation strategy by entitled lone daughters, because there are no sisters to compete for daddy’s money. A one-child family unit world might also spur more cad-chasing by daughters who are sole inheritors of the family wealth.

What about a massively scaled-up dating market, like the one we have today, wherein parents have little to no influence over their daughter’s mate choices which are made in the shadow of urban anonymity and severance from any familial or community roots? Does a daughter’s exploitation strategy work as well under those conditions, or is dad so fed-up with his powerlessness that he cuts her off completely? Or, conversely, does dad lavish gifts on his faraway daughter as substitute for his lack of presence in her romantic life?

That’s the problem with these mathematical modelings: too many unspoken-for variables. A model can be useful, especially as a guide to lead to further inquiry, but its shortcomings are also made more evident by its executable.

So I remain agnostic on the ultimate cause of the female craving for cads. My preferred theory — and the one that makes the most sense from an up-close-and-personal vantage — is a combination of the “sexy sons” and the “dominance signaling” hypotheses. Women are attracted to hard-to-get, noncommittal, charismatic jerks because the sons of those jerks will inherit the jerk’s smooth, reproductive fitness maximizing way with women, and the jerk’s dominance with women is a strong cue that, in the future, he will dominate any enemies who might threaten his family or his lover.

PS Have any of you noticed that the hottest daughters have lumpy, chipmunk-cheeked beta male fathers? It’s the Sitcom Dad-Hot Piece of Princess Ass phenomenon. Enticing femininity is almost guaranteed when both mom and dad are feminine. Women who marry very masculine men tend to produce masculine sons (good) and masculine daughters (bad). Reverse the polarity when dad is very feminine. John Scalzi better hope he bears nothing but daughters… for YaReally to poop on!

So maybe the simulation above is best understood as a palimpsest of the fact that most families which have the resources to give to daughters who choose jerk loverboys are headed by beta provider fathers. And that, since most beta provider fathers are more phenotypically feminine, their daughters will be hotter and thus better able to both attract love from discerning jerks and extract resources from distributing fathers. But as society becomes less monogamous at the margins, the ability and willingness of fathers (not to mention the number of these fathers) to play along with this game gradually decreases.


  1. My anecdotes and personal observations agree. Daddy’s girls from good, intact nuclear families with a good, supportive (and wealthy) dad (like mine) have no interest in me and go for bad boys. They have no interest in marrying a guy like me who is like their dad, because they already have their dad. So they date tatted up motorcycle riding badboys and class clowns. This goes back to 4th grade, when boys and girls start to notice each other.

    On the other hand, fucked up poor girls from bad families with an absentee dad fall in love with me (and become a turnoff). (I’m lower-greater beta.) These girls who don’t have a good dad need a beta supporter type man.

    It’s that simple, and obvious.


    • i would add, though, that genes have no knowledge of the parents’ largesse. i think this actually affects the poor girls too, just our host preferred the better-bred ladies.

      the fucked up girls might prefer the providers to carry the bags they’ve already produced (don’t tell me girls get the reputation as being fucked up from the start, just from being poor) but the guys that fucked them up were the same bad boys. they just had no parental backup with the support they lacked in mates.


    • on November 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm Hector_St_Clare

      Man Reader,

      This is absolutely true, based on my observations. I’ve had very little personal experience with dating and sex (I’m just growing out of some long term social anxiety right now), but I’m pretty much a classic beta supporter type. The attention from girls I’ve gotten up to this point, such as it is (e.g. an emotional relationship last summer and a sexual relationship this summer, and hopefully a date later this week) has generally been from poorer girls with absentee dads. The more upper class girls have no interest. (for what it’s worth, i’m early 30s, but generally try and date much younger, like 18-25).


    • Yes, let’s make general, blanket statements in a feeble attempt to explain human behavior.


  2. ‘Computer Model’ is the new snake oil.


    • Tend to agree with you on this point; too often people are baffled by the “ZOMG SCIENCE!” nature of computer sims. With that said, I have witnessed the tragic daughter who loves cads scenario many a time, and believe the conclusion, even if the evidence is not the most convincing.


    • on November 19, 2013 at 3:09 am Hugh G. Rection

      Yeah, it’s the same with global warming, all computer models. Throw in a “consensus of scientists” and you got a bullshit bonanza.


  3. Need instant advice — “live action” field report happening now. CH please post:

    Supposed to have date no. 3 with HB 9 tonight. Was scheduled for last night but I flaked on her. I did not tell her I had another girl in town taking me out to dinner, as YaReally advised me, because I suck ass, but I told her let’s just do it another night.

    Okay so today…nothing all day I texted her “…” as a ping (uncalibrated but whatever).

    Me: (1:56 PM): …
    Her: (3:59 PM): Hola, sorry I just saw your txt. How is your day going?
    Her: (4:05 PM): I am a little bit sick today 😦

    So of course I know she will flake. Should I literally not respond at all…. or suffer the indignity of (what) to which she will flake. And then after she flakes she gets no response and radio silence for 2 weeks, or what?

    What do I do right now?

    We have plans for tonight at 8, so if I say nothing at all right now, would that be kind of weird even though I know she is setting up a flake?


    • > “We have plans for tonight at 8, so if I say nothing at all right now, would that be kind of weird even though I know she is setting up a flake?”

      Get there early.

      Force yourself to start chatting up the hottest chicks in the joint.

      If she shows up, then she arrives to see you with hot chicks and her hamster goes nuts. YOU WIN.

      If she bails and never shows up, then you’re already chatting up the hottest chick in the joint – might as well stick around and enjoy the rest of the evening. YOU WIN.

      That’s what having options is all about: Heads you win, tails you win.

      And that’s the attitude which you simply must embrace and make your own.


      • Or, get there five minutes late and do the same.


      • Thanks. Didn’t do that. Played my guitar for 2 hours instead, but check this out. I’m improving and I owe it all to CH. Here’s what happened, and it went down exactly as described in an avoid-butthurt thread from a while back.

        So picking up where we left off:

        Me (5:45 PM): come over watch movies i will give u hot chicken soup

        Her (5:51 PM): Are you free tomorrow? Can we reschedule to tomorrow I’m really not feeling well?

        Me (6:00 PM): even better. maid comes tomorrow. feel better

        Her (6:06 PM): Perfect : )

        Here is why I think I did well: showed no butthurt; rewarded her with response only because she offered immediate reschedule to tomorrow as opposed to 100% flake with no offer of future reschedule; the thing about soup is (1) so far I am always offering her value in the form of fun…she’s seen it twice so far (good restaurant one time, cool very very funky dive bar that had GOOD jazz music 2nd time), and also inviting her to apartment and (2) was a set up—cool offer from a guy she already knows is not creepy and if she totally flaked without offer of reschedule, she would have gotten complete radio silence—no response. She got a response because she offered immediate reschedule. She has seen ZERO negativity from me so far. Chicken soup is I’m sensitive enough to take care of her but I already showed her I’m not some creep who’s afraid to get physical…tried to bang on the first date but she stopped it.

        Also by the way she is getting offered real value. I had reservations at a cool (super cool but not super expensive) french place tonight (she doesn’t know that)…but what she knows is she had an offer to get chicken soup and movies at my apartment (which she has seen)….guy she obviously finds attractive who will try to kiss her but won’t rape her or act butthurt if she puts the breaks on.

        Did I or did I not follow CH’s advice to a T? – no butthurt, made her smile even, showed not desperate, not pressuring her…I actually think this was YaReallyish. I’m starting to understand why this is necessary. She might indeed have gas, be finishing up her menses, whatever. I also think it was a double win as *I* am kind of tired and was not feeling playful enough tonight anyway.

        Now….as to your advice…ya the reason I don’t have more options is I’m the kind of guy who will play my guitar for 3 hours instead of going out.

        Also my apartment is indeed a wreck and that was going to cramp my vibe as far as pushing her to come back her….ya I know have messy place on purpose but my place is disgusting right now.

        Ya ya more alpha move would be to get off my ass and clean it up a little so that’s not a thing that’s messing up my internals.

        So now my plan is radio silence until she says something tomorrow.

        Also this girl is tough and now thanks to CH I am recognizing obvious by-the-book shit tests (including this one)….this will be the first time that SHE will send the last text …about fucking time lol.

        Oh.. also “maid coming tomorrow” implies that she will see my apartment.

        Her response “Perfect : )” lzozlzozl #winning


      • > “Now….as to your advice…ya the reason I don’t have more options is I’m the kind of guy who will play my guitar for 3 hours instead of going out.”







        Decisions, decisions, decisions.

        Maybe you could kill two birds with one stone, and get out there and perform in public, and use your mad guitar-playing skillz to score some poontang.

        But, again, that would require summoning up some strength of character and forcing yourself to make the personality change from shy introverted Mama’s Boy gamma to bold extroverted Daddy’s Boy alpha.

        It’s your life to live.


      • working on it. trying to get nonlazy people to be in my band. already did one gig as solo act but at dive bar and only chain smoking tatted up fatties were there


      • lol I’m not shy. i do street pickup, play live….looking for people to join my band….trying in fact to get a hot girl to be the drummer. see “the white stripes”

        got an 8’s # the other day doing street pickup….she didn’t respond to text but whatever I was not shy with her…


      • man reader

        ….trying in fact to get a hot girl to be the drummer.

        Try not to waste too much time doing it. Female musicians are unreliable; especially if they are halfway hot. Some can copy, but creativity is a male thing.

        You might be able to find a decent singer/guitarist Sheryl Crow type… but they are rare because the bar is so low for them that they never get good. But then again, if you are willing to trust a female with your percussion, maybe you ain’t that good?

        Either way, rock on.


      • An exception to the rule; Jen Ledger

        She has great drum solos on you tube


      • You’re chasing her too much and not demonstrating higher value.


      • Update:


        Me: 10:27 AM — hey i feel much better today. Hope u do too. I love sleep!!!

        Her: 10:51 AM — Yes, I feel better today…. Working or day off ; )

        Me: 10:58 AM — Me? I’m at work but let’s have fun tonight. I want good escargot and I know just the place. Casual and chill.

        Her: 11:35 AM — Ok….sounds like a plan.

        Me: 11:50 AM — Good

        #winning, motherfuckers.


      • Gentlemen, I go forth tonight as a hardened warrior with the enlightened Power of CH and the Commentariat behind me. It will be as if I bring the power of 10 armies behind me, and the US Air Force above me for backup, with YaReally as the Pilot and CH the Navigator. And as I walk through the valley of the shadow of banging a true HB9, I shall fear no shit test. Yay I shall parry all shit tests as a horse’s tail swats away a gnat. No, I shall happily and gleefully consume all shit tests as an 800-pound black bear devours fresh honey. As a killer whale devours a sea lion. As a lion wolfs down a bloody fresh kill with a glimmer in his eye. Indeed I shall welcome all shit tests with a smirk and a swat on her firm, perfect ass. And I’m talking 99th percentile perfect, brothers. The more shit tests, the better, as each one will bring more fun and a brighter smile to my perfectly straight and whitened teeth, and to hers, as I happily scarf them down to her tingling delight.


      • Good luck, just play down the enthusiasm. Be charming and tease her like a kid sister, maybe drop a subtle neg or two. Remain playful and casual about getting DTF. You can still be jumping for joy inside, just try not to display it.


      • > “good escargot”


        “Escargot” is froggish for “snails”.

        And “snails” means champagne.

        Mother fucker, your ass is looking at a $500 restaurant bill tonight.

        Maybe $1500 if you live in NYC.

        Hope them subway riders have been throwing plenty of $20 bills into your hat when you play your guitar for them at the subway station.

        The good news is that if you can fill her up on snails and champagne, then there’s an excellent chance that you’ll get laid tonight.

        The bad news is that if you do get laid, then afterwards, she’s gonna lean over the side of the bed, and puke out an entire stomach-full of that shit.

        Well, let’s at least hope that she leans over the side of the bed.

        She might just decide to puke it out all over you.

        Vomit Game FTW.


      • dude lol thanks for reminding me to take some of the advice here with a grain of salt. ur way off on this one… it will be like $80. it’s a chill place like I told her….will be light eating, walking, kino….not a heavy meal.


      • Once there was a snail who was tired of being slow. He went out and bought a really fast sports car and had the dealer paint a big ‘S’ on each side of it.

        Whenever someone saw him zooming past in his new car, they would say, “Hey, look at that S-car go.”

        /Boy Scout Pun Game FTW
        Guaranteed Gusset Gusher®


      • Shit damn, MK, that’s some seriously good Boy Scout Pun Game.


      • Eatin’ escargot. My car go… 150… swiftly.
        Ma$e Here the ladies at.
        Hey yo how they came? In a truck?
        Naw Puff that’s a Benz.
        Mercedez, you know how I like it ladies.
        Y’all know I be crazy
        Shit don’t phase me
        U can’t amaze me
        Or even come up close and just graze me


    • This seems appropriate here:


      • lol that ugly lipless bitch looks like Fire Marshall Bill, the Jim Carrey character from “In Living Color” in the 80s who had his lips burned off in a fire. would not kiss…would be like kissing a skeleton. made that mistake with a similar girl once, and only once, when I was 19 in college. lozlzozlzozlzzlzo


      • This video is not far from reality, a lot of women are almost that messed up in the head.

        They will coldly reject a nice normal guy but will be all wet for a creepy man who obviously only wants to use them for sex and will throw them away once he has had his fun.

        I know I have said this a dozen times before but if women were not like that why would almost a 100 million of them have bought and read the book ” Fifty shades of Grey” which is basically about a creepy guy using a woman for sex and even abusing her.

        They love this stuff and when they can not have it, they read about it.

        Women ( or about 95% of them ) love to be treated poorly by bad men and are turned off by decent men who treat them nice.

        Women are strange animals…


  4. Assuming it is true, it explains some of the (from our perspective) high-handedness and judgmental attitude of fathers from earlier times. Don’t behave, or you take up with a cad? I will cut you and your ne’er-do-well hubby out of the will…


    • The Frankfurt School knew exactly what it was doing when it set out to annihilate Western Civilization.

      First and foremost: DESTROY THE FAMILY!!!


    • on November 19, 2013 at 1:29 am Ed the Department Head

      In Ancient Rome and throughout much of Western history, marriages were arranged. I suspect this was fathers purchasing beta providers for their daughters in order not to get stuck with cads living off them. The Julian laws in Rome stated: “Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery. Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives”. I imagine this sort of thing was also to cut down on female cad chasing antics.


  5. it does have the ring of truth though, that women are born gold diggers


  6. Easy enough. You will find all the insight you need by considering the difference between alpha fathers and beta fathers, the distinction being, the former understands that inside his precious little princess lurks a demon to be exorcised, while the latter is convinced that her cherubic little face can do no wrong (because betapops has little experience with women).

    “Providing” is a secondary matter. A father can “provide” the archetype of manliness (and even resources) without being present. This is how working men used to do it — the distant figure of loving authority, “Just wait until your father gets home.” Indeed, being constantly there and doting on a child’s whims is more of a feminine archetype, which is the equivalent or worse of being a deadbeat dad. That’s better understood as a Heather Has Two Mommies situation.

    It’s not a father’s absence per se that screws up a chick. It is the interpretation of that absence as indifference that creates bipolar babies. There is an old term for beta dads who unconditional provide for their children without inculcating in them the proper relationship between risk and reward, and that term is “spoiled brat.”

    Ever since the fertility rate has plummeted catastrophically, families have shrunk, and we have been lousy with only-child syndrome, shitlib (Scalzirific) parenting, and a preponderance of Veruca Saltism.



    • Hey Matt: What is it exactly you and Yareally disagree on? You guys argue quite a bit, and I’ve personally found both of you to have impressive insights. Are you anti-game and he pro-game on what it means to be a man/alpha or what?


      • YaReally: has real-world experience in gaming women; shares his insights generously with all who ask; is never condescending and insulting to those who disagree with him; understands that this is a site about getting laid and navigating the sexual marketplace; believes in empirical evidence and scientific methodology.

        Matt King: is undoubtedly a virgin; is a “big brother” (his words, not mine) to “many women”; insults and mocks anyone who disagrees with his theology; believes this site is a platform for him to preach his Catholic, religious intolerance; is opposed to everything this site is about; believes in: an invisible, supernatural being who allegedly created mankind in his image, saints, miracles, angels, demons, and devils.

        YaReally is the guy you’d want to share a beer with at the bar.

        Matt King is the arrogant know-it-all blowhard you’d want to avoid — or beat the shit out of.


      • YaReally is the guy you’d want to share a beer with at the bar.

        Matt King is the arrogant know-it-all blowhard you’d want to avoid — or beat the shit out of.

        Funny you should say… I feel the exact same way, except 180°.

        Well, to be honest, I don’t really want to beat the shit out of YaReally…

        But it would give me great pleasure to go upside your head… and if your meat world character is better than your Cyberian, we could afterwards share a beer.


      • Ya puts in work, because it works.

        Matt hates that it works.


      • Be fair to the opposition, at least.

        Matt has stated his position innumerable times on the pros and cons of game in particular situations… and the definition of “game” as seen through the eyes of the pussy-is-all crowd versus the LTR-seeking contingents.


      • Game is critical in an LTR if you expect to be the man in the house. Matt agrees with this but sees too much emphasis on casual sex as selling oneself short and a detour from the path of a virtuous and self examined life. His position is really no different than Aristotle’s on the subject. His Christianity aside.


      • Ya Really is also a quality person who gives by far the best and most comprehensive game advice on this site. I like them both for different reasons.


      • YaReally has, good, practical advice, of which, no doubt, many commenters and lurkers have put to great use, including myself. That said: he–YaReally–seems to me a wanton hedonist with no rooted convictions save the pursuit of pussy which, in my opinion, demonstrates a weakness.of character I find difficult to articulate. I think Matt’s sensitive to this defect and aims to destroy it for myriad reasons.


      • on November 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm Modern Primitive

        What’s wrong with hedonism?


      • It generally devolves ino this, on a long enough timeline…


      • You’re thinking like a white man.

        How can you devolve if you never evolved?


      • thwack,

        You’d be–and probably have been in the past–rejected by the fecal colored beasts populating the “Hood Life” vid.

        Does that rejection mean you’re not a real brotha, your mulatto status notwithstanding?

        Thank you in advance for your time and response.


      • I meet African immigrants that I have more in common with by far than with this AA ghetto culture. It’s a manufactured counter culture and the direct result of family breakdown. It doesn’t have to be this way. Are there any positive solutions to this problem?


      • Sigma Male
        Does that rejection mean you’re not a real brotha, your mulatto status notwithstanding?

        Brotherhood is a behavior, not a morphology. My dog is more highly evolved than many people. I can leave an entire plate of steaks on a chair, go to the bathroom, make a phone call… and she won’t touch them.

        When I come back, they are all right where I left them.

        But people? I don’t trust most of them farther than I can throw them; and you gotta really watch the white ones; they will rob you and you won’t even know it. Or they will rob you and make it appear as if your own dog did it.

        *be advised*


      • That said: he–YaReally–seems to me a wanton hedonist with no rooted convictions save the pursuit of pussy which, in my opinion, demonstrates a weakness.of character I find difficult to articulate. I think Matt’s sensitive to this defect and aims to destroy it for myriad reasons.

        I believe this comes closest to the core of the matter… although “destroy” might be too strong a word, rather: sow the seeds of something better, something more universally true and of lasting value… if only for the sake of one’s own karma and for those with the ears to hear.

        And regardless of what the pussy-über-alles brigade tries to claim and shame, Matt expresses himself in a remarkably erudite and stylish manner… which in and of itself commands respect from all but the most paltry of mind/heart/soul.

        Anyway, that’s what I sez… and whoever don’t like it can see me outside.


      • “one’s own karma”…..is the tell.

        there is only one agenda present, and it’s reproduction tempered by Briffaults law.

        everything else in intellectual masturbation.


      • There are worlds beyond mere materialism… and by that term, I mean the belief that the only things that are real (or matter) are those one can experience with the physical senses.

        If you don’t happen to put much stock in the spiritual, well… you’re a member of a popular and multifarious club.

        But try not to spout sophomoric-sounding platitudes about all existence.


      • Yeah. This is precisely the kind of unexamined dogma I am aiming to halt the spread of.

        Maybe there is (and only can be) “one agenda present,” but the point is to explicate and systematically duplicate how an earnest seeker arrives at The One and Only Conclusion like you did.

        There is far more at work than some reductionist idea of “reproduction tempered by Briffault[‘]s law,” and so I ask you to defend that solitary assertion which, by definition, disqualifies a universe of other potential factors. Mine is an essential skepticism and agnosticism (which is why I allow the word “maybe” in the paragraph supra). The burden of proof is on you and YaReally to not just continue repeating the same advertisement of doctrine and asserting its truth, but also to demonstrate how all other possibilities are faulty.

        Universal disproof of that nature being impossible, the Socratic “I don’t know” or “All I know is I know nothing” becomes the necessary starting point. From there, instead of assertions we pose dialectical inquiries, invite antitheses, and create syntheses. The fewer womanly emotional attachments to our positions the better.

        What you call “intellectual masturbation” the Western Cultural tradition has always called “philosophy.” Those who are outside looking in, who cannot interpret what is going on, will compare a foreign activity to something more familiar to them, like, say, a circle jerk. Your act of declaring “only one agenda present” the West has always recognized as simple dogmatic obduracy.

        I am speaking above you, and I get that you and others resent it, like proud men should. But instead of raising yourself up to the conversation, you scoff at the very possibility of an expression above your understanding, and you seek to reduce superior modes and means into digestible babyfood puree for your consumption, like proud rage-betas do.

        A man confident in the foundation of his philosophy does not engage fools with bald counter-assertions but rather makes claims that invite questions, the kind of questions which create crowd scrutiny that synthesizes divergent conclusions. This is not The Octagon, where one idea is left standing after all the hoo-hah. This is masonry, and we are building a tower out of only thoroughly tested material.

        But it all depends on the kind of construction workers available, and this site seems to attract the posers and preeners who don’t want to get their hands dirty. Then again, those who prefer to shut up and put a spade in hardly ever engage the types who criticize anonymously, and so those with a yen to build something will not make themselves known in places like these, where snarky subversion is the order of the day.

        Still, I have hung my shingle out for the creators and yeomen. I am talking primarily to them.



      • hailing from a Taoist bent, all I can do is say “who’s to say what is good and bad”

        because thepussyprinciple (TM) isn’t my thing, or yours, doesn’t mean there is more.



      • Pontius Pilate once opined “What is Truth?” and then washed his hands of the matter.

        Moral relativism is popular with Man, but doesn’t count for much with God.

        Follow whatever god, gods, or man-made -ism you wish… as for me an my house, we will serve Jehovah.


      • seems…..basic

        but… kewl i guess.


      • I say cut Pontius Pilate a break. He tried pretty hard to save Jesus but the crowd demanded his head and it was the best course of action from Rome’s perspective as the ruling power because the Israelites had a strong tendency to be rebellious and argumentative and Rome had cut a deal with Herod for them to rule themselves in religious matters, which Pilate was bound to honor. BTW, he was later recalled to Rome for the follow on upheaval this whole business caused and was put to death for it by Tiberius.


      • Don’t know what King and Ya’s beef is, but Ya is the king of the TL;DR. I’d rather subject myself to watching The View than struggle past a full post of his.


      • NotReally shills PUA videos and posts Penthouse letters written to an adoring fanboi throng, Matt quotes the Bible.
        Cyberspace: Where absolutely everything must be taken with an oil tanker full of salt.


      • And Matt isn’t? They’re both long-winded fuckers.


      • Some winds fill sails and propel men to greater distances.

        Others just knock down dead branches from trees and create a general nuisance.


      • theres gandhi, mother teressa, and then then theres……. Matt King.

        “who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion”
        Psalm 103:4


      • We “argue quite a bit” because YaReally is repetitive. That’s his deal. He has one tool, and boy, does he work that tool.

        He writes to teach the unwashed omega masses, I write to find a few good men who do not require detailed remedial training.

        He writes to elucidate basic principles to the readership; I write to investigate the quality/potential of the readership.

        My audience is self-selecting or self-disqualifying; see peanut-gallery comments above, who strain themselves to publicize every disagreement they have with every single comment I post.

        I am 100% pro-game. This does not compute to those who have simple computation skills, i.e., dependent men who make unreliable brothers-in-arms and therefore men whose utterances I do not suffer gladly.

        When crudely-reformed omegas extrapolate their practical trench-warfare wisdom beyond a circumscribed area of influence, they make a hash of the subject, of the greater cause, and of game itself. That’s where I enter the conversation to put up a flag, essentially reminding the silent majority that snarky/dismissive, know-it-all coolguy street magic isn’t the whole story but is rather a gross mischaracterization of the idea in full.

        Haters and ankle-biters can only interpret my intervention as anti-game rather than acknowledging game to be one instrument in a set, albeit a powerful instrument. Sometimes the job calls for a mallet, and sometimes it calls for a chainsaw, or a power drill, or a scalpel, or a fine brush. They do not know how to deal with my saying not every situation requires a hammer, and not every circumstance is a nail.

        When they have no easy characterization of you, they caricature you to make their simpleton ideas jibe with the undeniable presence of dissent. It’s perfectly expected, an ancient rationalization for the rhetorically ill-equipped.



      • ….but do you still love Feministx?

        And do you love Jessica Valenti in the same way? If so, why? And if not, why not?


      • at risk of sounding like a complete wuss i have to say it’s a good conflict, at least for my reading. like it’s yeahreally and scray with the nuts and bolts and then matthew king and greg eliot with the aspirational. and i read them all, and i take a splash of zombie shane and gbfm for spice.

        as for myself i will continue running through vagina and later attempt to recapture my ancient mormon polygamist roots and pile up some kids.


      • on November 19, 2013 at 6:02 pm Hugh G. Rection

        The internet is no place for nuance.


      • Which is exactly WHY the effort must be made. 😉


  7. Curious as to what you men think about this anti-game blogger:

    “it fills my heart with joy that you guys have such blind faith and hope

    But I’m sorry, young hot women are really really really really dumb. But really fucking dumb. They have no idea of all the blabbering that comes out from a guy’s mouth.

    If the guy is good looking he can blabber what the fuck he wants, the dumb girl is only going to listen beautiful things, admitted that the guy is no asperger body language, speaks in a suave way and has not a faggot voice.

    But really, ditch all these fucking idealistic concepts that you learn on these stupid websites, made by blind angry men who think that having a political view or becoming mysoginist or anti-feminist or whatever helps them getting laid. It’s not true.

    Beautiful women will always have all the fucking power in the world. Only males with very high Looks, Money and Status can play them like babies. It’s not concepts or ideas that get a woman wet, it’s not fucking pickup lines etc.

    It’s not so fucking hard to understand this. It’s much more easier, anyway, to be blind to the truth and think other shit just because one:

    1. is a lazy faggot

    2. is born with a genetic curse

    It’s just the same thing when someone finds out he has cancer. He doesn’t fucking want to believe that.

    And I’m sorry, but today the average looking male is pretty much doomed. It’s incredibly hard that your pussy-slaying dreams will come true if you don’t look like a masculine caucasian god in the western world.

    Since looking like that, will also give you access to develop your personality to the maximum and most charismatic effect.

    If you don’t believe me, tell me the last time you saw the skinny nerd with a fucked up face in your school being the school leader and getting all the pussy.
    And also, it’s not that the nerd is more intelligent. It’s just that he is obliged to spend his time in front of less social things, because he has no positive reinforcement from clubbing or talking with hot sluts or, in general, having fun with male friends who are not talking about boring nerd shit”

    Any thoughts, agreements, disagreements, etc?


    • ‘game’ isn’t lines. and most of the talking is exactly as he says, to accentuate her predilection to just ‘listen beautiful things’. just go through the posts, or anything. it’s attitude, it’s posture, it’s refusing to be moved by her beauty. everyone has seen ugly dudes ignoring a hotass girlfriend and wondered how.

      anyway the dude writing that is the one that sounds bitter, and wants to chalk it up to things he can’t change. what good is that? fix what you can fix, accentuate the positive, and put your best self out there. or, alternately, cry about life being unfair.


      • I agree, he’s certainly bitter however he definitely made a good point in that it isn’t the “recipie” Spotting IOIs, using the jumbotron, or ‘…’ it’s what’s behind it as to why they sleep with you, the Alpha Cake at the end.


    • He’s right in a lot of ways. No one ever said that looks, money, or raw status aren’t — alone — powerful value signals. (altho, it’s not really money…it’s what money allows you to do, which is demonstrate dominance over others and your environment).

      Where he’s wrong is that you can carve out your own niche. It’s not easy because no one wants to help you. But you can definitely become ‘as they are’ or at least ‘closer to as they are.’

      You can also work on your passive value, too. Work on your style, your physique, hygiene.

      Lol, altho….it’s kind of funny. This guy is crying about how tough it is for an average dude to get a beautiful girl. Well no shit. It’s also hard for average girls to ‘get’ (read: secure commitment) from ‘hot’ guys. No one wants to ‘settle.’ I mean, I kno that feel…but why complain about having to do work when you already know the task is difficult?

      Is some beautiful girl supposed to just suck on an average dude’s dick for no reason or something?


      • Good point, Scray. I always tell people ‘it is not money, it is power – money is often a proxy for that.’ I call it ‘The Henry Kissinger Syndrome’, where you have a fat, balding, middle-aged guy with gorgeous women hanging on him.


      • ya, I mean….if you want to get pussy using money you pretty much have to always be spending money lol.


      • on November 19, 2013 at 3:19 am Hugh G. Rection

        Which usually means, sooner or later you won’t have any money anymore. There are more than a few people with 6 figure incomes and negative net worth.


      • The thing with being a woman is that there’s an upper limit to how much SMV you can add to your current SMV. Such limits may exist for men, but there are ways to overcome it.


    • “And I’m sorry, but today the average looking male is pretty much doomed.”

      Considering humanity has descended from only 40% of men who ever lived then that’s sounds like what supposed to happen.


      • What ‘game’ can do is give guys who under normal circumstances lack the balls, social skills, etc. to hit on attractive women – or any women, for that matter – the fake confidence to do so anyway.
        Which will result in about 99.999% crash-and-burns (touted in online for a as lays), because what ‘game’ *cannot* do is turn a 40-year old 5’2 Quasimodo into something women want.


      • Why is it that anti-gamers always give extreme examples to showcase the limits of game? Sure, the 40y/o Quasimodo probably will never pull 10’s. Okay. So? Will he improve his lot with women, substantially? It’s hard to see how he wouldn’t.


    • The guy to the right of me at the table said poker’s just a game of luck. The pro to my left just smiled.


    • “We smoked and drank and then came down to join the ladies, and there was James Toback, now quite heavier than before, with very bad knees and quite diabetic, and also suffering from shortitis (a sudden lack of ready cash), but as brilliant as ever. He was holding court and dressed like Tony Montana or one of Fulgencio Batista’s henchmen. He had on a porkpie hat, dark glasses, a black T-shirt, and a white dinner jacket thrown over it. And trainers that were blue with pink laces. Bartle, who has been in Iraq for a long time and whose opinions we eagerly sought, had to take second place. The beautiful girls were all ears. It was a typical Toback evening.”

      Now go and take a look at Toback’s picture.


      He doesn’t look that great either.


    • Curious as to what you men think about this anti-game blogger…

      Here is what I think: the barrier to entry of internet opinionating is non-existent, the mediocre drowns out the wise, and the aggressively-bad drowns out the mediocre. Elevating this man’s profile even microscopically here contributes to the natural online kakocracy, making the least common denominator somehow even leastier.

      Online dialectic requires at bare minimum the ability to make a disinterested argument, as opposed to bloviating or letting off steam. One can disagree with an opinion while acknowledging it to be legitimate, well-founded, and/or well-expressed. This poor fellow is venting spleen to precipitate a reaction, any reaction. It is such a common, maybe even dominant type online that we’ve specified its kind into distinct category: Troll.

      All this before we get to the substance of his hissy fit, which itself is so vanishingly small as to be nearly impossible to find. Next.



    • It’s a strawman. The skinny nerd has no social value for the women and no respect from the males, of course he will lead no one.


  8. The study left out the fact that under a patriarchal system parents invest in sons — not daughters. Maybe this explains why giving the family farm to the son was a rational thing to do.

    The Chinese had a pretty harsh, yet explicit instruction in this regard:

    On the third day after the birth of a girl the ancients observed three customs: first to place the baby below the bed; second to give her a potsherd [a piece of broken pottery] with which to play; and third to announce her birth to her ancestors by an offering. Now to lay the baby below the bed plainly indicated that she is lowly and weak, and should regard it as her primary duty to humble herself before others. To give her potsherds with which to play indubitably signified that she should practice labor and consider it her primary duty to be industrious. To announce her birth before her ancestors clearly meant that she ought to esteem as her primary duty the continuation of the observance of worship in the home.


  9. “At the risk of outing myself as a charming jerk, ( ) few of the women I’ve taken to bed on the first date came from broken families. Most were smart, psychologically balanced, and raised in the bosom of a loving nuclear family.”

    How would you even know this?

    [CH: many ways to figure out this info. one girl got on the phone with her dad while we were eating a morning-after brunch. there were many terms of endearment passed between them.]


    [lol indeed.]

    And appearances can be deceiving.


    Affluent daddies in intact families can screw up their daughters just as much as absentee dads… sometimes more so.

    [they *can* be. but they usually don’t. stay within the lines, amy. you’re straying.]


    • Ok, my response was lame; I admit it. It’s just that I went to college with so many f-ed up little rich girls…

      I can’t put my finger on exactly why this post bugs me. Are you saying smart, psychologically balanced girls from good families dig jerks, or that they’re easy?

      [CH: all women love jerks, to greater or lesser degree. the spectrum runs from the girl who is a little turned on when a man she likes flirts with another woman to rihanna, who returns again and again to the man who beat her face to a pulp.]

      Because those are two very different things, and come from different places in the female psyche.

      [women are naturally dichotomous. they want the bux and the fux. too bad for them that combo is rarely available in a single package.]


    • one girl got on the phone with her dad while we were eating a morning-after brunch.


      One girl I was with when still in my badboy phase – a real stunner from the midwest – called up her daddy on the phone and literally threw a tantrum because he hadn’t given her as much allowance as she wanted. Being a typical supplicating UMC sucker, he gave in, and she carried on as before.

      Today, she’s an unmarried, childless immigration lawyer in her late 30s.


      • @Zombie

        UMC = Upper Middle Class


      • Oh, okay, yeah, this phenomenon of beta dweeb herbling effeminate losers who don’t have any clue how to raise their kids is very, very real.

        I see it all the time – UMC “fathers” who beg their children to do shit instead of ordering then to do shit.

        I sincerely hope that there are still enough Alpha dudes out there in redneck land who are inculcating some backbone in their children that we will still have something salvageable as a society moving forward from now.

        Maybe I should do an “Alpha Dad” version of The Chateau, so as to teach beta herbling losers how to man up and become real dads.


      • Matt King’s remark about “Verruca Salt-ism” comes to mind here.


      • Maybe I should do an “Alpha Dad” version of The Chateau, so as to teach beta herbling losers how to man up and become real dads.

        Stupendous idea. That would just about perfectly complement this site and remedy its shortcomings. It would be a bridge between this adolescent nihilosphere and the uniformly excellent (if entirely too fainthearted) Athol Kay of Married Man Sex Life.

        If you don’t go full bloggy, post some epigrams here on the subject. You would capture a sizable crowd from this audience, the husbands and fathers who live vicariously through the tall tales of PUA adventure.


        Liked by 1 person

    • “[CH: many ways to figure out this info. one girl got on the phone with her dad while we were eating a morning-after brunch. there were many terms of endearment passed between them.]”

      Do you sleep with women from broken homes who have bad relationships with their fathers? What’s their deal? They are the ones who hold out till date 3?

      Or you mainly just sleep with girls from intact families and have little experience with the comparison group, daughters of absent fathers?


  10. There is a way simpler answer: “jerks” procreate with more women, that is men who make low investment in their children have children with more women. Therefore a woman who has children with such a man is more likely to have a son with similar qualities who will have more children – so she benefits.

    Ghengis Khan’s first generation male descendants each had hundreds of concubines. So concubine of a Khan in the first few generations won a huge evolutionary lottery.


    • But in the long term, that sort of hyper-polygamy, on the part of the men, is absolutely disastrous for the gene pool.

      All other things being equal, in the long run, a “1-man/1-woman” monogamous society will absolutely steamroll over a “1-to-n” hyper-polygamous society.


      • “But in the long term, that sort of hyper-polygamy, on the part of the men, is absolutely disastrous for the gene pool.

        All other things being equal, in the long run, a “1-man/1-woman” monogamous society will absolutely steamroll over a “1-to-n” hyper-polygamous society.”

        Care to elaborate, Shane?


      • A tragedy of the commons scenario. Fathers’ resources/attention divided into tenths and hundredths, making sprogs essentially fatherless — as opposed to one man raising one to five sons maximum. Majorities of frustrated celibates officially shut-out from poosy and ready for war (hello, mid-21st-century China). Cad selfishness/unchecked hypergamy in a contracepted infanticide culture leading to collapse of total fertility rate.

        There is a reason why one-man/one-woman is the near universal standard while oligarchic harems build unstable polities not long for this world. The gap between officially recognized alpha harem-keepers (inbred trustfund “royalty” with a Hapsburg chin) and the unofficial alpha tingle-Lotharios turns a bevy of concubines into a stable of kept, catty, frustrated bitches.


        Liked by 1 person

    • This is the most relevant post I’ve read that alludes my own reasoning for this phenomenon. A few assumptions to be made: the badboy exudes a strongly masculine aura; this perceived masculine aura triggers the woman’s femininity; and the woman is very attractive (the corollary to this being that her father is a successful/wealthy man who was able to reproduce with a very attractive woman, which necessarily requires that he was successful with women when courting her mother).

      Naturally, the woman has a strong attraction for the masculine qualities of the badboy. However, seeing the erratic behavior of the man, her subconscious feminine tactics kick into gear, and she wants to nurture and “fix” him. This is due to her wanting to secure his source of TINGLES he provides. To accomplish this, she relates to her father and his success (not only financially, but also with women, assuming she’s introspective enough to acknowledge her beauty and, of course, her mother’s). Not only does she *know* her family can financially support her attraction to this hypermasculine fellow, but she *wants* her family (just her father, really) to get involved with and “fix” him. She wants to pair the dominance and social power he displays which seduces her with the financial success and subsequent promise of money and resources to grow healthy children of her father.

      The double whammy here is that not only does she get the ‘gina tingles from the badboy’s alpha displays of behavior but also the satisfaction of mustering and levying her femininity to win over a “lost” and “broken” badboy, which validates her own SMV, in order to concoct the perfect genetic stew for possible offspring.


      • I agree with the part that masculine qualities bring out the feminine qualities of women. However you don’t need to be a bad boy to project masculine qualities women find attractive, it’s just bad boys tend to develop the outward qualities of masculinity that women like. Women seem to only notice these external qualities and be blind to the inward positive masculine traits.


    • So your saying men don’t invest in their children, then for an example have the great Khans who had vast resources that enabled them to have large amounts of concubines and children? In this example the woman and children benefit from the security and resources of the Khans. Isn’t what your saying self-defeating?


  11. “. . .so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES.”

    Tingles not necessarily caused by the jerk, but the idea of screwing over “the good guy.” It’s called anti-love.

    “. . .Have any of you noticed that the hottest daughters have lumpy, chipmunk-cheeked beta male fathers?”

    I disagree. The hottest daughters come from upper-middle class backgrounds. Daughters of doctors (who tend to be athletic) and the good looking woman a doctor can net as a wife.


  12. Passing through the female offspring? They’ve modeled the effects of a matriarchal society.

    Historically, parents invested in their sons. A daughter had to snag a good male, she didn’t inherit anything.


  13. on November 18, 2013 at 4:34 pm Charlie Dont Surf

    Did GBFM go on vacation or something?


    • Yeah, I hope he’s okay.

      Maybe he’s getting serious with some chick?

      Maybe he’s gonna become a Dad in nine months?!?


    • GBFM left a couple of quick comments the other day at Dalrock. But yeah, I assume he’s making a Movie That Is Vietnam, or otherwise detained in some adventure we’ll learn about eventually.

      I did, per Zombie Shane’s admonitions, advise him to be watchful for the Mossad’s infiltrators. Courage!


  14. on November 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm Modern Primitive

    Unrelated to OP, thought you guys might like this

    Women biologically wired to be indirectly competitive with each other. Straight away the vanguard of the cathedral puts in the disclaimer “It’s the kind of science that justifies misogyny.”



    • on November 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm India_landoofRapes

      You are an indian aren’t you, you must be born into a feminine society, Cow Urine is not synonymous to masculinity


  15. Eh, better theory:

    Women respond to stress differently than men, with oxytocin (tend and befriend) instead of the adrenal (fight or flight). Women can neither fight men nor run away from them, so they may as well hug and placate them.

    Oxytocin plays a part in sexual arousal – why massage and music stays factually sex-positive despite being supplicating – and then a checkmate if the rapscallion is fit enough to dip a cervix once or twice.

    Stress is massage is music. Go forth and be stressful.

    [CH: the problem with this theory is that is doesn’t explain why women preferentially date jerks. they are drawn to them. if their motivating impulse is “tend and befriend”, women would be at least as likely to swoon for niceguys, for whom half the work of tending and befriending is already done.]


    • [CH: the problem with this theory is that is doesn’t explain why women preferentially date jerks. they are drawn to them. if their motivating impulse is “tend and befriend”, women would be at least as likely to swoon for niceguys, for whom half the work of tending and befriending is already done.]

      It makes perfect sense if you theorize further that the niceguys lower the women’s stress level — and consequently their oxytocin — rather than raise it like badboys do. It would explain why they feel so friend-y with the niceguys. lzozlzolz


  16. When you incentivise certain behaviours, you will get more of those behaviours.

    This is why women voted themselves in big-daddy-government: they knew that it would let them do as they choose with a guaranteed communal safety-blanket that doesn’t directly involve their parents. Thus, even if daddy is a hard-ass Alpha who no-fucking-way is gonna give his baby-turned-slut any money – she is still covered.

    Gonna be interesting when the house of cards fall down.


  17. The problem with this simulation is that it doesn’t seen to account for the possiblity that parents can help their sons as well as their daughters. Also, in a malthusian society, is there really the law of declining returns? Most people are starving in a maltusian society, if a woman can be fed by both her mate and her parents, she can have more children than her sisters who are fed by one of the other.


    • on November 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm A Definite Beta Guy

      It also does not take into account Ice Ages and fluctuations in iodine levels on the planet MarClark. What of it?
      No one theory would ever account for everything. There are a lot of reasons why women dig jerks: this happens to be one possibility.
      Regarding Malthusian economies, read http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282
      Malthusian economies are not starving economies. They are economies that cannot ever improve living standards. They can maintain a high standard of living if they manage populations through war or disease and not starvation.


  18. We all know bad boys and jerks are highly desirable. And Heartiste’s nemesis explains why feminism should be eradicated



  19. UK to put people in jail for three years for possessing rape porn.


    1. I’m sure this won’t be used as an excuse for MI5 to emulate the NSA.

    2. Since rape fantasies are common among women, I’m afraid many female readers of romance novels will be going to jail. After all, I’m sure this law will be enforced fairly and equally across different media, genders, races, and religions.


    • I, for one, commend this book burning law. It is clearly devised to punish “50 Shades of Gray/Grey sp?” readership and writers of slash fiction. Two groups deserving of state condemnation if ever there have been.


    • Well, Whorefinder has been very quiet of late. Though he doesn’t strike me as a limey.


  20. Strangely enough this does make sense in that a woman who has confirmed resources outside of a relationship thus does not have to take resources into account when dating. Poor women without access to birth control are going to be more rational than well-off women. Hence the scenario before of that old-timey cad Porfirio Rubirosa didn’t have to impress women with wealth since they already had it.

    Then again when early men were hunter-warriors while the resources were somewhat communally shared. Sure the stronger ones were probably fed first but everyone got something. So once again a strong, risk-taking man was also desired rather than who could necessarily command the most resources.


  21. My reading of history tells me that, in former times when family and family lines were important, most resources went to sons and daughters were ‘married off.’ with a dowry.
    The traditional understanding was that daughters became part of their husbands’ families.

    Daughters who married ‘beneath’ the family or without the blessing of the father were ‘cut off.’

    Boys carry both the family name and the Y chromosome, which is conserved in the male line, so that makes sense.


  22. on November 18, 2013 at 6:39 pm PimpinBlueStar

    bagging the hottest girls (all of ,my lays nearly had this in common):

    1) make her laugh
    2) make her cum

    the hottest usually have guys following the same “trying to be impressive” or the right cutout society thinks this girl would want to be seen with.

    by just approaching and making her laugh, it shows that I recognize what society expects of a guy like me (I’m short but I have style) and I shit on it by walking my own line. this puts me in the 95th percentile of guys who have approached or even wanted to approach her

    If I get to step 2, im 98th percentile

    all the faggots hate because they can’t do it. even a lot of really swell looking lads who would look good on her arm, as if life is a ralph lauren ad at the front of gq . but hey, you wanna buy into society’s ideal image and trust they have your best interest in mind, don’t be suprised when at 35 you pay for it with your sanity


  23. on November 18, 2013 at 7:31 pm Hector_St_Clare

    Re: Strangely enough this does make sense in that a woman who has confirmed resources outside of a relationship thus does not have to take resources into account when dating. Poor women without access to birth control are going to be more rational than well-off women.

    Exactly, this is why it makes sense to go to places like Venezuela, Russia, the Dominican Republic if you’re a decent guy looking for a wife.


  24. I haven’t met very many parents – they were usually far away – but when I did, I noticed that parental hatred is your friend.
    If her dad wants you dead, she’ll want your baby ASAP. If her mom thinks you’re an angel, the girl will be fucking another guy before nightfall.
    Many girls from all social classes seem to have really weird relationships with their fathers, pretty much the only ones who might be described as vaguely ‘normal’ emotionally are those in the 4-5 looks range.


  25. Women are hard wired to like babies. And you wonder why they like infantile men? Bonus points for scatalogical humor. I like the Halloween outfit with the dude in the diaper.

    Study seems flaked. A more real phenomenon is not that Daddy pays for the Jerk; but rather since Daddy spoils me, I will date unserious men and postpone my marriage to a Beta. Very common with Jewish girls.


    • The study doesn’t square with the modern sexual marketplace. Not their fault, it’s a simple computer model that isn’t designed to explain the MSM(heh)

      Pre sexual revolution America was an Anti Cad Exploitation Society. Parents kept their daughters on a pedestal, taught them to look for a good provider as soon as they hit young adulthood and gave them extra resources to set a bar for potential mates to clear. The higher up the economic scale, the more important this was, as there was more to lose.

      Post sexual revolution America provides the support but none of the guidance. Women burn their prime marriage years and expect their parents and/or society to pick up the slack. Call it Provider Exploitation. Not without it’s evolutionary advantages for some groups, particularly at the bottom.


    • That’s because daddy has demonstrated all through princess’ life that he will spoil her unconditionally and buy her approval and affection rather than have her earn his. It’s the same underlying principle as with PUA. Most married men with grown daughters seem to do this to be around young hot women vicariously. A former college buddy of mine did this for awhile on FB. He’s a successful, good looking guy, but he only posted photos of him and his daughter hamming it up, the photos of the wife were buried in a back file. The daughter looked a lot like his wife when she was young. This is the peril of marrying women close to your age.


  26. Another option is that in a world were divorce is rampant, mate worthy men take their resources and invest them in a second family depriving the first set of daughters of the material resources to pull of the scam.


  27. This is putting the cart before the horse.


  28. This study totally explains my sister-in-law.


  29. From what I can gather, biologically its this:

    Most women are obsessed with status (high survival rate). If a badboy/Sigma has masculinity, aggression, cleverness, etc… he has high potential to be the next alpha/chief or at the very least a good protector (high functioning beta). Its probably no coincidence that women in their teens and 20’s love this type the most (biologically)because their trying to gain status . Also if they “fix” the bad boy they get the alpha support system. If the Sigma is really impressive, she might feel that he could even overthrow her father (assuming he’s the alpha). Hell, even some Alpha wives/queens would be thinking about shacking up with the next leader. Its all about power/survival.

    Fooling around aimlessly on dad’s dollar with a badboy probably happened very rarely millennia ago-if one of them wasn’t killed/outcasted. Resources were more limited and Daddie’s status could fall without sons,there were no comfortable mansions for her to inherit. No woman will shack up with an outcast to live an outcast life. Women are ridiculously social. In their blood, they have to be in order to survive when gathering food with other women. They can fucking hate each other but they will still smile and oooh and ahhh @ each others babies b/c if her mate doesn’t return from hunting, she needs that support system of women for her and her kids’ survival. Single Men and alpha leaders don’t need to be nice, smiling (only possibly to a superior you respect or need), etc… to survive-we just need to perform (A Good Man– Not “the Nice Guy”).

    Modern Society:

    Rich girl gets to play with Sigma without having to invest in him as next alpha.
    Though she’s safe, her biology still wants the next leader.


  30. Reblogged this on The Andrade Archive and commented:
    It’s probably waaaaay more complex than this.


  31. […] A New Theory Explains Why Chicks Dig Jerks | Chateau Heartiste […]


  32. on November 19, 2013 at 4:08 am Prof Poo Pants

    Re: Game going mainstream

    Create an Abundance Mentality


  33. On the subject of chicks digging jerks, I’d like to share this text exchange I had with this girl I’m gaming last night. BG: I met her online, slim, great tits. I took her out once, K-closed. Then she came over a second time and whipped out her tits and fingered her. Since then she’s gone from “I want a serious relationship” to talking about all the nasty things she wants to do together. I’ve been basically a cad: not texting back, ignoring her whinging, talking about banging her etc.

    I’m gaming several girls at the same time so the other one posted here which I kind of blew I think was made up for in this case:

    Here’s last night’s text exchange:

    Her: Miss me?

    Me: Rabbits are waterproof.

    Her: Huh? wat do you mean?

    Me: Fur but never get soaked. Amazing don’t you think?

    Her: hahahaha I asked if u miss me. Then u talk about rabbit

    Me: Don’t you like rabbits?

    Her: I’m not an animal person.

    Me: I think u can be an animal…

    It escalated from there with her sending a topless selfie.

    Overall my game is good. I think in cases where I’ve been outcome dependent or liked the girl I fucked up.

    In this case I invite your comments but the “jerk” aspect played up.

    Bear in mind that I did take her out, I did cook with her–so we’ve hung out. But in now way have I conceded to her frame.


    • That was a text book play, pun intended, on the texting. You spun her hamster out immedatiely so what is a girl to do to recapture your attention? TITS or GTFO. Well played.


      • Yes, this one works basically because I don’t really give a shit so I kind of try stuff on her.

        The “Rabbits are waterproof” text kind of came to me as a complete non-sequiter. Maybe I’d read it or it was a composite.

        The rest of this stuff was pure assholery.

        I’m getting better at text game. But when I like the girl or I get the feeling I’ve got something invested, it falls short.

        Which fits in with the OP on chicks digging jerks. The minute there’s a whiff of beta it goes to shit.


  34. I’ve questioned the idea that broken families lead to sluts for a while now. I’ve noticed that most of the girls from broken families that I know of tend to go for more beta types, and respond better to a more “sensitive” kind of “game”(if you can call it that). Badboy game seems to work on girls with a good familiy life. Its nice to see that there’s some experimental support for this.


  35. […] This newest theory is interesting because it cuts against the grain of conventional thinking. It’s… […]


  36. […] Chateau Heartiste trouve deux faiblesses à cette théorie de "l’exploitation des parents" : […]


  37. only question – and the subject matter is not limited to this site – is that are women who will not sleep around cockteases or doing the right thing? Again, this is something I have seen over the spectrum of sites ( not all, but most) and either the girls who don’t ride the carousel are ice queens or LTR material. I am unsure of the nuances on grading them either way.

    Next week makes 22 years for the spousal unit and me (and we have a daughter explains why I am asking). And it has been a weird journey until I found the Manosphere. I honestly thought I was losing my mind. We got married REALLY young and I was number 2 on her list and only once with that guy. So I was the second sexual experience ever. She is number 11 for me.

    One year, early on and in the “we aint got no money” phase V day rolled around and she told me in no uncertain terms ” do not buy me flowers” we don’t have the money. ALL GOOD – or so I thought. She cried that night that she did not get flowers. Idiot.

    It been similar the whole time and I would not stand for it. With her calling me the worst husband ever. Sex was always good though. But what I never did was adhere to game tactics…mostly cuz I was not aware of them – nor did I understand the reasons she was acting the way she was. Which goes to show, whether you agree with gaming women or not, you need to read this site to understand WHY they are as crazy as they are.

    And thanks again.


  38. The reason they sleep with jerks if they come from an intact family is that they don’t fear their fathers. Mom most likely orders dad around in one form or another and this translates in their minds that I can do what I want and get away with it because dad is a chump and tries to be their friend versus their father. This can be overplayed, but respect requires an element of fear to be real.


  39. Whether they dig jerks, movie stars or athletes, women want men who provide. I think stating that women dig jerks as contrary to the premise that women want men who provide is incorrectly framing the inquiry. “Providing” encompasses much more than just money.

    Women are innately selfish. So, they want a man that provides benefits to them of many different varieties. It isn’t all or nothing for any particular trait or type of benefit: looks, money, charisma, intelligence, fame, attention…all of these are attractive to a woman to the extent that they potentially provide a benefit to her. Generally it is not true that high value women want jerks who provide nothing. yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but the girls that go for the thugs, drug dealers, or other “jerks” are often attracted to their status within their particular sub-group.

    Too much emphasis is put on trying to reduce female preferences to one thing. Guys often incorrectly say that all women care about is money, or status, or looks. It can be any combination of traits and varies on the woman. The one thing all preferences seem to have in common however, is that they are evaluated in terms of what they can do for her. What kind of attention dating him will bring her, what lifestyle, his compatibility and ability to support her goals, her standing amongst her own social group…It’s all about them. Maybe in simpler times a woman would realize her own self-centered limitations and be drawn to a man who could lead her, but those fairy tale days are over. Gimme gimme gimme. That’s today’s woman.


  40. There’s a few pics of Scalzi where he looks like he could fuck a nigga up.


  41. […] Researchers developed a computer model to simulate the human evolutionary process, and what they discovered was a possible explanation for why chicks dig “less supportive partners”, aka jerks.  […]


  42. on November 20, 2013 at 6:21 am The Burninator

    I’m the hardass alpha father. I have a hale, healthy son who gets women without trying and is aloof and devil-may-care around even the hottest broads, and I have a daughter who is the extreme of feminine, with looks mirroring my own mother, who was a model in the 1960’s (and who herself married an alpha male Marine Corps fighter pilot). My grandfather was alpha (father of my mother, the 1960’s model), a hard hitting (+1 testosterone), hard drinking mechanic who used to fix up cars to outrun cop cars for bootleggers (+1 outlaw), and who had a harem of women on the side that wasn’t even well hidden from my ever loyal grandma who could never seem to break herself away from him (+2 harem). My sister, the daughter of the alpha male fighter pilot Marine, is drop dead gorgeous and has an army of men willing to die for her at her whim.

    Gonna need more evidence of the assertion of “unfeminine” females from alpha fathers. Doesn’t seem to be a trait at all in my family, on either side of the equation. In short, is there any actual evidence of this assertion outside of anecdotal (which I realize my own “evidence” is as well, granted)?


  43. […] rock.  Chicks were so-so on the music, but hot for the long-tressed, moody-looking, drug-addicted bad-boy Grunge […]