Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

A reader passed along this graph, but I don’t know the source. It looks like a graph cobbled together by a feminist or feminist-friendly manboob trying to artificially extend the sexual market viability of aging beauties. See if you can spot the category errors.

The Y-axis is “percentage of potential”, which presumably means the percentage of maximum potential beauty that a woman at a given age possesses. So, from the graph, a 15-year-old teenager has achieved 40% of her maximum potential beauty. A 50-year-old woman is on the downslope of her beauty curve and has 85% of her maximum potential beauty remaining (*snort*).

The three lines are “external attractiveness” (physical beauty, which is pretty much the kitten and caboodle), “internal attractiveness” (aka inner beauty, which counts for a little), and “combined attractiveness” (the total attractiveness of a woman after her outer and inner beauty have been factored together).

If you haven’t got it yet, the category errors are:

1. The curve is much too generous to older women. There’s no way in the real world that a 60-year-old woman possesses the same amount of beauty as her 17-year-old self.

2. The inner beauty curve is likewise unrealistic. The typical woman’s personality and femininity reaches its maximum at age 70 (and up)? By whose standard? Oh yeah, by the standard of delusional feminists. If nothing else, aging subtracts IQ points, so 70-year-old women are likely not the sparkling conversationalists they were at age 25 (though they may occasionally drop gems of wisdom).

3. Finally, the combined attractiveness curve is worthless because it rests on the false premise that a woman’s external and internal attractiveness are equally valuable to her romantic prospects.

Here’s the improved, Chateau Heartiste version of the Female Total Attractiveness-Age Curve:

Much better. Red line is beauty (dispensing with the “external” redundancy), green line is inner beauty.

As you can see, the red line more accurately reflects the average woman’s external attractiveness trajectory. For most women who haven’t concealed their natural slender youthful beauty under an arctic-stressed layer of blubber, their peak beauty will occur between ages 15 and 25. The average woman will therefore max out in beauty at age 20. Unusual exceptions that desperate cougars trot out in support of an argument to the contrary prove the rule.

Past age 20, women begin the retreat from their maximum potential beauty. The fade is slow at first (as reflected in the less precipitous drop of the right side of the beauty curve), and this initially slow deterioration gives women a five to ten year graceless period to hone their self-delusion skills. “I’ll find a great guy when I’m 30!” CH: “No you won’t. You’ll settle for less, and your gogrrl friends will lie to you about this fact.”

By age 30, a woman is down to about 85% of her previous beauty high. At this stage of the game, she can no longer deny the tribute her skin and sag have paid to the überpatriarch, Father Time. It might not be evident yet under winter clothes, but it sure is the morning after twixt the bedsheets.

Now the decline accelerates in earnest. Age 35: 60% of former glory. Age 40: 40% of former glory (equivalent to her incipient preteen beauty buds). Age 50: 10%. For the typical woman, the Wall — the age at which she becomes sexually worthless to any man who isn’t legally obligated to assuage her fears — strikes sometime in her mid-50s. Almost no women beyond age 60 are capable of inciting genuine boners in any (white or asian) man.

The green line — inner beauty — is also adjusted to more accurately portray what’s going on with the average woman’s personality as she ages. This one is trickier to pin down than physical beauty, so I’ll explain.

A woman’s “internal attractiveness” covers a lot of territory, but if we are concerned with how she’ll fare romantically then we can pare back the number of relevant personality and temperament dimensions to only those that will contribute to, or subtract from, her dating or marital success. When it comes to “inner beauty”, the female traits that matter are those traits that men find delightful about women’s nonsexual (and sometimes sexual) company. This would include:

Her cheerfulness.
Her kindness.
Her submissiveness (to a greater or lesser degree).
Her coyness (suitably circumscribed).
Her fidelity (slutty aggressiveness has a short shelf life).
Her mothering instinct (does she love animals and children?).
Her gratitude (does she laugh at your jokes and swoon for your kingly mercies?).
Her femininity (does she love your teasing, return the favor, and do it all with a sparkle in her eyes?).
Her focused desire (she is desirous of you, and no other man).
Her patience (she warmly tolerates your masculine eccentricities).
Her self-restraint (she doesn’t nag).

The new and improved green “inner beauty” line closely follows the red “outer beauty” line. This is no coincidence. A woman is most charming when she’s happiest, and a woman is happiest when she’s most desired by men and feels most womanly.

There’s a slight lag in personality development. Generally, women blossom physically before their femininity matures. There’s a bit of catching up to do to the reality that her body inflames the ardor of young and old men alike. But indiscriminate male ardor can also harden the prettier women who come to learn the art of ice queen coldness as a deterrent to mistaken intentions. Thus, the peak of female inner beauty is short-lived, typically occurring during the mid-20s, after she has mastered her feminine wiles but before any single lady bitchiness has robbed some of her charm.

Inner beauty is a moving target and highly susceptible to changes in a woman’s relationship status. Women who ride the 20s-early 30s cock carousel, or who are out of committed relationships more than they’re in them, will succumb to the call of the bitch. Their femininity will disappear under a bunker of nastiness and bitterness. This is why women’s inner beauty line collapses faster than their outer beauty line: If we are talking about a woman’s LTR or marital prospects, then desperation-fueled bitchiness will betray her state of mind before her body betrays her state of hind.

Women who do the smart thing and lock down a man at their beauty peaks (early-mid 20s) won’t have this issue of rapidly deteriorating inner beauty, at least not with the same intensity undergone by unattached women. They will have started families and their happiness will become contingent on their wife and motherhood experiences more than their romantic allure.

That caveat aside, all women, no matter their marital or familial status, will suffer a cratering of inner beauty as their outer beauty abandons them. No one relishes the prospect of aging and body decomposition, but the travail affects women more deeply as they are the sex for whom youthful vainglory is most conspicuously allied with their fortunes of romance. By age 50, a woman will have lost most of that feminine charm she had as a 20-year-old vixen. This fact of womanhood is IQ-independent.

But it never bottoms out like her physical beauty. Past age 50, a woman becomes matronly, finally surrendering the last of her dreams of sultry attractiveness for the serene reality of her asexual, swaddling bosom. At this stage, a woman can jettison the feminine for the grandmotherly and substitute one set of happy personality traits for another. The older woman will never be as scintillating as her young self, but she can be pleasant company, rife with stories and disregard for restricting social etiquette, helped to fruition by the specter of sex banished to fond memory. Thus, a woman at age 70 can be as charming as she was at age 13. Peculiarly, at each end of life, a woman’s asexual allure converges onto a similar precociousness and innocence.

There was no need to draw a revised combined female attractiveness line. Women’s physical beauty is 9/10s of the Wall. Her inner beauty counts for something, particularly when that something is a man’s decision to long-term commitment, but as a factor under consideration by men it hardly budges her outer beauty curve in a more “age-appropriate” direction. The best you can say about women’s inner beauty is that it can bump up female SMV a half point, perhaps a full point as you get into the rarefied air of 8s and higher. (This latter phenomenon is what I call the “Oh shit, she’s hot AND sane!” lottery win.)

These are unkind truths, but they need telling, now more than ever in this time of delusional freaks vomiting their mental disease through every available medium. A woman who does not square up and accept this reality about her inevitable and all-too-swift sex-specific attractiveness decline is setting herself up for an unhappiness far more profound and entrenched than any fleeting discomfort from reading the Rude Word of Heartiste.

Read Full Post »

An Atlantic tweenzine article by Conor Friedersdorf — you may remember tiny prancer Conor from his time in the spotlight as a Chateau Heartiste peeñata — grapples with the blowback from California’s new “affirmative-consent” law, the insane, human nature-denying law favored by ugly feminists who want to make romantic pleasure as difficult as possible for men and pretty women to experience.

Friedersdorf passes along a testimonial from a CA male student who attempted to comply with the law by asking women for explicit verbal consent during each stage of the courtship. You can imagine the thousand points of love that bloomed.

Dear Conor,

I am a recent graduate, and want to share with you a few of my experiences that I think are illustrative of why the new affirmative-consent laws are out of touch with the reality of the human experience. I hope they can be of some value to the debate.

I was raised by a left-leaning, feminist family who (at least I thought at the time) were relatively open about sex.

One thing you have to understand about lefties, particularly the white variety: They are the biggest prudes on the planet. The only difference between them and the evangelicals they love to hate are the target vices of their self-righteousness.

But while I arrived at college with a healthy respect for women, I was totally unprepared for the complex realities of female sexuality.

CH needs to reach more men before the manlet cancer metastasizes.

“Oh,” sighed one platonic female friend after we had just watched Harrison Ford grab Alison Doody and kiss her is Indiana Jones and theLast Crusade, “Why don’t guys do that kind of thing anymore? Now days they are all too scared.”

Threatening to toss men before a tribunal for busting a move might dampen their enthusiasm. I mean, I’m not connecting too many dots here.

On our second night together, one of my first partners threw up her hands in disgust. “How am I supposed to get turned on when you keep asking for permission for everything like a little boy?” She said. “Just take me and fuck me already.”

She didn’t stay with me for long.

Alert the media.

This would be a recurring theme. More than once I saw disappointment in the eyes of women when I didn’t fulfill the leadership role they wanted me to perform in the bedroom. I realized that women don’t just desire men, they desire men’s desire―and often they don’t want to have to ask for it.

A woman who has to ask for a man’s desire can never trust him. Once the seed of distrust is planted, it grows and chokes the life out of every interaction.

I also realized that I was in many ways ashamed of my own sexual desire as a man, and that this was not healthy.

Walk with your cock leading the way. Women love men who are proud of their tumescent entitlement. This is perhaps the hardest lesson for constitutional weaklings to assimilate. It cuts against a lifetime of assuming the rump-up position appeasing their betters.

At this point I was experiencing some cognitive dissonance with my upbringing, but in time learned to take an assertive lead unless I got a “no” or otherwise thought I was about to cross a boundary as indicated by body language.

One night I ended up back in a girl’s room after a first date (those do happen in college). She had invited me in and was clearly attracted to me. We were kissing on her bed, outer layers of clothing removed, but when my hands wandered downward she said, “No, wait.” I waited. She began kissing me again, passionately, so again I moved to remove her underwear. “Stop,” she said, “this is too fast.” I stopped.

“That’s fine,” I said. I kissed her again and left soon after, looking forward to seeing her again.

Interestingly, leaving a woman in the lurch of lust is not a guaranteed clit-killer. Off the tongue of a skilled vagician, a takeaway of this style could incite a girl to a higher plane of ecstasy.

But my text messages received only cold, vaguely angry replies, and then silence.

He still had her at angry (the opposite of indifference), but he lost her by the time silence rolled in to steal the show.

I was rather confused. Only many weeks later did I find out the truth from one of her close friends: “She really wanted you, but you didn’t make it happen. She was pretty upset that you didn’t really want her.”

“Why didn’t she just say so then, why did she say we were moving too fast?”

Much to learn, he has…

“Of course she said that, you dumbass. She didn’t want you to think she was a slut.”

The liberal male rationalization hamster is almost as swole as the generic female hamster.

Talk about confusing. Apparently in this case even no didn’t mean no. It wasn’t the last time I’ve come across “token resistance” that is intended to be overcome either. But that’s a line that I am still uncomfortable with testing, for obvious reasons.

Men are the risk-taking sex. It’s biologically ordained. And so women expect men to push the envelope. When a man fails to do that, she’ll wonder what other chances at greatness he’ll choose to decline.

But I have learned not to ask when it clearly isn’t necessary, or desired.

One of my fondest sexual experiences started with making eye contact across a room, moved to a dance floor, and then to an empty bathroom. Not a single word was ever spoken, because none had to be. We both knew and understood. I was a man and she was a woman, and we found ourselves drawn together in that beautiful way that men and women have been since a time immemorial, a time long before language was ever spoken.

Today in California this would be considered rape. I find that very sad. Women are not infantile. They can make their own decisions about sex, and that includes being able to say no―even if they don’t want to have to say yes.

Regards,

Anonymous

Either women are infantile, or they’re adults with agency. If the former, then they need to be treated like infants across the board. This would include removing their right to vote or divorce without cause. If the latter, then these feminist-inspired policies and laws need to be trashed. That means Title IX, affirmative action, and all the rest of the “level playing field aka anti-white male” nonsense must go.

Affirmative-consent laws are in practice Affirmative Resentment laws, because a woman will resent any man who seriously abides a law that requires him to ask her permission to crave and profane her body. Even feminist slags with a two-ton chip on their shoulders will be unable to control feelings of revulsion toward men who accept their demands for slavish foreplay petitions.

Read Full Post »

A slew of eye-tracking heatmaps reveal some very interesting sex differences in subconscious desire, (as well as revealing optimum product positioning, which come to think of it is related to the former).

In the above map we see that men’s gazes focused on the woman’s face and body (and less so on the surrounding details). Women were more interested in the photo’s context, but they didn’t gaze any less at the model’s face and body. (It even looks like women spent *more* time checking out their competition.) Conclusion: Women objectify women as much as men do.

Similar results here. Women aren’t blind to other women’s beauty. Or their shoes. (Men, as per cultural stereotype, don’t give a shit about a hot babe’s choice of footwear.)

Here are two online dating profiles. The left profile is female, the right male. Eye tracking shows that men and women viewers gaze for a long time at the female profile’s face. The male profile photo, in contrast, hardly gets any attention, from either sex! More attention is paid to his background information, aka his story and his identity.

Eye gaze experiments provide strong evidence that a woman’s sexual market value is primarily a function of her looks, while a man’s SMV is multivariate. Women’s attraction triggers are holistic. Women will subconsciously measure and judge a host of personality, psychological, and contextual characteristics of a man before their arousal has solidified into conscious desire.

Because I know it drives certain spergalicious Rainmen crazy, once more with the slash of the shiv:

Maxim #5:  A man’s looks don’t matter as much to women as a woman’s looks matter to men.

Men who grasp the innate truth of the above maxim will do better with women than men who give up all hope because they are sad their jawlines are 0.1 micrometers too narrow.

***

Taking bets now on how many bitter quasimodos and Tinder sluts with poor reading comprehension show up here to ragefroth after ignoring the part that says “as much”.

Read Full Post »

It’s becoming clearer with every close examination of the subject that online dating is a poor facsimile of real world dating. The latest social science shows that the Dunbar number — 150, the number of people of varying acquaintance an average person could reasonably manage in his social circle — doesn’t increase on social media virtual networks. In fact, the evidence suggests that online social networks degrade the quality of our more intimate inner circle relationships because we devote more of our mental energy to maintaining connections with distant people.

With social media, we can easily keep up with the lives and interests of far more than a hundred and fifty people. But without investing the face-to-face time, we lack deeper connections to them, and the time we invest in superficial relationships comes at the expense of more profound ones. We may widen our network to two, three, or four hundred people that we see as friends, not just acquaintances, but keeping up an actual friendship requires resources. “The amount of social capital you have is pretty fixed,” Dunbar said. “It involves time investment. If you garner connections with more people, you end up distributing your fixed amount of social capital more thinly so the average capital per person is lower.” If we’re busy putting in the effort, however minimal, to “like” and comment and interact with an ever-widening network, we have less time and capacity left for our closer groups. Traditionally, it’s a sixty-forty split of attention: we spend sixty per cent of our time with our core groups of fifty, fifteen, and five, and forty with the larger spheres. Social networks may be growing our base, and, in the process, reversing that balance.

Close real world friendships suffer when we whore for attention on Facebook from people we hardly know. It’s similar to how multitasking and clickbait internet distractions corrode our mental ability to focus deeply on a single topic. Our intimate relations and our creativity are both sacrificed in this new world mordor.

On an even deeper level, there may be a physiological aspect of friendship that virtual connections can never replace. This wouldn’t surprise Dunbar, who discovered his number when he was studying the social bonding that occurs among primates through grooming. Over the past few years, Dunbar and his colleagues have been looking at the importance of touch in sparking the sort of neurological and physiological responses that, in turn, lead to bonding and friendship. “We underestimate how important touch is in the social world,” he said. With a light brush on the shoulder, a pat, or a squeeze of the arm or hand, we can communicate a deeper bond than through speaking alone. “Words are easy. But the way someone touches you, even casually, tells you more about what they’re thinking of you.”

Once again, a game concept — this time, kino and the art of touching and physical escalation — is corroborated by ❤science❤. A player will communicate a lot of his sexual intention nonverbally, through escalating violations of his quarry’s personal space. If he is skilled, the woman will respond to his touches with intensifying attraction, and erotic thoughts will sabotage her efforts at studied indifference. This tension is what will make her seduction so memorable for her in days, and maybe years, to come.

One concern, though, is that some social skills may not develop as effectively when so many interactions exist online. We learn how we are and aren’t supposed to act by observing others and then having opportunities to act out our observations ourselves. We aren’t born with full social awareness, and Dunbar fears that too much virtual interaction may subvert that education. “In the sandpit of life, when somebody kicks sand in your face, you can’t get out of the sandpit. You have to deal with it, learn, compromise,” he said. “On the internet, you can pull the plug and walk away. There’s no forcing mechanism that makes us have to learn.” If you spend most of your time online, you may not get enough in-person group experience to learn how to properly interact on a large scale—a fear that, some early evidence suggests, may be materializing.

Thin-skinned, infantile, tantrum throwing, socially retarded internet SJWs explained. A little bit of pushback, and your typical online male feminist or fatty apologist shrieks in horror and promptly retreats to the comfort of a two liter Mountain Dew with a side of Cheetos.

“It’s quite conceivable that we might end up less social in the future, which would be a disaster because we need to be more social—our world has become so large” Dunbar said. The more our virtual friends replace our face-to-face ones, in fact, the more our Dunbar number may shrink.

Online dating is the perfect match for our sperged-out, credentialist suck-up culture. Static photos, a CV, and all the nuance, grace, subtle physical cues, playful expressions, and sexual tension stripped from the initial courtship maneuverings are exactly what America’s fearful androgynes want. It’s a world perfectly crafted by, or perfectly symptomatic of, the sexually neutered and psychologically withered beta males and the aggro, unfeminine, ego-salving bloat bodies that pass for females. There is even evidence now that relationships which form from meeting online are more likely to break up.

Call me old school, but I prefer meeting and seducing women in the flesh, where the pleasant discomfort of the moment can’t be escaped, our stats can’t be aridly collated and perused, my probing hands can’t be evaded, my warm smirk can’t be missed, my wordless entendres can’t be mistaken. The incitement and sustenance of a woman’s romantic attraction demands a… personal touch.

Read Full Post »

In a word: Credentialism.

Credentialism, as defined by CH, is a system where the signaling value of a credential exceeds the content value of the acquired knowledge implied by the credential.

Keep this definition in mind, because it will explain a lot about the shortcomings of assortative mating data.

Assortative mating is the theory that people pair up according to social class, which in modern America is nearly synonymous with educational class. Proponents of assortative mating theory speculate that a cognitive elite — and perhaps soon a racial elite — is evolving from the observed mate choices of the upper classes to marry solely among themselves. Sort of like an “educated class inbreeding”. The mechanism by which educated class inbreeding happens is through meeting one’s mate on college campus, or later at the office or within social circles, both of which tend to be segregated by smarts and its proxy, college degree.

The more generations that pass through the filter of selective breeding for credentials, the likelier that a distinct race of übermensch becomes a permanent piece of the American social scene. A Bindi-style caste system is not far behind.

The flaw in assortative mating theory lies in its major premise: That credentials are as accurate a gauge of smarts and knowledge and social class now as they were in the past.

There’s no doubt women have flooded academia, and now outnumber men on campus by a nontrivial margin.

The fact that the female representation in college has risen so dramatically in such a short time period tells us that genetics are not the driving factor. Women did not suddenly become smarter, nor did they become smarter than men, during their rise to higher ed prominence. No, what happened instead is one-parent families became unaffordable in The Disunited States of Diversity, and, more pertinently, the average college degree lost a lot of its value.

Crudely, women have flooded into college to earn shit degrees like Communications, English, Education, and Women’s Studies.

Liberal arts degrees are useless degrees, because everything you’d wind up doing in a cubicle job with such a degree can be learned in two weeks if you have half a brain. In fact, these degrees are worse than useless, because they saddle women with a mountain of debt that they must pay off by marrying in their dried-up 30s a no-game-having, scarcity-mentality, provider beta male.

The uselessness of humanities degrees to real world value creation is exacerbated by the diversity industrial memeplex, which has further eroded the college cachet by the necessity of dumbing down and grade inflating the degree programs that vibrant students swarm into on the largesse of creator class endowment money.

What you are staring at is the twisted face of credentialism, the college debt racket and status whore end game that proves nothing except that women can be gifted conformist suck-ups in the stampede to earn a parchment declaring them competent at arranging client meetings, thinking inside the box, and mingling with white collar men who satisfy their hypergamous desire.

Empty, status striving credentialism is the reason assortative mating theory is flawed. Men and women aren’t matching up by IQ or class; they’re matching up by credential. Except that, on average, the men’s degrees are actually worth the paper they’re printed on.

Assortative credentialism is the more precise term for the marriage trend that we observe took off after women stormed the campus citadel. Conflating runaway credentialism with IQ misses the fact that today’s paper pushing woman with a communications degree was yesterday’s equally competent secretary with a high school degree, and perhaps even yesteryear’s farmhand mother with sharp instincts for survival.

So there will be no genetic überwench class. This isn’t to say an evolved cognitive elite is impossible; rather, what appears to be happening is less IQ stratification than a perverse reiteration of the patented CH BOSSS (Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy) sexual market mechanism to reduce wealth and class inequality. The high school grad secretary of yore has been replaced by the college grad secretary of today. And as long as she stays thin and pretty, she’ll catch the eye of that high status man, and GSS data will erroneously pick this up as mate sorting primarily based on college experience or IQ.

There’s another flawed premise bedeviling assortative mating theory: It’s not really assortative MATING as much as it is assortative MARRYING. Whatever marriage trends we see between degreed SWPL women marrying degreed SWPL men are happening later and later in life, late 20s to early 30s. But before then, during those prime female nubility late teens and 20s, marriage rates are low among the “inbred educated class”. However, women aren’t waiting fifteen years in stark celibacy before assortatively marrying. There’s plenty of Pill and rubberized reproduction-thwarted mating going on between ages 15 and 30. The mating is what really animates men, moreso than the marrying. And women *are* assortatively mating, if by assortative we mean women are choosing to fuck sexy alpha cads who aren’t interested in footing the living expenses bills for women with feminist studies expertise who delight at the prospect of earning a paycheck to throw back mimosa-fueled single lady brunches.

Like I’ve said, it’s no coincidence that charismatic jerkboy game rose to prominence at the same time female college attendance and credentialism skyrocketed.

UPDATE

Audacious Epigone adds his pence to the assortative marrying topic.

Read Full Post »

An interesting paper explored predictors of marital infidelity. From the abstract:

This paper explores the cross-cultural prevalence and predictors of extramarital sexual fulfillment and in doing so tests some predictions derived from evolutionary considerations. Although most adults, across cultures, believe that infidelity, particularly by the female, is ‘wrong’ and infidelity is often the cause of divorce and violence, the behavior is widespread. Evolutionists have noted various fitness advantages to be gained from sexual infidelity. With such a strong theoretical base for specific predictions about infidelity, it is surprising that few conclusions can be drawn about the predictors of the behavior in married couples. Our study of married couples from China, Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) revealed that love of the spouse, frequency of finding non-partners attractive, and self-reported extramarital sexual fulfillment of the spouse predicted frequency of sexual fulfillment outside of marriage. Cultural similarities and differences are discussed.

Heads up, beta males:

If your wife’s love is gone ==> cheating whore.
If your wife works in en environment filled with alpha males ==> cheating whore.
If your wife has cheated before ==> recursive cheating whore.

Infidelity of the wife has been reported to be the most common reason married couples divorce cross-culturally (Betzig, 1989).

A woman’s infidelity is a far worse infraction than a man’s infidelity, for the simple reason that a woman could bring home the concealed seedling of her extramarital lover, while a man would bring home nothing except perhaps perfume on his shirt collar or, if he chose unwisely, the clap. Plus, a cheating woman is unlikely to be able to emotionally compartmentalize her bifurcated love life in the way that cheating men are able to do; an affair by the wife is often a harbinger for divorce theft. An affair by the husband is a harbinger for his better health. These kinds of sexual double standards are an emergent property of immutable biological nature and are never going away.

The adverse fitness consequences of being a victim of the wife’s infidelity are indicated by the accompanying negative affect. In most cultures, a cuckold is ashamed (Freedman, 1967) and may be ridiculed. A strong predictor of low self-esteem in US husbands was perceived and/or actual infidelity of the wife; suspected or actual infidelity of the husband was not a significant predictor of wives’ self-esteem.

When wives cheat, it is a direct refutation of their husband’s SMV, and the low self-esteem of cuckolds confirms this reality. When husbands cheat, it may or may not be a refutation of their wive’s SMV, as men often cheat because they had the option to do so and sexual variety for its own sake is pleasing to men. (Women will never understand this: Men have strong desires for sex with a lot of different, physically attractive and nubilely fertile women. The reason most men don’t act on this male-centric desire is because they can’t. Lack of options = relationship stability.) The lesser impact of husbands’ cheating on their wive’s self-esteem testifies to this biomechanical reality.

From the paper, other predictors of infidelity:

Maleness (ha!).
Permissive sexual values.
Premarital sexual activity.
Premarital cohabitation.
Previous divorce.
Low conscientiousness, narcissistic, and psychopathic women (ha ha!) are prone to infidelity.

(Women’s physical attractiveness was NOT a predictor of female infidelity. Most likely what this study has picked up is the fact that very attractive married women are hitched to high SMV men, so there are few alternative options that could effectively compete with the husbands of these women. The temptation for wives of high value husbands to cheat is weaker than it would be for wives of low value husbands.)

Socially dominant men and men high in resources tend to be unfaithful. (Options = instability.)

Low paternal investment and female economic independence are predictors of female infidelity. Quote:

For example, in matrilineal societies paternal investment typically is low, often giving rise to the avunculate, and infidelity and divorce tend to be common (Daly & Wilson, 1983; van den Berghe, 1979). Similarly, where the wife is relatively independent economically of the husband, marital bonds tend to be weak (Friedl, 1975; Goode, 1993; Seccombe & Lee, 1987) and infidelity by the wife is common.

Holy shit. Where have you read this sort of analysis before? What outpost of realtalk first pricked your ears with dulcet notes from the sexual market symphony?

Marital and sexual dissatisfaction are associated with infidelity.
Separate personal and occupational lives are associated as well. (Co-workers are a big threat to marital faithfulness.)

There’s a paragraph about “cads” versus “dads” life histories and its relation to infidelity:

Marital satisfaction and commitment have been associated with adopting a long-term, or slow, life history strategy (Olderbak & Figueredo, 2010), which presumably would reduce the incidence of infidelity. Possibly relevant here is the distinction between high-testosterone “cad” males who exert more short-term mating effort–seeking extramarital partners–and lower-testosterone “dad” males who are more uxorious and paternally inclined (Booth & Dabbs, 1993; Dabbs, 1992) . But “dad” males tend to earn more money and stray less, whereas Atkins et al. reported the opposite relationship between income and infidelity. Higher-income, economically independent spouses were more likely to stray (Atkins et al., 2001). Perhaps men may stray if their wealth makes them attractive or if they neglect their jobs to pursue extramarital affairs. The key for wives may be their financial independence.

Wealth and “romantic ambition” (game) are male attractiveness cues. For women, financial self-sufficiency makes them less attracted to provider beta males (dads) and more likely to risk marital disruption with alpha cad lovers.

As predicted, in all five cultures men reported greater extramarital sexual fulfillment than women. The sex difference on this variable is in agreement with men’s desire for sexual variety, and these findings are consistent with previous reports on various cultures.

Men dig lotsa twatas.

Two US historical trends do emerge from the Laumann data: wives have gained on husbands in engaging in extramarital sexual fulfillment, and infidelity per year of marriage has risen.

American women: Becoming more like non-American men by the day. (American men are becoming bronies.)

There was substantial cultural variability in frequency of reported infidelity, possibly due to a host of factors including economic state of the country, financial interdependence of the couple, financial independence of the wife, degree of wealth inequality among men, the sex ratio, sex role norms varying from liberal to conservative, and translation differences. The liberal wording of the question in the Chinese sample has been mentioned as an example of the last factor.

This fact, coupled with the practice of spouses sometimes living in separate cities for employment purposes, could at least partially explain why the infidelity rates of the Chinese are higher than those of Turkey, the UK and US.

Absence makes the cock go wander.

Similarly, the higher rate of infidelity in Russia compared to the other samples may in part be attributed to difficulty encountered by estranged couples in being able to afford divorce and/or in securing separate living quarters. Such people sometimes carry on with a spouse and family while having long-term extramarital affairs.

Russian men = alpha. Or is it the women?

Three consistent cross-cultural predictors of infidelity emerged for men and women: (a) love, (b) finding non-partners attractive, and (c) extramarital sexual fulfillment of the spouse. Men place physical attractiveness at or near the top of the list of characteristics sought in short and long-term mates, while women also value physical attractiveness in a potential mate, but place less of an emphasis on it compared with other criteria (e.g., Buss, 1989; Lippa, 2009).

One of the biggest myths believed by both red and blue pill adherents is that women value male looks as much as men value female looks.

We expected that attractive men and women would exhibit more infidelity because of their higher mate value. Previous US research has indicated that this is true of men but not women. However, we found that men’s perceiving themselves as attractive was not a consistent predictor of infidelity. Only US men who regarded themselves as attractive reported more infidelity.

My take on this result: Non-US men with high mate value are paired off with high mate value slender women, and so don’t feel as great an urge to cheat. US men with high mate value are stuck married to land whales and careerist shrikes, and cheat to alleviate their seven-minute itch.

Previous research has not indicated that attractive women engage in more infidelity; if anything, the reverse may be true.

Couple of reasons for this seemingly counter-intuitive finding: 1. High SMV women are better able to secure commitment from alpha males, and thus feel less compulsion to seek alpha male lovers on the side. 2. More attractive women feel less need for external validation from men in the form of sex and attention than do women of mediocre attractiveness, who require constant reassurance of their desirability.

Whether or not one sought sexual fulfillment outside the marriage seemed mainly to reflect amorousness toward the spouse, attractiveness of potential partners, plus the particular appeal of sexual variety to men.

Beta males rationalizing their lack of mate options as a virtue, women who project the peculiarities of their female desire onto men, and ugly feminists who loathe male desire are all disposed to misunderstand, underestimate, and disparage the natural male hunger for multitudinous pussy.

This corroborates the notion that evaluation of the mate continues into marriage, because the relative attractiveness of competing potential partners remains salient to most men and women even if they are not engaged in extramarital sex.

Marriage is no escape from the sexual market.

Kenrick and Gutierres (1980) found that men exposed to very attractive women (e.g., centerfolds, television stars) rated the attractiveness of average women lower than men who had not been exposed to the highly attractive females.

There’s a reason newlywed wives rush their husbands out to the suburbs and away from the fresh meat of the cities. It isn’t just about good schools.

Our own data show an inverse relationship between love for one’s spouse and finding others attractive, as well as between love of one’s spouse and extramarital sexual fulfillment.

Marry for love; it’s good insurance against divorce theft.

(Have you ever noticed that when you’re deeply in love with a woman, at least at the beginning, that all other women no matter how beautiful kind of recede into the background like corporate artwork?)

Infidelity and the potential resulting birth of a child carry long-term consequences for fitness and therefore are unlikely to reflect shifting environmental conditions as strongly as the quality of the mate.

The sexual market is the ur-market, most ancient and powerful. Environmental pressures would need to be severe and sustained to cause widespread shifts in sexual choices.

Another formidable factor might be infidelity of the spouse, which would pose the threat of desertion and might precipitate undertaking the countermeasure of seeking a new mate. If marriage is essentially a reproductive union [ed: changing now that gay marriage has been granted equivalent status], one would expect that sexual and amorous attraction would loom large in guiding marital behavior. The high correlations consistently obtained between sexual and marital satisfaction attest to the joint importance of these affinities.

Hot sex = warm love. And hot women = hot sex. Therefore…

Read Full Post »

If all you had to go on was a couple’s photo together, could you predict the man’s romantic future? Exhibit Gay:

Men made aware of the sexual market undercurrent propelling each person through superficially detached life events woven into a unified whole by the prime directive could glance at this photo and know in an instant, based on nothing but body language cues, the fate of this happy couple.

There is, of course, the obvious. Mixed-race couples tend to fair poorer than same-race couples. And he looks forty years older than her.

But beyond those black and white monochromatic signatures, there are almost equally telling giveaways in his and her body postures that predict their marital fortune. He grasps her with fearful possessiveness. He leans into her like a human Pisa tower. Her smile is all show, no glow. Her dead eyes reveal her emotional distance. Worse, and most humorously, her head has craned away from his head at an angle that precisely mirrors his neck crick. She checked out of this lovely scene long before the camera flashed.

Can you predict his romantic future from this photo? Take a guess before reading further.

.

.

.

.

She willingly stayed married to him for 20 minutes after her green card cleared.

Beta males need to learn game and to hear non-nonsense talk about the differing nature of the sexes so that they can spot the clues early in a relationship or even during a first date that a woman isn’t as enamored of them as they are of her. This bracing acceptance of reality would save them time, energy, money, and heartache, and most crucially save them the accumulating bitterness that is inevitably projected onto future women who may be good for them.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,035 other followers

%d bloggers like this: