Never trust a word they say

At least, not about what they sexually prefer:

A new study says women prefer men with big bellies.

Three out of four women say they'd rather have a man with love handles than a six pack. Almost 100 percent of the women surveyed said men with beer bellies have better personalities than those with a good body.

They also say guys in shape prioritize the gym over spending quality time with their significant others.

Yes, this is precisely why most female-oriented erotica features men with beer bellies on the cover rather than ripped abdominals.

Read More

The future of fat people

The eternal search for the celebration of female unattractiveness:

“WOW. Did I vastly underestimate women’s need to see ‘imperfect’ bodies just doing regular, human stuff,” Trout wrote in a follow-up to her original piece, which ran in longer form on the Huffington Post over the holiday weekend. “Not only am I getting messages going, ‘You’re helping me with my personal stuff,’ but the support I’m getting is overwhelming.… Obviously, that’s not why I posted the article, it’s a broader social commentary (the point of which was that it doesn’t matter how you look, you’re still entitled to wear whatever you want and be comfortable doing it), but the fact that I’ve received more of those messages than negative ones makes me really hopeful for the future of fat people.”

This is like a bunch of unemployed male slobs celebrating each other's slovenly laziness. They can celebrate it all they like. They can empower themselves by posting pictures on Facebook. And it's not going to make a single woman more attracted to any of them.

I think it's fine for a fat woman to wear a bikini if she wants to. I mean, she might run the risk of getting harpooned by a passing whaler, but as long as she's not doing it in the vicinity of any Japanese or Norwegian ships, she should be safe enough.

It's not men who care if fat women wear bikinis or not. We're not horrified, for the most part, we think it's funny. It's other women who make a big deal of it anyhow. I hope the future of fat people is fat, dumb, and happy, that's certainly to be preferred to seeing them weeping pathetically over their extra-large bags of Doritos.

Read More

Careers can wait

Fertility won't. Kirstie Allsopp tells young women that their priorities are backwards:

“Women are being let down by the system. We should speak honestly and frankly about fertility and the fact it falls off a cliff when you’re 35. We should talk openly about university and whether going when you’re young, when we live so much longer, is really the way forward.

“At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone. As a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue.”

“I don’t have a girl, but if I did I’d be saying 'Darling, do you know what? Don’t go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I’ll help you, let’s get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you’re 27.”

She's absolutely right, of course. It's interesting to see forty-something GenX women speaking out against the nonsense they were taught by their Baby Boomer teachers and parents.

Read More

The female definition of slut

With women, it's always all about alpha access:

As US News & World Report explains, the researchers found that “slut” is an all-purpose insult. But calling someone a “slut” had more to do with perceptions of another woman’s femininity rather than with her sexuality. In fact, less sexually experienced women were actually called sluts more often, according to the research.  Thanks to the class stratification found on the campus, young women perceived other women from their own social group as the “right” kind of feminine.  As Armstrong explains, “Wealthy women are making a distinction between being classy and trashy, whereas women with less money are equating stuck up and exclusive and not nice to being slutty.” As blogger Amanda Hess put it on the blog Double X, employing the slur “was more about policing women’s looks, fashion, and conversational styles.” For example, women from wealthier backgrounds were able to afford the beautifying treatments considered by their peer “classy”: wearing department store makeup, getting their nails done, tanning. Young women who can’t afford these services and presented themselves as feminine in other ways were seen as “trashy.”

Interestingly, young women from a lower class background who were trying to socialize with higher-status groups were more likely to be labeled “sluts,” the study found. Armstrong explained that lower-class women risked being called out and humiliated by the higher-class women for their clothes or behavior, which signaled they weren’t welcome in the group. (And not surprisingly further cemented their reputation for being stuck up.) Also interesting, as Double X reports, is how higher-status women were less concerned with how many men that lower-status women had slept with but whether the men themselves were lower status. Higher-class women, it seems, are highly attuned to the subtleties of status-by-association. Yet higher-class women were also (frustratingly) less concerned with what the lower-class women thought of them.

There is nothing that women find more hateful than lower-status women stealing the men to whom they are attracted. Hence the incessant attacks, and the not-infrequent labeling of women with considerably less sexual experience as "sluts". Among women, the term is more about policing status than behavior.

I was good friends with a beautiful swimsuit model back in the day. Most women HATED her on sight; she was the sort of girl who could just about start a riot by wearing a tanktop. She was from a small town and didn't get around a lot, but that didn't stop women from openly calling her a slut despite knowing nothing about her. Ironically, the control tactic backfired, as she didn't change her behavior, but she did start dressing a lot more provocatively. As she once said: "they're going to call me names anyhow, so why not make sure their boyfriends are all looking at me."

Women are very hard on women, particularly lower-class women. Another girl I knew couldn't stand being around my social circle because she'd never been to college. None of the men cared, (I doubt most of them even realized it), but it seemed that some of the women always found an excuse to remind her of it.

Read More

The slut sell

Steve Sailer asks the purpose of female tattoos, given that male tattoos are meant to make permanent life statements:

What's the purpose of tattoos for women who wouldn't wear the same shoes for six months? Is it too signal to the kind of guys she likes (e.g., drummers) that you are the type of guy I like? But what if after another year here she decides that while she liked drummers back in South Dakota, now she likes producers and agents? Tattoos are class markers, and might work against attractive young women rising in class by marrying well.

Is getting tattoos something guys suggest to discourage hypergamy? Or is it something that other women suggest out of the usual feminine malice?

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone who has paid attention over the last two decades. Tattoos signify the degree of a woman's publicly advertised promiscuity. This is not necessarily a reliable advertisement, but it is a sexual advertisement nevetheless. The advertisement is that the more ink she has, the easier the sexual access to her will be. (It pains me that at this point, I should probably remind some readers that not all advertising is true. Some women are more interested in being perceived as sexy than actually following through on the message being broadcast.)

This is why tattoos are considered "sexy" by men. The tattoos don't make the woman any more attractive, they simply provide an easy method of quickly identifying that she is more readily accessible than the average. So, tattoos are one way for less attractive women to better compete with more attractive women, in much the same way as wearing shorter skirts or unbuttoning an additional blouse button.

A discreet tattoo or three in easily hidden locations are a nice girl's way of showing a few men of her choice that she isn't always a good girl and thereby giving her a leg up in comparison with other nice girls. Extravagant tattoos that can't be hidden tend to be the sign of a woman who is either desperate for attention or sexually incontinent. Although there aren't many studies on it yet, there are indications that "tattoos may be possible markers for lethality". For example, one study found that 57% percent of young white suicides were tattooed compared to 29% of matched accidental deaths.

If you're set up on a blind date with a girl and you're told that she has a tattoo of an dove on her wrist, aren't you going to have different expectations of what the evening holds in store than if you're told she has a giant tattoo of a werewolf sodomizing a vampire on her back as well as a bloody dagger between her breasts and the twelve signs of the zodiac in various places around her body? QED.

Nota Bene: please don't even think about starting in with the blather about why the little butterfly on your ankle is deeply meaningful to you because it signifies your best friend who died in a car crash on prom night. Nobody has ever bought that transparent nonsense. You got a tattoo because you wanted to be seen as stylish and sexy, but not trashy. That's fine, so stop pretending it's some sort of massively encrypted code that no man could possibly crack.

Read More

Women calling out feminism

Natasha Devon observes that modern feminism is anti-equality:

Today's feminism teaches British women to see themselves as victims and victims cannot exist without a villain, in this instance – men. In order for this thesis to have any kind of logic, feminists have made sweeping, inaccurate judgments about an entire demographic, based on nothing more than their gender. Ironically, the exact practice they claim to be fighting.

I'm not an equalitarian myself. But unlike most feminists, I don't pretend to be one.

Read More

Honor the mothers

We are, quite rightly, very often hard on women here at Alpha Game. We need to be, because they spend most of their lives having smoke blown up their pretty little asses by people of both sexes and all ages who want to curry favor with them. Since we want nothing from them, we have neither interest nor need in doing so and are thereby free to speak the truth as we see it.

But never be tempted into misogyny by the bad behavior of one, one hundred, one thousand, or even one million women. They are the fate of the human race. They are the fate of the Western sub-species. They matter.

So, honor those who reject the nihilistic hedonism of feminism despite being literally inundated with its dogma from their earliest years and fulfill their primary destiny, that of motherhood. Whether she fulfills it gracefully and well or grudgingly and incompetently, she has done her duty. Respect that she has played her part in the miracle of life, honor her for doing her part in turning back the dark void of universal entropy.

It's not nothing. It's not a minor thing. Without women, there is no Man.

Happy Mother's Day.

Read More

5 percent at 40

That's the statistical probability that every young woman should be told at 18:

What Jill doesn’t understand is that her fertility is not subject to whim or wishful thinking. Her chances of getting pregnant decline rapidly after 30. By age 40, less than 5 out of every 100 women will be successful at conception. When the Jills of this world decide they want children at 36 or 38 or 42, they enter a long, often fruitless quest for safe pregnancy and childbirth.

Are you in the top five percent of anything now? Then why do you think you will be then... and that's your chances of having just one child. Marry younger. Start sooner. You can always continue your career later.

As for men, make it a mantra. Five percent at forty. If a woman says she wants to have children "someday" , that should be the immediate response. Five percent at forty.

Read More

I think I see the problem

Michael Seville contemplates the intellectual equality of the sexes:

You can’t go on forever saying “The game’s not fair,” when the game has been played ten billion times, under a billion different circumstances; at least, if you are rational you cannot, unless you are prepared to say in just what way it is not fair… Just what is that factor, common to all or most past history, which has interfered with the exercise of the intellectual capacity of women?

Some people love just stringing together anecdotes: women were prevented from exercising their intellectual capacity by this obstacle in Periclean Athens, by that obstacle in Confucian China, by the other obstacle in seventeenth-century France, etc. But an equality-theorist must do more than this. He has to offer some definite explanation of why the intellectual capacity of women has so consistently met with obstacles it could not overcome, and his explanation must be one which is consistent with the equality-theory. It would obviously be no good, for example, if he were to say, “The main interfering factor has been the aggressiveness, sexual exclusiveness, and superior cunning of males.”

This suggestion, considered in itself, is by no means without merit: aggressiveness, sexual exclusiveness, and superior cunning are definite and detectable things, and I at least believe that they actually do operate in males, and do impede, to some extent, the intellectual performance of women. But of course the suggestion is not one which an equality-theorist can adopt, since to ascribe superior cunning to males is to contradict the very intellectual equality for which he contends.

Ockham's Razor suggests that the reason women are perceived to be intellectually inferior to men is that they are intellectually inferior to men. The fact that so many women cannot follow this train of thought tends to lend itself as further evidence in support of the idea.

The primary problem here is is that most people confuse intellectual inferiority with inferior value. This simply isn't the case; if nothing else, it should be obvious that the vast majority of women place superior sexual value on intellectually inferior men. The quarterback is more highly valued than the chess club champion. And young men often do the same; the cheerleader tends to be more highly valued than the valedictorian. So, why is it suddenly so upsetting when someone observes the obvious?

It is simply bizarre to claim that the sexes are equal in cognitive capacity. They are not, and the intellectual liberation of women and the vast increase in the numbers women receiving advanced education has resulted in precisely what one expect: absolutely nothing. Where is the vast flowering of human intellectual achievement we were promised by doubling the number of human geniuses being liberated from patriarchal repression and given free rein?

Well, we have 50 Shades of Grey. And Girls. So we have that going for our society.

After forty years of feminism, it should be stone cold obvious why women are intellectually inferior; the smarter a woman is, the less likely she is to have children for various reasons, including hypergamy. And our society is arguably breeding smart women out of existence faster than ever before in human history.

How, precisely, is that intelligent?

Read More

Scalzi defines Game

"My definition is pathetic dweebs who think women can be manipulated into sex by a certain set of tricks and behaviors."
- John Scalzi

This would certainly explain why Mr. Scalzi has historically been so unsuccessful with women. Forget sex. Women can be manipulated into anything. Literally ANYTHING.

As the example of the recently convicted Ian Watkins proves, women can be manipulated into performing sex acts on their own infants and into offering up their own children to be raped. As 50 million+ abortions since 1973 prove, they can even be manipulated into murdering their own children. As the rising age of first marriage demonstrates, they can be manipulated into putting off marriage until they are less attractive and can only marry lower-quality men. As the rapidly increasing number of childless women over forty shows, they can be manipulated into remaining barren. As The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle proves, they can be manipulated into voting for those who will oppress them.

But not sex. No, it's absolutely unthinkable to imagine that women could be manipulated into that. Only a pathetic dweeb could possibly think that.

Read More

Games for girls

This Jane Austen game is actually a pretty good idea, in that it is a game actually focuses on status, clothes and communication rather than simply painting the guns pink:

Ever, Jane -- a Jane Austen MMO game -- has successfully reached its $100,000 (£60,000) Kickstarter target.

The game allows players to role-play in a Regency period setting using the weaponry found in Jane Austen novels, by which we mean gossip and social climbing rather than the flintlock pistols of the distractingly handsome militia.

"Instead of kill or be killed, it's invite or be invited," says project creator, Judy Tyrer, who has previously worked for companies like Ubisoft and Linden Lab. Instead of selecting the usual MMORPG character traits like strength, intelligence and agility, you pick from attributes like kindness, happiness and duty.

Strategising will be a key part of the experience. As Tyrer explains on the Kickstarter page, there's an invitation system where in-game events like balls and dinner parties can be used to boost one's stats:

"If a player invites a person of higher Status with the hope of improving their own Status, care must be taken. If the player invited rejects the invitation it will harm rather than improve Status. If the invitation is accepted, but out of Duty rather than Happiness, the Status will only improve slightly. On the other hand, if the player invited accepts with Happiness, Status improvements may be as much as doubled."

Of course, "invite or be invited" is the female version of "kill or be killed". I suspect the success of the game will depend upon whether one has the ability to be mean to other players or not. It's encouraging to see women attempting to provide women with new products they might actually enjoy instead of trying to invade, coopt, and ruin what the men have created.

Read More

First-rate women

Few things appear to upset women more than the fact that Alphas prefer beauty to brains, careers, and credentials:

I have a friend who dates only exceptionally attractive women. These women aren’t trophy-wife types—they are comparable to him in age, education level, and professional status. They are just really, notably good looking, standouts even in the kind of urban milieu where regular workouts and healthy eating are commonplace and an abundance of disposable income to spend on facials, waxing, straightening, and coloring keeps the average level of female attractiveness unusually high.

My friend is sensitive and intelligent and, in almost every particular, unlike the stereotypical sexist, T & A-obsessed meathead. For years, I assumed that it was just his good fortune that the women he felt an emotional connection with all happened to be so damn hot. Over time, however, I came to realize that my friend, nice as he is, prizes extreme beauty above all the other desiderata that one might seek in a partner.

I have another friend who broke up with a woman because her body, though fit, was the wrong type for him. While he liked her personality, he felt that he’d never be sufficiently attracted to her, and that it was better to end things sooner rather than later.

Some people would say these men are fatally shallow. Others would say they are realistic about their own needs, and that there is no use beating oneself up about one’s preferences: some things cannot be changed. Those in the first camp would probably say that my friends are outliers—uniquely immature men to be avoided.

There is no need to apologize for what one prefers. All men are attracted to female beauty even if only the top men can expect to reliably obtain it. This doesn't mean that they are dumb enough to value only beauty; the man who marries a woman simply because she is the most beautiful woman he has ever dated is a short-sighted fool.

But there are bars which men will not cross. Limits. Like the man referenced above, I simply wouldn't date a woman who was below a certain level of facial attractiveness and bodily fitness. Anything over a BMI of 20, forget it; pretty much  every girl in whom I harbored any interest from college until I married Spacebunny was between 17.5 and 18.5.

Was that superficial? Not at all. It merely meant that I had high standards. If I was superficial, I would have married an exceptionally beautiful trainwreck. Instead, I chose to marry a sweet, smart, funny girl who is equally good company at a football game or a black-tie gala. Of course, she also happened to meet my standards of female beauty.

A standard is merely the initial hurdle, it isn't the finish line. Expecting that the woman you marry will meet your expectations is no different than your future wife expecting that you will have a job. No woman who turns up her nose at an unemployed homeless man or an ugly gamma male has the right to denigrate your standards, whatever they might be.

Female beauty isn't a problem, it is a gift from God. Appreciate it where you find it and enjoy it while it lasts.

Read More