Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

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 »

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!!!!

HE HAD INFLICTED ON HER!

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,994 other followers

%d bloggers like this: