Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

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:

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).
Good looks/height/muscularity.
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.


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 »

A 59-year-old woman, international speaker and writer (“productive citizen”), laments the icy rejection she received at the hands of a 55-year-old man who felt a surge of natural male biological disgust for her naked wrinkly old lady body.

And so, we planned a weekend together. That’s when things got confusing, unspoken and just-not-quite there. We went to bed in a couple’s way — unclothed and touching — all parts near. Kisses were shared and sleep came in hugs. I attempted more intimacy throughout the weekend and was deterred each time.

On Monday evening over the phone, I asked this man who had shared my bed for three nights running why we had not made love. “Your body is too wrinkly,” he said without a pause. “I have spoiled myself over the years with young woman. I just can’t get excited with you. I love your energy and your laughter. I like your head and your heart. But, I just can’t deal with your body.”

I was stunned. The hurt would come later. I asked him slowly and carefully if he found my body hard to look at. He said yes. “So, this means seeing me naked was troublesome to you?” I asked. He told me he had just looked away. And when the lights were out, he pretended my body was younger — that I was younger. My breath came deep and full as I processed this information. My face blazed as I felt embarrassed and shamed by memories of my easy nakedness with him in days just passed.

We talked for some time more, my head reeling at the content of the conversation. He spoke of special stockings and clothing that would “hide” my years. He blithely told me he loved “little black dresses” and strappy shoes. He said my hair was not long and flowing as he preferred, but that was okay because it was “cool looking.” I felt like a Barbie Doll on acid as I listened to this man. He was totally oblivious to the viciousness of his words.

She thinks this man a sadistic monster, but he was perhaps more honest with her (and with himself) than any man she has known. They aren’t called the ugly truths for nothing.

Men don’t get impotent; women get old. You won’t hear any therapist telling that raw reality to struggling older couples. Be prepared for soul-flaying pain of this nature to become commonplace in post-sanity and post-restricted female sexuality America. Marriage rates are at a historical low and never-married or divorced older women are desperate for romance. They’re in the field when they should be in the home with grandchildren, deluding themselves that the older men who they think by rights are theirs instead are more interested in the younger women with tighter bodies and fresher histocompatibilities. And to make matters worse, more than a few of those younger women love the company of older men.

The sexual market is not equal. It’s not fair. It’s not progressive. And it’s not a rom-com with a happy ending. It is a tearjerker, however.

Compounding the difficulties that older, single women face in the arena of zero-sum mate acquisition is the altered perspective of single older men who are accustomed to dating younger women. When you’ve tasted a morsel of Kobe filet mignon and washed it down with a 2010 Hewitt cabernet, an 80/20 ground beef burger with a tepid Bud Light just isn’t going to get you up in the morning.

Some commenters had a fun time with this lady’s id yelp.

I can relate…there is this woman who is obsessed with me who calls me everyday, she is the nicest woman I ever met,but when I saw her naked I freaked out.

I usually like to keep the lights on but with her I did not want to see, and I tried to think of my ex who had a superb body.

Everything is wrinkly and saggy…it is impossible for me to be passionate about such a woman even though she has the best personality.

Part of me feels sad for her, but I just can not be with her, I have to be passionate about what I see, not only about what us in her heart and her head.

Men are very visual, I am very visual. At some point I had no choice but to tell her I had trouble looking at her naked body.

She is my age but I look 15 years younger while she looks older than her age.

with clothes on she is cute, she even has an hourglass figure, she gets a lot of attention from men but they have no idea what is under her clothes. how everything is very saggy and wrinkly.

sorry if I go on and on, but I am right smack in the middle of a similar situation as the Huffington story..


Women gotta understand, God put our eyes right up front…

Personality? Well, okay… but our ears are way back on the head.


“I didn’t even want to try to explain the hurt and the horror that he had inflicted upon me. I actually felt sickly sorry for this man as I hung up the phone”

!!!Hamster time!!!!


Try servicing a monster and you’ll understand what horror is.

Older women’s best hope is for an epidemic of mass amnesia to strike men and men only. In this way, no single older man crashing the dating market and creating tsunamis for older female hamsters to surf will remember what prime pussy looks and feels like under clothes. Unencumbered by these fond recollections, he can more easily be catechized in the belief of stylishly-clothed but surreptitiously wrinkled hags as the pinnacle of female sexuality… at least for a short while, until his occipital resumes control of his prefrontal and penile.

The whole sordid spectacle reminds me of a dating exploit from a time not yet beyond crystalline recall. I had met a 20-ish blonde in the dusky brick-relief bowels of a drunken after-party. Already buzzing from one drink too many, I began to imagine scenarios… transactions… with her shapely vessel as she spoke of childhood dreams and favorite movie scenes. I made feints toward a same night lay (never a dull moment on the CH sexpress) but she wouldn’t bite, preferring instead to indicate her interest with strong pleas for a follow-up date. “you will call me, right?” “you’ve got my number right there.” SMILE SMILE SMILE “i’ll see you soon!”

Sufficiently sated from recent conquests, I dropped the idea of an effortful seduction whisking her from venue to vainroom before sleepiness took its toll. I agreed to call her, and confessed to myself that the date was happily anticipated. I like blondes. I like 20-ish women. I like them most when they like me in kind.

Two evenings later, we met at a small bistro. She was already there when I arrived, seated indoors under bright light only paces from an outdoor area softly illumined by decorative patio lights. This was her critical mistake. From twenty feet, barely through the restaurant’s entranceway and acutely sober, I saw her heart-swelling silhouette from two nights ago, now unshadowed, had morphed into the splotchy, shattering skin wrap of a woman accelerating to her upper 30s. My smile dropped faster than an unsupported witch’s teat.

I am a master actor when crisis calls, but this disappointment was too great to conceal. She caught the full impact of it and, exacerbated by the contrast of my insanely youthful countenance, stood up from our table seconds after I had introduced myself to calmly but with a hint of croak in her voice cut the date short with a prematurity that must have set land speed records. “if it’s ok with you, we really don’t have to do this. i’m not ready for this. I’m so sorry.” Her entire body downcast and my guilt cresting a harsh wave, I eagerly (but not too eagerly!) accepted her offer.

It’s hard out there for the older woman. Yer ‘umble mareslayer revels in revealing the barbarous clashes that bloody the innersides of our polite vestments, but in real life he’s a bit less callous and handles life’s sad cameos with a softer glove.

Read Full Post »

Women project their charisma-induced arousal onto men. Men project their visually-induced arousal onto women. And where the streams of these two projections meet, confusion and frustration with the seemingly strange behavior of the opposite sex emerge.

Commenter AErickson perceptively observes,

I have a little under 9% body fat, a good amount of lean muscle fiber, visible abdominal muscles, etc., and can generally concur that it really is not that useful in attracting women. Further, in line with your argument that women are generally pretty solipsistic when it comes to bodies, when first seeing me shirtless, women are more likely to comment “Wow, how much do you workout/I wish I had your flat stomach!” then they are to comment “So sexy/I want your body/etc.” I workout because I enjoy it and because I care about my health; for attracting women it is more important to focus on other things, like charisma and outside passions.

This rings true, because I’ve heard (in context) the same lines from women, almost verbatim.

In relation to the functioning of the sexual market and how women perceive men’s bodies, it’s useful to think of male looks and physique as an inspiring aesthetic rather than a perspiring analeptic. Men hunger at the sight of women’s sexy bodies; women appreciate the sight of men’s masculine bodies (and then wonder if the man behind the body is interesting). As Elaine said, men’s bodies are utilitarian, like Jeeps, built to get things done.

While this formulation is by no means exclusive of overlap or exceptions, as a general rule it works well. A man with a good body is like a fine sculpture, or a technological wonder; enjoyable for women to admire and to uncover the artist’s or engineer’s intent, perhaps even going so far as to use the work of art for a solipsistic moment of self-reflection.

A woman with a good body is art, but she is also a drug, stimulating instant desire in men that is like the human aesthetic sense distilled in raw form to its ancestral animal essence, whereby the object is not to admire, but to consume.

Women can be stimulated to instant, wall-climbing desire as well, but it usually requires more… much more… than a muscular body. If you want to know what instant, insistent, existential female horniness looks like, go to high society parties and watch how they behave in the company of a famous or powerful man.

Read Full Post »

Humans are unique among sexually reproducing animals in the subtlety of their flirting behavior.

Covert sexual signaling: Human flirtation and implications for other social species.

According to signaling theory and a large body of supporting evidence, males across many taxa produce courtship signals that honestly advertise their quality. The cost of producing or performing these signals maintains signal honesty, such that females are typically able to choose the best males by selecting those that produce the loudest, brightest, longest, or otherwise highest-intensity signals, using signal strength as a measure of quality. Set against this background, human flirting behavior, characterized by its frequent subtlety or covertness, is mysterious. Here we propose that the explanation for subtle and ambiguous signals in human courtship lies in socially imposed costs that (a) vary with social context and (b) are amplified by the unusual ways in which language makes all interactions potentially public. Flirting is a class of courtship signaling that conveys the signaler’s intentions and desirability to the intended receiver while minimizing the costs that would accompany an overt courtship attempt. This proposal explains humans’ taxonomically unusual courtship displays and generates a number of novel predictions for both humans and non-human social animals. Individuals who are courting should vary the intensity of their signals to suit the level of risk attached to the particular social configuration, and receivers may assess this flexible matching of signal to context as an indicator of the signaler’s broader behavioral flexibility and social intelligence.

There’s a reason the apocalypse opener is so rarely encountered.

The entire study is worth reading at the attached PDF link. Essentially, humans, often men (since men are usually the courtship initiators), coyly flirt to preserve their social capital (public shame/rejection) or to protect themselves from interference by aggrieved third parties (cockblockers/AMOGs).

Whereas the standard model of sexually selected courtship signaling suggests that maximum intensity is always favored, we propose flexibility as an alternative route to reproductive success. Signalers who skillfully assess and adjust to social context (i.e., good flirts) display their quality not through high-intensity displays that index physical prowess and condition, but through sensitive signal-to-context matching that indicates behavioral flexibility and social intelligence.

Game is applied charisma, and applied charisma is best thought of as revealed social aptitude. Good flirts can read signals in a timely and precise manner, and respond to those signals with interest level gauged to the social context within which the signals occur.

Muscles, looks, and money aren’t the key variables driving, or even instigating, female attraction in most complex modern social contexts. Social savviness — the ability to flirt confidently and skillfully, aka game — is the fitness trait that really matters. Even a top 1% looking man will flounder if he lacks the social prowess of a less good-looking but more socially keen competitor.

The more social costs that can be imposed, the more covert your flirting needs to be to reduce the risk of social annihilation. Office romances have a Coyness Rating (CR) of 90%. One-on-one weeknight approaches in empty bars have a CR of 20% (you can go pretty direct there). Daygame pickups on the sidewalk have a CR, give or take depending on number of onlookers and proximity to relevant observors, around 40%. Picking up a second cousin at a family funeral has a CR of 100%.

The lower the social risk of courtship, the better direct game will work. Anonymous, thumping urban nightclubs are playgrounds of direct game. SWPL bars where a girl is surrounded by all her friends, beta orbiter and female? You had better insinuate yourself indirectly.

The key quality of Gricean implicature—for the flirt—is that it allows speakers to claim two distinct meanings at once: the surface meaning as well as the implied one. For example, the question, “Do you want to grab coffee sometime?” can be both an innocent invitation to drink coffee and a sexual overture.

Chicks dig ambiguous men. Ambiguity is a challenge to a girl’s self-conception (does he really want me?) and an affirmation of the social risk she may incur by following through on the man’s courtship attempt. A man with a highly intelligent grasp of social dynamics is likely a man who does well with women, and we all know how much women love preselected men.

A couple of final points. One, ff the “receiver” — the woman you are approaching — is much higher SMV than what you could be expected to get, your instinct will guide you to very coy (plausibly deniable) flirty game, to lower your social risk of rejection. But that’s exactly why you should try to go in with more intention; you increase the perception of your own relative SMV by flirting more intently as if you were a higher value man. Perception is king in the field. If you act like a winner, women will treat you like a winner. Maybe not right away, but in time, as long as your frame is solid.

Two, you should be adept at varying the intensity of your flirting. Tight game means attention to context. Finger her in the public restroom? Sure. Avoid PDA when friends are watching? Yes. Sexual intention must be communicated at some point between “hi” and “slip it in”, but the timing of that revealed intention, and the strength of the revelation, will vary according to circumstance, and a good player knows this.

Read Full Post »

I know, I know, after an evening in your smoking jacket reading Jezebel and John Scalzi with blurry eyes and tending to your rickets, you wonder how anyone could think men and women aren’t exactly alike except for that bothersome business of the genitalia.

Well, my hermetically sealed friend, you can listen to CH telling you like it is from field experience, or you can get the same revelations from ❤SCIENCE❤.

Sex differences in personality are believed to be comparatively small. However, research in this area has suffered from significant methodological limitations. We advance a set of guidelines for overcoming those limitations: (a) measure personality with a higher resolution than that afforded by the Big Five; (b) estimate sex differences on latent factors; and (c) assess global sex differences with multivariate effect sizes. We then apply these guidelines to a large, representative adult sample, and obtain what is presently the best estimate of global sex differences in personality.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.


The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.

Sex-based personality differences are large and widespread, and result from competing evolutionary pressures placed on men and women.

In addition to their direct influences on mating processes, personality traits correlate with many other sexually selected behaviors, such as status-seeking and risk-taking (see e.g., [20], [34], [35]). Thus, in an evolutionary perspective, personality traits are definitely not neutral with respect to sexual selection. Instead, there are grounds to expect robust and wide-ranging sex differences in this area, resulting in strongly sexually differentiated patterns of emotion, thought, and behavior – as if there were “two human natures”, as effectively put by Davies and Shackelford [15].

Two human natures (you could argue for a lot more if you include racial differences in personality). This is the reason game works as a concept and as a practical guide. Women are very different, emotionally and psychologically, than are men, and game is a system which leverages this sex-specific personality contrast. Think about it: If men and women were completely alike, whatever worked for women in the dating market would also work equally well for men. But two minutes in the jungle are all you need to notice that the working strategies men and women employ to find and attract mates are very different.

The study is worth reading in full, especially the authors’ methodology of breaking down the Big Five personality traits into smaller components, and the importance of measuring latent variables.

So where do men and women most differ in personality traits?

In univariate terms, the largest differences between the sexes were found in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males). These effects subsume the classic sex differences in instrumentality/expressiveness or dominance/nurturance.

Feminists and equalists will try to ignore, suppress, or distort findings about sex differences like those in this study, because the notion that there is an archetypical female personality and an archetypical male personality that is biological in construct is a stake through the heart of everything they desperately want to believe about human sexual nature and the impolite and inegalitarian forms it often takes.

How is an ugly feminist supposed to exhort normal women to “lean in” when normal women don’t have any desire nor disposition nor, for that matter, talent to do so? It is a pickle.

Read Full Post »

Vitaly rents a Lamborghini and picks up girls without saying a word.

I laughed. Some of you cried. Is it staged? Maybe. Is it plausible? Yes. And did you see the cameo appearance?

zoom zoom!

If you have a son about to enter manhood, and you want to impart a quick lesson in women, you won’t go wrong having him watch this video.

Read Full Post »

Commenter jack rips a page from Heartistian dark magic texts and presents his own mischievous thought experiment.

I posed this question to my blue pill friends.

Let’s say you’re going to die tomorrow. (Your wife/gf) doesn’t exist. You can have sex with one girl tonight as a grand finale to your life, but she will be random and the ONLY thing you can choose about her is her age.

Nobody picked an age higher than 19.

I said 16.

The interesting thing about jack’s question is that it left the issue of the woman’s beauty unresolved. If you as a man have no idea how a girl will look, you’ll pick a younger girl because you know that whatever a woman’s looks relative to other women, she herself will never look better (read: more fuckable) than when she’s in her late teens. That’s the way to bet.

The law can come down hard, feminists and their manboob flipfloplickers can howl with indignation, white knights can insist to the contrary while steadfastly ignoring the boner putting the lie to their words, but the biological facts of male desire will go on unchanged and irrevocable.

Now, if the question had been posed with the hypothetical girl’s beauty added as a variable, the answers men give would be different:

“a hot 17 year old”

Read Full Post »

An OkCupid SWPL, Christian Rudder, who is handy with database cross-referencing, is publishing a book soon about findings gleaned from OkCupid luser data. Two graphs in particular, which “disturbed” a DroneFeed editor (do these fruit cups ever let up on the faux outrage?), are, to CH eyes, unsurprising and starkly humorous.

The first is a graph plotting age of the women who ostensibly have active OkCupid accounts against the age of the men who “look best to her”:

male SMV window of attractiveness

As you can see, women have a shifting perception of men’s physical attractiveness that skews older along with women’s increasing age. Cougar glorification agit-prop to the contrary notwithstanding, women are not keen on dating men younger than themselves.

Now we turn to the second graph, which is the same, except with the sexes swapped:

female SMV window of attractiveness

Better humor through simplicity.

Men, no matter what age they are, converge on a female attractiveness ideal. And that ideal is a 20-year-old tart. A college bro and a middle-aged suburban domesticate want to screw the same dewy susie. Oh sure, the older married guy will never admit it in polite aka judgmental company, but you can bet he’s feeling it. Remember that, you older wives. And keep your hubbies away from cheerleader practices and college orientations.

Men have always been simpler to analyze from a sexual market perspective. Female youth+beauty = high fertility, which men dig. Or, more precisely, which men’s genetic directive digs. And, given the option and a guarantee of little or no blowback, most older men would happily and hungrily gnaw at some tender shoots.

Women’s biologically conditioned sexuality is more interesting, because women are attracted to a whole suite of male mate value cues that include but are by no means limited to men’s physical attributes. Social status, wealth, confidence, creativity, and charm are examples of male sexual signaling traits that women love. And, many of these male mating cues don’t fully ripen until later in life. This explains why women can legitimately find older men physically attractive. The women are attracted to a host of age-neutral male traits which they associate with easily perceived cues such as facial looks.

The male span of redeemable sexual attractiveness is, on average, 20 to 30 years longer than the female span of sexual attractiveness. This isn’t to claim that the typical 50-year-old man will arouse the typical 20-year-old woman. But it is accurate to say that that 50-year-old man has a lot more options for love than would his 50-year-old female peer. He can genuinely drive a younger woman to ecstasy, whereas a 25-year-old woman is already starting to sexually bore her man.

Read Full Post »

Reader Alif Male passes along an excerpt from an Agatha Christie book.

From “Dumb Witness” Agatha Christie, (1937) Chapter 2

“But this feeling of hers for Rex Donaldson was different, it went deeper. She felt instinctively that here there would be no passing on…. Her need of him was simple and profound. Everything about him fascinated her. His calmness and detachment, so different from her own hectic, grasping life, the clear, logical coldness of his scientific mind, and something else, imperfectly understood, a secret force in the man masked by his unassuming slightly pedantic manner, but which she nevertheless felt and sensed instinctively.

In Rex Donaldson there was genius – and the fact that his profession was the main preoccupation of his life and that she was only a part – though a necessary part -of existence to him only heightened his attraction for her. She found herself for the first time in her selfish pleasure-loving life content to take second place. The prospect fascinated her. For Rex she would do anything – anything!”

A crime-writer’s outline sketch of one character written 77 years ago tells more truth about women than the last thousand editions of Cosmopolitan and the entire output of Jezebel put together.

The purpose of glam mags and feminist websites is not the telling of truth; it is the propagation of ego-assuaging pretty lies. Assemblages of words are merely scaffolding women use to scale and repair their crumbling self-conceptions.

Of what does the above excerpt remind you?

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

CH never read “Dumb Witness” by Agatha Christie, but as the royal they say, great, and honest, minds think alike.

Women come to despise men who spend their lives placating them. Leave the placating to women. It’s the role to which they are suited, and to which they naturally hew.

Read Full Post »

Can evolution fail? I offer the following thought experiment as evidence that there are circumstances in which evolution proceeds along a path that violates its own precepts.

A high SMV (sexual market value) man who likes the idea of being an anonymous father but not a real father, donates to a sperm bank. One thousand low SMV (fat and/or ugly) women get impregnated by his sperm and have one son each. Will this de facto harem leader’s sons grow up to be

a. more attracted or

b. less attracted

to fat or ugly women?

As commenter Arch Hades put it,

Higher quality male peckers have evolutionarily evolved to not want to impregnate fatties.

But what happens when a high quality male pecker makes a contribution to the wombs of low quality females via an aesthetically neutral conduit like a sperm bank? The intrinsic desire of the man for slender, beautiful women will still be passed onto his one thousand sons, despite the fact that, from his genes’ point of view, he willingly plunged the portals of a lot of gross women. He didn’t start with a predilection for fat or ugly women, so whatever genetic code he passes on through the sperm bank women won’t appear in any of his male progeny as an increased attraction for ugly women.

In this instance, the ironclad law of evolution has been overturned. The “attraction for ugly women” genes that would increase in a state of nature where men with those innate predilections seek out ugly mates and pass their predilection onto future generations does not increase in this scenario of the sperm bank acting as middleman.

Now one could say the sperm bank is unnatural and thus the laws of evolution don’t apply, but anything created by humans must be natural in the sense that culture and its appurtenances are manifestations of genetic architecture previously selected for. The sperm bank is as much a part of the evolutionary biofeedback loop as is the stick that a chimp uses to flush out termites.

What does it say then about evolutionary theory that a sperm bank can essentially sever the connection between reproductive fitness and sexually selected traits? What about contraceptives? In a sense, condoms and the pill act like individually owned and operated sperm banks, altering the ancient equation between female (and male) sexual choice and what kind of children they eventually bear (or not bear).

All this is to say we as a species are entering uncharted territory. Anyone who thinks there won’t be awesome consequences lacks the requisite imagination.

Interestingly, you can sort of see the outlines of the above ugly female client sperm bank scenario playing out in real time in the bars and clubs across America. Just substitute “ugly female client sperm bank” with “fat women”, and the picture crystallizes. Like the man contributing to a sperm bank patronized by ugly women who would otherwise only have sex with attractive women, a nontrivial number of men are crossing their lower bound of acceptable female sexual attractiveness to rut with fatties out of necessity and fear of unwilling celibacy. As upwards of 70% of all American women are heavier than their ideal weight, it’s simply a matter of insufficient suitable mate availability driving an evolutionary trend that is at odds with actual reproductive fitness or male sexual attraction predilection.

The future, should my attempts to clear the SMV fog prove prescient, looks like a horror show of gargantuan beastwomen and sexually and romantically unfulfilled men drifting in and out of each others’ lives in a loveless nihilistic melancholy.


PS On a related “Is evolution failing?” note, the buzzy AmRen article titled “Confessions of a Public Defender” is a harrowing read, and provokes some illicit thought about where we are heading demographically. The impression one gets from this titillating exposure to the minds and values of the zoo animal underclass is that the moral senses… fairness, reciprocity, empathy, guilt, even a basic conception of right and wrong… may very well be unevenly distributed not only among members of the same race but between the races in general. If you quake at the idea that average IQ varies by race, how badly will your bowels shake if it’s discovered that some races are more, or less, morally evolved?

CH has gone out on limbs before that have proven to be supported by trunks of strong empirical oak, and we’ll go out on a limb again, one so far up the tree that few if any will have the balls to venture out with us. Morality and empathy are evolved traits, and like many human traits they will be found in varying degrees and complexities of expression among the world’s races. Given this, the civilized nations would do well to consider that their jurisprudence systems are incapable of impartially subsuming the less morally evolved in a manner that suits their own elevated moral sense. If you cannot or are unwilling to grasp that the defendant sitting across from you is closer in temperament and moral evolution to a feral beast than to your kin, you will forever be stricken with crippling doubt about the nature of your race’s achievements and philosophies.

Demographically, then, it becomes imperative that advanced peoples act to limit the fecundity of relative moral degenerates in their midst, or barring that to erect barriers against the incorporation of the upwardly moral and the downwardly amoral. And yet the exact opposite appears to be the rule of the land currently. Evolution is failing, thanks to a warped altruistic impulse that has provided and sustains a fitness advantage for morally infantile, and thus exceedingly dangerous, humans. Again, like the sperm bank scenario above, the state of nature has been upturned and bifurcated by a middleman — in this case, misplaced leftoid equalist generosity towards lesser people who would impulsively kill them without losing a wink of sleep — and traits that would normally get culled due to the dual pressures of sexual and natural selection become instead numerous and widespread.

Deus ex machina has become hominis ex machina.

PPS This post is supameta, and readers will find it hard to resist pointing out the impossibility of evolution “failing” in a system that is part of the natural universe, but as humans we have also evolved a disposition to employ value judgments that maximize our Darwinian fitness, which is a jargony way of saying that an impersonal natural process can indeed fail if it results in the failure of the one species which has proven capable of identifying that process.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,944 other followers

%d bloggers like this: