Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Anyone who’s lived a day in his life (or played summer football in a city park or worked out at a vibrant gym) has noticed that different races have different musculature and athletic talent. Blacks are the most ripped, and often the biggest, particularly in the deltoids and lats. They respond the fastest to resistance training and are amazingly agile on their feet, (something you have to marvel at the first time a black guy with the ball makes a cut around you).

Whites are the most varied, ranging from nerd skinny to hulking well-marbled powerlifter. Few whites can get as defined as blacks, so you really become aware of those white guys who do manage to carve their abs and delts well past the norm for their race. Whites also have wider waists than blacks, and tend to stockiness, although this is far from a universal white trait.

Asians are the slightest and the least toned, and are less varied in appearance than either blacks or whites, (although asian sub-groups, like Koreans, who hit the gym hard can become quite strong in compound movements like the squat that leverage their naturally lower center of gravity and shorter limbs).

Hispanics (or amerindians, if you prefer) resemble their asian progenitors in muscle tone, but not in gracility. And depending on how you define “hispanic”, their physical variance is either very large (think Spanish-Cuban vs Mestizo) or very small (the round mamacita millions).

All these racial differences in physique are far more noticeable in younger men (and women) than in older representatives, owing primarily to the fact that most people of any race get fatter and looser with age, the biological upkeep of their sexual dimorphism becoming less relevant beyond reproductive age, and this symptom of aging is greatly exacerbated by the Western obesity plague, especially in black women who get so enormously fat soon after leaving high school that you’d need a team of archaeologists to excavate evidence of their buried female form.

So, you’d have to be blind or a self-deluding status whoring SWPL leftoid to not notice these differences.

For a while, curious noticers wondering what accounted for their observations would assume that testosterone had something to do with it. After all, T and T mimics are injected by bodybuilders to build huge blocks of muscle. Naturally, one infers that the less muscular-looking races (if not necessarily the less strong) have lower levels of testosterone in their blood.

Finding data on racial differences in testosterone hasn’t been easy, but here’s a website (can’t vouch for impartiality of author) which aggregated study results and compiled the available evidence. What was found was the following:

Average total plasma testosterone in the “Big Three” races, in descending order

East Asians
Africans
White Europeans

The slightest and least muscular race has the highest average T levels!

The complete T level ranking looked like this:

Indo-Aryan (i.e. Iranians and Indians!)
East Asian
African
American
European
Middle Eastern
Latin American

If this meta-analysis is accurate, then clearly average racial serum testosterone levels have little, if any at all, effect on average racial physiques and athleticism. Something else must be contributing to the obvious real world differences in racial musculature and athletic potential. It could be androgen receptor sensitivity. It could be non-free form T levels. It could be serum estrogen levels! It could be an environmental or dietary influence. It could be a suite of genes whose properties we have yet to discover.

The point of all this is that knowledge is inherently good, and lying liars who wish to bury this knowledge under layers of sophistic equalist fat are enemies of the good.

UPDATE

Commenter jeff writes,

The website referenced in the post is bogus. Any desire to frame the material on the referenced website is just an exercise in establishing closure.

The world is as you see it. White people are almost always in the middle of some human measurement; when that falls out of whack you know the data is probably, but not necessarily, incorrect.

Check here:

jcem.endojournals.org/content/91/2/687.full (Swede/Korean study)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20550541 (South Asian vs Caucasian)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12608929 (Pakistani v. White v. African)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22177168 (penis size & anogenital distance, correlation to higher testosterone)

healthandenvironment.org/ docs/Eisenberg_2012_The_Relationship_Between _Anogenital_Distance_ and_Reproductive_Hormone_Levels_in_Adult_Men.pdf (same study from above in depth)

Read the linked individual studies. They’re very interesting, (especially the anogenital one… that’s out of left field), and some do support a Rushtonian B>W>A gradient in testosterone levels. The debate continues.

Commenter splooge adds that black men are beginning to dominate the “sport” of bodybuilding. In the article, eight-time Mr. Olympia winner Lee Haney admits that the reason blacks do so well in sports and bodybuilding is “our genetics”. Jimmy the Greek wept.

***

Another great comment, this time from roccopilsner.

You have Looks vs. Performance. Looks are for fags and narcissists (when talking about body building), and even women don’t get soaked over a veiny , high blood pressure having Body Builder…sorry they just don’t.

I have been involved in the sports world (boxing and later MMA) competitor , later as a trainer and later as a trainer/cut man for years. I have also been in and around a fairly high level of training of wrestling and powerlifting athletes for many years as well. It’s a simple break down that holds pretty true in my experiences:

– Blacks are quick. They have longer legs than other races on avg, they have greater stride and lots of fast twitch muscle fibers. They excel at jumping and sprinting activities. Speed positions in the NFL, NBA, Olypmpic sprinting (think the tiny Island of Jamaica for instance) The Yang to this Yin, and that the more speedy and explosive the man, the shorter his stamina. Kenyan Africans are thin and not very strong, they run for ever and a day…Jamaicans sprint , yet you will rarely see one go more than a few hundred yards. Blacks tend to be speedy with stamina problems while Asians are built for the long haul but get there very slowly. Whites span the middle ground…

– Whites are by far the largest and strongest (different from powerful and explosive) The largest and most powerful are usually Northern European. Think Strong man champions tend to be either directly from Northern Europe, or descendants of. Think some of the best NFL Lineman are usually white, 330lbs plus with agility and strength , but not much on the verticle. This is also where the genetics come in. You see an NFL lineman or a powerlifter and they might have some extra pounds around the waist line but it does not affect athleticism or power. (Check out ex Collegiate Wrestler and Offensive line pro-bowler for the Patriots Steven Neil and how he can do a back flip at 330lbs…also his 40 is insane)

This is another reason why MMA has more successful white, Hispanic and Asian competitors than pure boxing, because you are allowed to hold and clamp down on your opponent instead of focusing on fleet footedness + evasion + reach + Rhythm that you have in boxing which is tailor made for Blacks.

Asians – Philipinos , Laotians, Thai and Tongan peoples (Far South East Asia) have rhythm, tend to be very athletic and their behavior lends itself to higher T anyways,…Far more sexual ,more violent (boxing and kick boxing are very popular) etc etc

I would say Hispanic males (mestizo not mulato) have a fairly high testosterone level, as shown by their macho culture, success in boxing, aggression towards women etc etc…most latinos I competed against were strong for their size, had natural stamina (Hwt Champion of the UFC is a Mexican and has the gas tank of a 120 fighter) though they are not naturally muscular or cut.

Realtalk may be dying in the prestige press, but it is alive and well at the Chateau.

Read Full Post »

A Japanese company claims to have reached the next level in developing the most genuine looking sex doll which comes complete with realistic feeling skin and authentic looking eyes.

Orient Industry say their new range of dolls, made from high quality silicon, are so realistic there is very little to distinguish them from a real girlfriend at first glance.

The dolls, which are non inflatable, are sold under the name ‘Dutch Wives’, a Japanese term for a sex doll, and adverts in the media boast that anyone who buys one will never want a real girlfriend again.

The Japanese are getting close to scaling the uncanny valley.

The dolls come with a “skeleton”, which means they can be arranged into any position. Any position.

The coming sexbot revolution — and make no mistake, it is coming — will have profound ramifications on social order and the functioning of the sexual market. To this day, people underestimate the effect the Pill had on Western society; multiply that effect by a thousand and you’ll get an idea of the subversive havoc mass consumable sexbots will wreak.

 

Read Full Post »

The Economist ran a piece about the economics of prostitution that reads like it slipped by the Hivemind perimeter defense drones under cover of night. There’s so much RealTalk and UglyTruth it’s a wonder equalist foot soldiers haven’t converged on it to drown it in a vat of squid ink and sophistry.

FOR those seeking commercial sex in Berlin, Peppr, a new app, makes life easy. Type in a location and up pops a list of the nearest prostitutes, along with pictures, prices and physical particulars. Results can be filtered, and users can arrange a session for a €5-10 ($6.50-13) booking fee. It plans to expand to more cities. [...]

We have analysed 190,000 profiles of sex workers on an international review site. (Since it is active in America, it was not willing to be identified for this article. A disclaimer on the site says the contents are fictional; we make the assumption that they are informative all the same.) Each profile includes customers’ reviews of the worker’s physical characteristics, the services they offer and the price they charge.

The data go back as far as 1999. For each individual we have used the most recent information available, with prices corrected for inflation. Some of those featured may appear under more than one name, or also work through agencies. The data cover 84 cities in 12 countries, with the biggest number of workers being in America and most of the rest in big cities in other rich countries. As this site features only women, our analysis excludes male prostitutes (perhaps a fifth of the commercial-sex workforce). Almost all of those leaving reviews are men.

Lots of platitude-pummeling charts follow. First, the inflation-adjusted price of prostitution services has been going down.

The article offers several reasons why this might be so; however, I think the primary causes are shifting social norms and demand substitution (online porn, video gaming).

Meanwhile, broader social change may be reducing demand—and thus, prices. Free, no-strings-attached sex is far easier to find than in the past. Apps such as Tinder facilitate speedy hookups; websites such as Ashley Madison and Illicit Encounters, adulterous ones. Greater acceptance of premarital intercourse and easier divorce mean fewer frustrated single and married men turning to prostitutes.

Disincentives matter. When the public shame of stepping out on your wife is lessened, the motivation to do so increases. This is all part of a society morphing from a predominately K-selected one to an r-selected one.

Most services above and beyond the base vaginal rate (BVR, could be a band name) cost more, because they’re niche services and because women, even hardened whores, instinctively feel some sexual acts are more degrading than others. Funny, if unsurprising, findings:

Women take kissing very seriously. Kissing is a more intimate act for women than it is for men. If you want to kiss a whore you’ll pay more than if you want to poke her in the pooper. PUA haters who scoff at players getting “make-outs” that “don’t go anywhere”, take note.

Like most regular women, most whores would rather spit than swallow. What I don’t get are the johns who insist on paying for her to swallow. It could be a dominance move, but then a money shot to the face is more debasing.

“Multiple men”. The data was pulled for female hos only, so this category represents putatively straight men who get off on sharing a ho with another dude. It’s disturbing that the cuckoldry fetish appears to be on the rise in Western megalopolises. Could this self-annihilating, self-castrating psychological disorder be caused by a parasite?

As surprising as the cuck finding is, the highest price commanded by its inverse — one man, two women — is predictable. Men dig non-gay threesomes.

The next chart will make a million fatties and fug feminists sprout martyrdom stigmata on their marbled labia.

Appearance matters a great deal. The customers who reported encounters to the website we analysed clearly value the stereotypical features of Western beauty: women they describe as slim but not scrawny, or as having long blonde hair or full breasts, can charge the highest hourly rates (see chart 3). Hair that is bleached too unconvincingly to be described as blonde attracts a lower premium, but is still more marketable than any other colour. For those not naturally well endowed, breast implants may make economic sense: going from flat-chested to a D-cup increases hourly rates by approximately $40, meaning that at a typical price of $3,700, surgery could pay for itself after around 90 hours. The 12% share of women featured on the site who are described both as athletic, slim or thin, and as being at least a D-cup, suggests that quite a few have already taken this route.

Pop-a-boner quiz: What do men dig?

Feminist: They dig rubenesque feminists with short black hair and flat business-friendly chests.

Patriarchy: They dig slender, long-haired blondes with big round boobs.

Patriarchy wins.

(For those wondering, when men say they prefer “athletic” women, what they mean is they prefer toned slender women who don’t have cellulite. Or, “athletic” is a euphemism for “barely legal”.)

Where da white hos at?

(You’ll notice that the cities with a higher proportion of white men — NYC, London — have the greatest skew in prices between black and white whores. But even in majority-black cities like Atlanta white whores still command a price premium.)

We had too few data from other cities for a reliable breakdown by ethnicity. But Christine Chin of the American University in Washington, DC, has studied high-end transnational prostitutes in several countries. In Kuala Lumpur, she found, black women command very high rates and in Singapore, Vietnamese ones do. In Dubai, European women earn the most. What counts as exotic and therefore desirable varies from place to place, and depends on many factors, such as population flows.

Baby got lumps. I guess black hos could go to Kuala Lumpur and… Bueller? Bueller?

Yet a cost-of-living index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, our sister organisation, suggests that Tokyo is the most expensive city overall of the three. The apparent anomaly may be because escorts who appear on an English-language review site mostly cater to foreigners, who are not offered the more unusual—and expensive—services Japanese prostitutes provide for locals. These include the bubble baths and highly technical massages of Sopurando (“Soapland”), a red-light district in Tokyo, which can cost ¥60,000 ($600) for a session and involve intercourse (although that is not advertised).

The Japanese are weird, #3,187 in a series.

A degree appears to raise earnings in the sex industry just as it does in the wider labour market. A study by Scott Cunningham of Baylor University and Todd Kendall of Compass Lexecon, a consultancy, shows that among prostitutes who worked during a given week, graduates earned on average 31% more than non-graduates. More lucrative working patterns rather than higher hourly rates explained the difference.

Easily explained. Smart women are better at exploiting market niches, and smarts correlate with beauty (up to a point).

Although sex workers with degrees are less likely to work than others in any given week (suggesting that they are more likely to regard prostitution as a sideline), when they do work they see more clients and for longer. Their clients tend to be older men who seek longer sessions and intimacy, rather than a brief encounter.

Older men need testosterone replacement therapy so they don’t wind up emptying their wallets for pillow talk and a cuddle.

A mother in Scotland asks how other prostitutes juggle child care and selling sex, given that bookings are often made at short notice so babysitters are hard to arrange. Another contributor who is thinking of having children asks how much other women saved before taking time off to have a baby, and whether the new calls on their time meant they earned less after giving birth. One reply points out that prostitution is easier than many other jobs to combine with motherhood: it pays well enough to cover child-care costs, and can be fitted around school holidays, plays and sports days, and children’s illnesses.

A nation of whore mommies. Ah, but it’s genetics all the way down, so no big deal. Until it is.

A greater awareness may develop that not all sex workers are the victims of exploitation.

I remember reading a study from not too long ago that found most teen prostitutes get into the business volitionally. Kidnappings and sex trafficking are actually quite rare, especially in East Europe. Also, prostitution does have a damping effect on rape and sex assault rates. This isn’t necessarily an argument for decriminalizing prostitution, but it does suggest that the god of biomechanics likes to prank our moral codes.

Read Full Post »

It seems there are still a few hermits and delusional freaks who think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every beholder is different so, following the logic of this platitude, anyone can be beautiful if they immerse themselves in enough Jizzebel pep talks. Your Citadel Chateau stands athwart this march of moronic posturing, yelling shiv, but it never hurts to twist the knife and add a little more hurt.

Pierre Tourigny created composites of Hot or Not female profiles and the results are nothing short of dryly predictable. This first series is based on the 1-10 female beauty scale:

There are very few male beholders who will mistake the 1.0 girl for the 9.5 girl. There are fewer still who, given a free choice, would choose to have sex and romance with the 1.0 over the 9.5. The opinions of the beholders, averaged out, will reach a very objective consensus about the rankings of all these composites.

Tourigny notes,

What did I conclude about good looks from these virtual faces? First, morphs tend to be prettier than their sources because face asymmetries and skin blemishes average out. However, the low score images show that fat is not attractive. The high scores tend to have narrow faces.

There’s more to female beauty than that, but yeah, bloat kills beauty dead.

The ugly truth about beauty is about to get uglier. Here are composites of 2005 Miss Universe contestants by total, region and finalist:

The first thing that jumps out at you is just how similar very beautiful women look. Beautiful women from all races resemble each other more than they resemble the uglies of their own races. The big wide-set eyes, the bright smiles, the good teeth, the high foreheads and cheekbones, the dainty noses…. it’s almost as if there’s a universal objective standard of beauty that exists in the world inhabited by humans!

The second thing you notice (if noticing doesn’t make your bowels erupt) is how these worldwide representative composites of pulchritude converge, give or take a few racial idiosyncrasies like epicanthic folds, onto something close to what could be regarded as archetypical white woman beauty. Tourigny:

Miss Universe contestants owe their delegation to a mix of local and universal standards of beauty (or at least the pageant’s version of universal). I created multi-morph composites (see some details how here) for each continent from photos of the delegates.

The Americas composite most closely resembles the one from all delegates while the Europe composite more closely resembles the one from the finalists. Bias in the judging or in the standard? Who knows?

It could be bias. Or it could be an accidental revelation. If cosmetic surgery trends are equally indicative, it would appear that the pinnacle of universal female beauty coincides with the pinnacle of European female beauty. Where da white women at, indeed.

Finally, as Peter Frost has described, men all over the world prefer lighter-skinned women (relative to their own race’s hue). In the above Miss Universe composites, the representative African woman is not that much darker than the non-African women. And her nose… almost as petite as the European nose.

The trifecta of ugly truths about female beauty is complete with the following composites based on age:

Tourigny on the details of this composite,

The Hot or Not web site gives people the option of rating women of all ages or of seeing only a specific age group.I collected photos of women who scored at least a 9.5 average and created multi-morph composites (see some details how here).

The only thing I noticed was that the attractiveness standard people use is more lenient the older the subject.

Some people dispute the existence of The Wall, and point to the fact that beautiful 40+ year old women can be found in the wild. My answer to these Wall doubters is two-part: One, numbers matter. There are vastly more 25 year old female 9s than there are 41 year old female 9s. Two, longitudinal comparison matters. No matter how hot a 41 year old woman is, the 20 year old version of herself was hotter.

The exceedingly rare exceptions prove the rule.

People do get more lenient judging the attractiveness of older people, but that’s not proof of a magical reformulated age-adjusted objective beauty standard. Rather, what the leniency demonstrates is rationalization resulting from a restriction of options. As the average man gets older and falls out of the primary sexual market, he fools himself into believing his secondary sexual market female peers are just as attractive as the pretty young things he would prefer to fuck if the possibility were open to him. It’s Consolation Prize Syndrome.

That’s enough shivving for today. There’s blood all over the shag carpet. I’ll end on a hopeful note for the ladies: If you’re a pretty girl with boner-inducing face structure, you can avoid a premature impact with the Wall and sexual worthlessness by simply refusing to get fat. Look at that 41+ year old composite. No fat face there. No wrinkles either, but like Tourigny said, all he had to work with was blurry source images. Heh.

Read Full Post »

Nothing like a leetle auto-fill search query to pry open the lid on the female id.

The urge to trade up is stronger in women than in men, both because male sexual attractiveness is contextual and mutable and because women are disposed by the circumstances of their biology to be more careful about their mate choices. Women, unlike men, are practically born with their SMV already established. A pretty wife will stay attractive to her husband as long as she stays pretty. There’s not much contextual nudging, other than drastic weight gain and aging, that will greatly influence a woman’s SMV. So that’s why we uncover evidence that there is greater concern among women about lost attraction for their boyfriends and husbands than there is among men about lost attraction for their wives.

Continuing with the theme, here’s the same query after a small syntax change:

The rewording is subtle, but important. The first query is premised on an accepted loss of attraction, and a post-hoc search for rationalization. This second query is premised on a deeper worry about a missing attraction that should be there. It’s the type of wording a despondent searcher might use if he or she was trying to make sense of the dying love, and interested in fixing the “problem”.

The results are telling. The first hit — men asking why they aren’t attracted to their wives anymore — implies that there was previous attraction, but some mysterious occurrence (age? fatness?) changed the equation, and now the men want to know how to go back to the way things were.

The women, starkly, ask in a way that could be fairly interpreted as never having had attraction for their husbands (or niceguys). They have these wet noodle beta hubbies and orbiting niceguys whom they are inculcated by everyone around them to lust after, and yet despite the social pressure they can’t understand why the men they should desire leave them feeling… unmoved down there.

The final search result reinforces the point about social pressure yielding to primal desire. Presumably non-black women, steeped in a culture that propagandizes the sexual and romantic allure of black men, struggle with deeply innate feelings that are at odds with the juggernaut of cultural messages telling them to feel the opposite way.

Female hypergamy is real, even if the term is off-putting to around-the-way sadists. Cultural influence is real, too, but largely ineffectual against hindbrain desire. Intense and persistent media propaganda can only effect changes in human mate choice at the farthest margins, where the weakest-willed are most susceptible to social pressures to fit in with a mirage. Innate sexual desire is a prime force too powerful for the depraved elite’s mindfuck machines to overcome.

Hat tip, reader “Humans are animals” for the idea.

Read Full Post »

CH wrote a few posts explaining why the losers of humanity act out the way they do. WELP, here comes ❤science❤ to… once again… wrap her luscious DSLs around the Heartiste Hambone.

Masculine men and feminine women have greater life satisfaction.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relevance of self-identification in traditional gender roles of masculinity and femininity in women’s and men’s life satisfaction. Participants consisted of 1233 women and 1233 men from the Spanish general population aged between 20 and 60 years. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that although in both genders the most important predictors of life satisfaction were self-esteem and social support, both masculinity and femininity were associated with higher life satisfaction in women and men. Besides, in the prediction of life satisfaction, femininity interacted with social support in women, and masculinity with self-esteem in men, and it was found that the association between femininity and life satisfaction only occurred in women with high social support, and self-esteem was associated with life satisfaction only in men with low masculinity. These results provide information concerning the significance of adherence to gender roles in life satisfaction.

Every goddamned lying filthy loser feminist cunt and mewling diaper loading male feminist manboob just wept on cue. (John Scalzi and David Fatrelle are at this very moment hugging it out, bitch titties intermingling in a dance of erect nipples and pimpled cleavage.)

The evidence is mounting (heh): Happy people are people who more closely adhere to the normal expression of biological sex traits and sex roles. Anyone who veers far from the archetype for her sex will experience unhappiness, dissatisfaction, bitterness, and an unrelenting urge to undermine social norms, get back at her dad, and post tumblr pics of her gross body in a fatkini while insisting she’s sexually attractive to hot, studly men.

If you’re a man, the more you look and act like a masculine man, the more satisfied you are with yourself. If you’re a woman, the more you look and act like a feminine woman, the more satisfied you are with yourself.

It’s as simple as that. And that’s why it drives the rejects on the archipelago of misfit mutants crazy with resentment. It’s a beautiful truth so elegant in its simplicity and unassailable in its parsimony that there’s no way for the degenerates to escape its merciless judgment. They are left swinging futilely at their timeless tormentor, retreating into a false bravado built with lies, sophistry, desperation and the company of their miserable sideshow scoldmates.

Fortunately for the entertainment of the CH reading audience, the Cosmic Shiv doesn’t suffer these tools gladly.

Read Full Post »

The careerist shrike is emblematic of social dissolution and sexual market atavism. Yet women have historically worked in some capacity, whether that was at home or in the fields. It’s a rare culture where the average woman lounges around all day while men and hand maidens provide her an endless stream of creature comforts.

The difference in this iteration of decivilization is the nature of the work occupying the energies and time of “modern” Western women (who are better categorized as premodern women aping the sub-Sahara African style of year-round female farming self-sustenance). “Working” women existed throughout European history, but the substance of their work and, more importantly, the people for whom they worked were markedly different than what we have now, distilled to its rotten essence in the manjawed, pulsing forehead-veined, tankgrrl lawyercunt.

A reader writes,

You said that “women are happier when they abide traditional sex roles.” That is very true, but most people do not know what the role of women was in unadulterated European society. Below is a link to The Moneychanger and his Wife, painted in 1539.

Notice the wife is working with her husband by making entries into the accounting book. Wives were usually expected to work in whatever trade the husband’s was. For example, a farmer’s wife did farming. This also included military ranks, for example the wife of an army count was a countess. Robert E. Lee’s wife was called “Mrs. General Lee.”

The wife was there to help her husband with his trade. Help would consist of cooking and making clothes so to free up his time, then any other time would be to work in that trade. In European civilization a husband and wife were considered partners. Often married couples would be hired as opposed to individuals. Ever notice the Queen sat next to the King?

Good point. Historians in the CH audience can attest to how widespread was the practice of European partnership-style marriage, where the wife’s role was employee to her husband-boss.

What the reader describes is a superior form of social system that redirects the natural female (of which “wife” is a subset) hypergamous instinct toward, instead of against, her husband. The working European woman of 1539 was working for her husband. Her lover and her comfort and her family was also her boss. In this arrangement it would be hard for her not to look up to him, and to admire him, and this admiration would translate quite easily into happy sexual submission. Her instinctual compulsion to surrender to a better man would be sated, and her marriage would thus be stronger.

What we have today is that same working-woman hypergamy now directed to powerful men who are not her husband. The modern wife leaves the world of her husband every morning to submit to sexy male rulers presiding over the parallel world she inhabits during the day. She still has a boss, but it’s no longer her husband. The temptation for her to cheat, either bodily or in mind, must be great. The male equivalent would be as if dutiful husbands were catered to on the job by a steady stream of swimsuit models. Even the firmest virtue will bend to perpetual succulent vice.

This is why I argue that feminist-inspired, female-aggrandizing public policies should be repealed. “Pro-woman” (aka pro-r-selection) policies like Title IX and mandated maternity leave create perverse incentives for a sub-Saharan female-forager style social system that channels natural female hypergamy toward company men and away from family men. Men — particularly men with little experience bedding women — have a hard time understanding this primal craving of women for higher status mates, because men don’t give a fig about female status. To help focus minds, recall what you as a man feel when a beautiful young woman poured into a slinky cocktail dress sits close to you and smiles. That’s what women feel in the presence of powerful male bosses commanding them to do their bidding.

Starting to feel a little nervous kissing your wife goodbye as she heads to work in the morning? You should. She’s doing something that most of her female ancestors never did.

Read Full Post »

A chilling academic paper titled “The Population Cycle Drives Human History — from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse” landed like a soggy Sunday paper at the Chateau doorstep.

In the period before the onset of demographic transition, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population. As the fraction of individuals of higher quality increased, technological progress intensified. Positive feedback between technological progress and the level of education reinforced the growth process, setting the stage for an industrial revolution that facilitated an endogenous take-off from the Malthusian trap. The population density rose and with it social and political friction, especially important at the top of the social pyramid. Thus, from a certain turning point of history, the well-to-do have fewer children than the poor. Once the economic environment improves sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakens, and on the basis of spreading egalitarian ideology and general suffrage the quantity of people gains dominance over quality. At present, we have already reached the phase of global human capital deterioration as the necessary prerequisite for a global collapse by which the overpopulated earth will decimate a species with an average IQ, still too mediocre to understand its own evolution and steer its course.

Executive summary: Equalism is death.

Longer version: Economic success contains the seed of its own destruction. As a people become wealthier and their miseries alleviated by technology, equalism (formerly known as egalitarianism, or in its looser form as liberalism) finds fertile ground in social discourse, and welfare safety nets grow in breadth and complexity, thwarting the natural evolutionary culling process until the reproductive rewards are shared equally between the fit and unfit, and finally reaching a nadir when the economically unfit become reproductively favored at the expense of the economically fit.

Idiocracy, as I have stated, may be the most prophetic movie of any time. The earth becomes overpopulated with mediocrities and dummies as technology interferes with the natural and healthy culling process, the equalist ideology hastens the dysgenic trend, and finally the barbarians swarm over their demographically dying equalist overlords, ending the civilizational project until the cycle renews and rebirth can find purchase in the smoldering ashes.

The difference now? Nukes. All bets are off on how this iteration of doom will realize its potential. It’s possible the destruction this time around is so complete a new cycle of human transcendence will be stillborn.

What does it mean for humanity to understand its own evolution and to “steer its course”? It means knowing that bleeding hearts lead to bleeding civilizations. A few far-seeing people know the score. A great paternalistic (patriarchal, even) impulse — but one that is necessarily cruel (to be kind) — is needed to steer this darkly enlightened course to a happier outcome. I envision a CH six-point insurance program of collapse prevention:

1. Close the borders to Western nations indefinitely. (Reason is self-evident.)
2. Create voluntary incentives to reduce dysgenic fertility. (Dollars for Depo.)
3. Discourage IQ- and education-based assortative mating. (Successful men pairing off with pretty, but less educationally attained women, is eugenic. The smart, industrious genes are passed more fully around the general population.)
4. Reinvigorate protectionism. (Gutted native wages only intensifies public pressure for government largesse to a growing segment of long-term unemployed.)
5. Eliminate all female-friendly public policies. (No more Title IX, mandated day-care, freebie contraceptives, etc. The evidence is strong that publicly catering to women’s fickle pleasures incentivizes bad things like single mommery, latchkey kids, late marriage, low fertility of the higher classes, and punishment of creative iconoclasts who are the engine of progress.)
6. Reduce proximate diversity. (Social atomization encourages short term time orientation, distrust, and corruption, which lead to incompetence and decay.)

That last one may require a break-up of the US. Ironically, to save America, you must kill it first.

Read Full Post »

Chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. It’s a stereotype for a reason. Our ancestors who had experience with women beyond typing furious white knight screeds on feminist blogs and collecting cheetos dust in their manboob cleavage have witnessed this adage in action so often that it’s long been accepted wisdom, passed down from grandfather to father to son. (Until the chain of realtalk was broken with the advent of equalism.)

This facet of female sexual nature is so plain as day that even indignant feminists and ignoramus tradcons have conceded some ground on the issue. As they have retreated in shame ahead of the advancing armies of the Chateau id-palers, they’ve been reduced to arguing “yeah, well, ok but so do men!” and babbling incoherent nonsense about men preferring “bitches”.

CH corrected their misunderstanding in as gentle a manner as befits this noble house, noting that, absent a few rare self-gelding exceptions to the rule, the desire to love and be loved by a jerk is a far stronger and frequently expressed impulse in women than the desire to love a bitch is in those few men who like to be pegged.

Or: If the “bitch” is hot, men will still want to fuck her, albeit with reservations concerning any long-term commitment potential. If the “bitch” is not hot, they won’t.

Women, as is their sex’s formerly inscrutable wont, are markedly different from men in this regard. The jerkboy attitude ITSELF is inherently attractive to women, and women even prefer to harness the commitment of jerks to the detriment of beta male supplicants.

But, why bother retelling the wisdom of the ancients and of the clear-eyed moderns to low born plebes when one can summon a mighty Shiv forged of Heartistian steel instead? A twist of the hilt and equalist ego guts spill out in technicolor anguish.

Men are sexually attracted to women who show an interest in them or who are responsive during a date, the study found. On the flip side, women are not sexually interested in the responsive men they meet for the first time, the research also discovered.

“We wanted to understand the reasons for these gender differences,” said the study’s lead researcher, Gurit Birnbaum, an associate professor of psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel. “What makes a responsive woman sexually attractive, and what makes a responsive man less sexually attractive?” [...]

Men who perceive women to be interested in them rated the women as more feminine and sexually attractive. They also showed more interest in having long-term relationships with the responsive women than with the nonresponsive women.

Men dig non-bitchy, feminine women. Commence with the flabbergasting!

At the end of each experiment, the students rated their partners on scales such as responsiveness, attractiveness and masculinity or femininity.

Gender-based stereotypes may play a role in the men’s preference for responsive women, Birnbaum said. During a first date, people tend to rely on gender stereotypes for how they think a person should act. Men may find women more attractive if they fit the female stereotype of showing care and concern, she added.

Nope.

Or, men may think that responsive women are sexually interested in them. This may explain why men rate these “nice” women as more attractive and feminine, Birnbaum said.

Bingo. Also, I’d add that a nice, feminine woman signals to a man that she’ll be a faithful wife and nurturing mother to his children.

“I didn’t know until this [journal] article that men perceive responsive women not only as feminine, but also as sexually arousing,” Finkel told Live Science in an email. “I could have imagined a different set of results in which men found such women feminine, but then viewed them as dainty or less sexually desirable. Birnbaum and colleagues showed that the opposite is true.”

Yes, nicegirls aren’t just admirable or coveted for nonsexual reasons; they are also very arousing to men.

In contrast to the men, the women in the study did not rate the responsive men as more attractive or masculine than the nonresponsive men — a finding that surprised experts.

“Nonresponsive” = “jerk”.

The study did not reveal why women are not sexually interested in responsive men on the first date, but Birnbaum offered several ideas.

Women are typically more cautious daters than men are, and may be skeptical of a responsive man, Birnbaum said. Or, she added, women may think the men are trying too hard to win their affection and get them into bed.

Or, women may see responsive men as eager to please, or even desperate, Birnbaum said. Perhaps, the researchers noted, women may view a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.

Bingos all around!

“Regardless of the reasons, perhaps men should slow down, if their goal is to instill sexual desire,” Birnbaum said.

Or, be a challenge.

For Hivemind takes on the studies, see “Study finds that men like nice women, but not the other way around” and “Why playing hard to get only works for men.”

Mmmm. The Scalzied tears of a feminist clown.

So here we come to the close of yet another series of studies which vindicate CH teachings and game. I’d say my turgid vanity couldn’t handle any more old fashioneds, but no, my appetite for strokings is inexhaustible.

Lesson for women: The way to a man’s heart is straight and true.

Lesson for men: The way to a woman’s heart is oblique and discreet.

Read Full Post »

Once again, ❤science❤ has entered, stage right, as a supporting cast member of Chateau Heartiste’s magnum opus. Once again, you won’t be led astray if you embrace CH observations as your own. You could say there’s a Heartiste Rule in effect at this happy hurting ground: 80% of keen-eyed CH lessons drawn from field experience are in short order confirmed by empirical rigor. The remaining 20% either await scientific vindication, or are too nuanced to mimic in the laboratory without great difficulty or unethical experimental tactics.

The latest salvo from science supports (right on cue!) the knowledge contained within a Heartistian Horcrux that the sexes perceive looks differently and are, as a result, affected by the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex differently.

In a series of interesting experiments measuring selective attention for beautiful people, it was discovered that,

When we strained our subjects’ attentional capacities, we found exactly what I had suspected several decades before: Men overestimated the number of beautiful women (though their estimates of handsome men were unaffected). Female subjects also overestimated the frequency of gorgeous women in the rapidly presented crowds, but they did not overestimate the frequency of handsome men. The whole body of findings points to a simple conclusion about beautiful women: They capture everyone’s attention and monopolize downstream cognitive processes. The conclusion about handsome men is different: They grab women’s eyes but do not hold their minds; good-looking guys quickly get washed out of the stream of mental processing.

This is in line with what we have been saying here for some time: Women are essentially less viscerally affected by good male looks than men are affected by good female looks. And whatever effect male handsomeness has on women’s senses is dissipated much faster from their mental landscapes than female beauty is expunged from men’s mental landscapes. This beautiful truth has far-reaching implications for practitioners of the crimson arts.

In our first study, [we] asked people to judge an average-looking woman after being exposed to one of two series of other women. Half the participants judged the target woman after seeing a series of unusually beautiful women; the other half judged her after seeing a series of average-looking women. As in the case of exposure to extremes of water temperature, exposure to extremes of physical appearance affected people’s judgments of what was average. As we had predicted, an average-looking woman was judged significantly uglier than normal if the subjects had just been gazing at a series of beauties.

And as game theorists will tell you, a charming man will be judged more attractive than he is if the woman in his company had just been hanging out with a bunch of boring betas.

Subjects in the control group first judged the artistic merit of abstract paintings such as Josef Albers’s Homage to the Square. The men in the experimental group saw centerfolds from Playboy and Penthouse; the women saw handsome naked men from Playgirl. After they had looked at either paintings or centerfolds, we asked our participants to rate their feelings about their current relationship partners. Again, there was a cover story — that psychologists were divided on whether being in a relationship opened people up to new aesthetic experiences or made them less open to novelty. To test which side was right, we told them, we needed to know about the extent to which their reported level of commitment depended on whether they had seen centerfolds.

Once again, the results displayed a curious gender difference:

Men who had viewed the centerfolds rated themselves as less in love with their partners; women’s judgments of their partners were not so easily swayed.

Once again, we see that male looks don’t compel nearly the same aroused urgency from women that female looks compel from men. Or, when women cheat, it’s not usually because they found a handsomer lover; it’s because the man they’re with stopped exciting them with their personalities.

The harmful side effect for guys … is this: Real women … do not look as attractive once the mind has been calibrated to assume the centerfolds are normal. And for guys in relationships, exposure to beautiful photos undermines their feelings about the real flesh-and-blood women with whom their lives are actually intertwined.

No this is the PC interpretation. More precisely, limited options and exclusion from beautiful women calibrates men’s minds to assume “real women” are prettier than they are.

But lest we’re too quick to assume men are the only ones who conform to the worst of their gender’s stereotypes, women didn’t fare much better when the experiment was repeated with power rather than beauty as the variable:

Seeing a series of socially dominant men undermined women’s commitment, just as seeing attractive women had done to men’s.

CARDIAC ARREST goes the feminist and manboob hamsters. Recall a very early post from the Chateau archives:

As I’ve written before, what men like in women is simple. In descending order of importance, here are the female attractiveness traits that men desire in women:

Beauty.
Femininity.
Sexual eagerness.

In descending order of importance, here are the male attractiveness traits that women desire in men:

Psychosocial dominance (game).
High status/fame.
Personality (passion/charisma/humor).
Wealth.
Good looks/height/muscularity.
Cleverness/smarts.
Dependability/reliability.
Sexual prowess.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
The rest is commentary.

And what a shitstorm of commentary it has been in the interim! Feminists and bitter beta males both heaving sandbags of rationalizations and wishful thinking and earnest platitudes against the ramparts so that they may bunker down and avoid dealing with these eternal earthy truths about the different sexual natures of men and women.

So what’s a mortal to do [about sensory overload and adaptation]? Are we helpless in the face of our evolved mechanisms, which may lead us astray without our conscious awareness? Not completely. People who understand the dangers of overabundant fats and sugars can control their diets. People who understand the dangers of an overabundant diet of mass-media images can stop gorging on Playboy, People, Sex and the City, or Dancing with the Stars.

Good god, this is some realtalk right here. Just as fatties can keep crap food out of their homes, the loveless and love-hungry can keep porn — the male and female versions of it — out of theirs.

It’s two for one day at Le Chateau, so here’s another recent relevant study that finds partner physical attractiveness is less important as a predictor of women’s marital satisfaction.

Do men value physical attractiveness in a mate more than women? Scientists in numerous disciplines believe that they do, but recent research using speed-dating paradigms suggests that males and females are equally influenced by physical attractiveness when choosing potential mates. Nevertheless, the premise of the current work is that sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness are most likely to emerge in research on long-term relationships. Accordingly, the current work drew from 4 independent, longitudinal studies to examine sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for trajectories of marital satisfaction. In all 4 studies, both partners’ physical attractiveness was objectively rated at baseline, and both partners reported their marital satisfaction up to 8 times over the first 4 years of marriage. Whereas husbands were more satisfied at the beginning of the marriage and remained more satisfied over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive wife, wives were no more or less satisfied initially or over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive husband. Most importantly, a direct test indicated that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting husbands’ satisfaction than predicting wives’ satisfaction. These findings strengthen support for the idea that sex differences in self-reported preferences for physical attractiveness do have implications for long-term relationship outcomes.

Happy wife, happy life? Happy husband, stronger lovin’. Husbands have a responsibility to provide emotional and material support. Wives have a responsibility to provide beauty and sexual support. If either party reneges on their end of the deal — the equivalent of the dull, withdrawn, couch potato husband is the fat, unfeminine, nag wife — then the deal is severed, in practice if not in procedure. This is as decisive an IF-THEN statement as you’ll come across in the realm of human social interaction.

Men, know that your dominance and self-confidence are your passage to bangkunt. Women, know that your youth, beauty and slender hourglass figures are your passage to bangkok. The losers in life will wail and rend their XXXXL muu-muus disclaiming this romantic reality, but after a million terabytes and a billion snarled memes they are still on their knees, receiving a hot load of ostracism and despair from the winners at the party they desperately, secretly yearn to join.

UPDATE

Three for one, baby! Reader Will passes along another study that used MRIs to peer deep into male and female brains to discover the elemental neural processes at work when an attractive member of the opposite sex is in view.

Apologies (not too sorry) for this off-topic. Not sure if CH or anyone else has read this (probably). But it’s *science* that shows that guys are biologically wired to be *motivated* (read: boner) for visual ques (read tits and an ass) moreso than girls. This is an MRI being done on the brain that shows the amygdala is fired moreso in guys than girls when sexyness is visually seen.

This can be interpreted as how guys don’t care so much about status because the blood is rushed to our amygdala based on visual…. Not comparative social relations (such as power). Girls thus have more blood focusing on other parts of there brain such as which guy will give me higher status in terms of my social context.

Quoting the study results,

The emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, shows significantly higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images, according to a Center for Behavioral Neuroscience study led by Emory University psychologists Stephan Hamann and Kim Wallen. The finding, which appears in the April edition of “Nature Neuroscience,” demonstrates how men and women process visual sexual stimuli differently, and it may explain gender variations in reproductive behavior. [...]

The fMRI scans revealed significantly higher levels of activation in the amygdala, which controls emotion and motivation, in the brains of the male subjects compared to the females, despite the fact that both males and females expressed similar subjective assessments of their levels of arousal after viewing the images.

Hamann and Wallen had a separate group pre-select the images to ensure they would be equally arousing to both males and females.

“If males and females found the pictures equally arousing, you would assume they would have similar patterns of brain activation,” said Hamann. “But we discovered the male brain seems to process visual sexual cues differently.”

The scientists’ discovery also is consistent with an evolutionary theory that natural selection spurred the development of different sexual behaviors in males and females.

“There is an advantage for males in quickly recognizing and responding to receptive females through visual cues,” explains Hamann. “This allows them to maximize their mating opportunities, which increases their chances for passing on their genes.”

Another CH truth lovingly caressed by SCIENCE. And this is a humdinger of science, because it directly measured brain activation rather than indirectly through surveys or behavioral analysis.

Men are more viscerally aroused by female looks than are women by male looks. Men, therefore, can neither rely on their looks to get and keep women, nor excuse their failure with women based on their looks. Game, aka applied charisma, is about exploiting that soft space between a woman’s subjective assessment of her own arousal and her actual, primal arousal. As always, don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do. And nothing watches as closely as an MRI looking right into her friggin noggin.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,970 other followers

%d bloggers like this: