Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”

 

Read Full Post »

Study of the Year material here. You’ll laugh, you’ll nod knowingly, you’ll thank god you weren’t born in Kenya.

The prevalence of extra-marital partnerships among women was 6.2% within a reference time of six months. Factors that were independently associated with increased likelihood of extra-marital partnerships were domestic violence (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI 1.09–1.92), women reporting being denied a preferred sex position (aOR, 3.34; 95% CI 1.26–8.84) and spouse longer erect penis (aOR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.00–1.78). Conversely, women’s age – more than 24years (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI 0.14–0.78) and women’s increased sexual satisfaction (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.96) were associated with reduced likelihood of extra-marital partnerships.

Domestic violence, denial of a preferred sex positions, longer erect penis, younger age and increased sexual satisfaction were the main predictors of women’s involvement in extra-marital partnerships. Integration of sex education, counselling and life skills training in couple HIV prevention programs might help in risk reduction.

The first positive predictor of cheating whoredom — domestic violence — is likely mixing up cause and effect. Husbands who think they’ve been cuckolded by slutty wives are more likely to lash out violently to keep them in line. The rest are both predictable and hilarious. Women not getting off with their husbands cheat more. No surprise. Younger women with more sexual market options cheat more. Again, no surprise to any guest of Le Chateau.

The longer penis association with wifely infidelity is way out of left field. Apparently, penile enlargement remedies are a big thing (heh) in Kenya. But their women canna only take so much, captain!

“…some penis may be large yet my vagina is small, when he tries to insert it inside, it hurts so much that I will have to look for another man who has a smaller one [penis] and can do it in a way I can enjoy”

Are monster dicks more of a visual turn-on for women than a tactile turn-on? (Personal CH experience wielding the boomstick says both.) Or are black women as tight as Chinese finger trap?

The study also points up the importance of keeping your wife sexually satisfied if you don’t want her dreaming of trysts in the tall brown bush (heh!).

“Some [men] just take a minute and leaves you there when you are still ‘hanging’… You cannot even tell if this thing is over or still continuing. Sometime we arent satisfied yet we cant explain it [to our partners]. However, when we get men who can satisfy us, we do not waste such chances. For a woman to be ready and get sexual satisfaction usually takes time. Yet he has some high sexual desire and can just finish very fast before you understand how. We are left wondering and can be very happy if we can get someone who can do it better and makes you feel that your body is satisfied. I can just continue with him because his sex is sweet and your husband can then do it on short time basis”

So much for the myth of black male sexual prowess. To be fair, Kenyans are only one type of black. Maybe West Africans can go all night. Gotta love that wife’s rationalization for her cheating: “My lover has a slow hand, which gives me many orgasms so that I’m spent and don’t feel like demanding too much from my two-pumps-and-done husband.”

AIDS is rife in Kenya. Not coincidentally, 6.2% of Kenyan wives cheated within the study’s time span of six months. That’s actually a formidable number when you consider that Kenyan men are world-class cheaters. Add up all the dalliances and condom refusals and it’s no wonder Africa is getting the HIV shiv.

Read Full Post »

As reported by NPR (I’m sure with gritted teeth), a Pew Study finds

that the milliennial generation has a low level of social trust. There are several possible causes for this distrust, including a skewed social media culture and a faltering economy. [...]

One explanation for this, the study suggests, is growing racial diversity – 43 percent of millennial adults are non-white, making this the most diverse generation in America.

Holy macaroni! Is the SPWL stronghold of NPR about to grapple with the CH aphorism “diversity + proximity = war“?

She says, minority groups have long had low levels of social trust.

CAMILLE LEAK: I think that, ultimately, it stems from their history of having to deal with persecution and discrimination, whether in their personal lives or within the business setting. [...]

Leak suggests that the Internet itself is another reason millennials are so distrustful.

LEAK: I mean, there’s a reason why catfish is now a verb.

Ah, no. This being NPR, leftoid headquarters, the bleeding obvious escapes them. Social distrust can’t be up because diversity is making the full court press and severing ethnocentric communal bonds. No no, it has to be white privilege, persecution, or the internet. Hey guess what? I’ll add another theory to the mix that’s no less nebulous and unfalsifiable than the catch-all assertion of white privilege: Dissembling media leftoids are causing the rise in social distrust.

So who’s the one in five that says, yeah, people can be trusted? Sara Bakken’s one of them. She lives in South Dakota. She says, if she were to meet someone on the street, chances are, she could trust them.

South Dakota is 84% white, 21% higher than the national average.

Camille Leak says, low levels of social trust shouldn’t be mistaken for a pessimistic world view.

LEAK: It’s just being savvy and being realistic, and I think that’s what it is for a lot of millennials. It’s not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It’s about being realistic.

Do Millennials strike you as hard-headed realists? Maybe they are when they aren’t whining about microaggressions or the patriarchy or extolling the artistry of anime.

Despite this lack of trust, the study says, the millennial generation is the most upbeat about the future of the country.

“The basis of optimism is sheer terror.”
- Oscar Wilde

There was one other interesting tidbit to come out of the study:

Within the millennial generation in particular, multicultural consumers have a much higher level of influence on their non-Hispanic white counterparts. So we’re seeing that even outside of areas like trust, non-Hispanic white millennials have begun to adopt certain multicultural [sic] behaviors or characteristics.

Translation: A drop of wine into sewage makes sewage. A drop of sewage into wine makes sewage.

Diversity + proximity = war. Keep saying it leftoids, until your heads explode scanners-style.

Read Full Post »

It was a brief vignette shoehorned into the end of the day that nonetheless attested to a meaningful psychological and social difference between the sexes.

I was walking

dislodging a buttplug

down a busy sidewalk when I noticed a young-ish black (and possibly gay) guy asking for high fives from passersby. He had something like a clipboard in his hand, but I wasn’t interested enough to determine whether he was a snazzily dressed street bum performing for loose change or a campaigner for some idiotic cause.

In the time it took me to first notice him and walk past him, three (white) women and two (white) men were accosted by his street performance shenanigans. As each neared, he would spit his loudmouthed pitch and histrionically hoist his hand for a high five. All three women complied, reaching upward to meet his hand with sheepish grins and blushing faces. The two men sneered or frowned and swerved away from his entreaties.

(If you’re wondering what I did, I didn’t swerve. I walked right into his jabber zone and right out of it without an iota of acknowledgment.)

The scene was a reminder how emotionally manipulable women are, compared to men. I’ve seen similar scenes unfold hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, and the same sex disparity in call-and-response emerges: Women are more apt to obey the commands of an annoying (if friendly) stranger than are men. This instinct is likely a property of women’s greater predilection for group cohesion and agreeableness, probably mixed in with some latent desire to submit to a man who’s large and in charge.

One reason game works so well on women has to do with their greater degree of emotional manipulability. A man who understands that women are more impressionable creatures who will reflexively follow strong leadership is a man who gets laid. Indecisive betas earn women’s disgust and cruelty; decisive (some would call “douchey”) alphas earn women’s love and respect.

Some game concepts, like calculated scarcity, are universal and will work, more or less, on both sexes. But women are much more susceptible to these unisex game techniques because of the nature of their paper-thin emotional defenses against such manipulation. This is how you know that the occasional dumbfuck female contrarian who comes on here to shriekishly assert how game works just as well on men is full of shit. Yes, some of these game tactics can work on men… weak beta men with dispositions not unlike that of women. In contrast, game works on all women, and works best, ironically, on the best-looking women.

Read Full Post »

A reader passes along research which discovered that river pollution — specifically, endocrine disrupting chemicals (which are found in everyday products such as pesticides, contraceptive pills and detergents) — in Spanish estuaries is feminizing the male fish.

Welly well, CH has been in front decrying a perceptible increase in Western male manboobery aka feminization. We are awash in male feminists, our culture is getting regressively scalzified, and that can’t be entirely chalked up to genes. Something befouls the pool of innate masculinity, turning once-proud penises inward and sacks upward.

Can we infer negative impacts of pollution on human males from male fish? I think we can, but further research will help clear this up. If it turns out pollution is a major cause of beta orbiters, male feminists, and other self-flagellating pudding pops, then Western technological civilization can rightly be accused of waging a war against men, and the war is going global.

And it’s a good bet that whatever’s feminizing men is also masculinizing women. Manjaws and narrow boy hips are everywhere, in case you haven’t noticed. American women are counting notches on their bedposts while American men are penning sappy paeans to pedestaled sluts.

One interesting angle to this “pollution makes manlets” research is that we can expect to find manlier (i.e. psychologically healthier) men where water and air pollution is lower. Now where would that be… rural areas? Low population density areas? You see where this is heading.

Rural red state good ol’ boys 8====D~~~ urban blue state SWPLs.

Read Full Post »

1. Girls love selfish badboys.

2. Nonconsensual erotic rape fantasies are more common among women than previously thought.

3. Girls love dominant men who take what they want.

4. Girls hate men who do as they’re told.

5. Girls hate sensitive, emotionally available men.

6. Girls love men who take charge.

7. Girls love it when men touch them without asking.

8. Girls love men with “appetitive-aggressive” tendencies.

Read Full Post »

Robert Cialdini is an expert in psychological manipulation, i.e., goal-oriented communication. (Something we all do, more or less successfully, whether we are aware of our own machinations or not.) He wrote the seminal book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. What you may not know is that Cialdini was, in many respects, a founding father of Game. He is cited by many well-regarded pickup artists, and his ideas, like “social proof”, percolate throughout the game literature. Game has had, from its inception. some pretty solid scientific, theoretical, and experiential backing.

Something else you probably don’t know: Cialdini was tapped, along with other renowned behavioral scientists, by the 2008 Obama campaign to help propel Obama to the highest office in the land.

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama’s campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. “BUT, BUT, BUT,” deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama’s GOTV operatives nationwide, “What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!”

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation’s leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: “A Record Turnout Is Expected.” That’s because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. “People want to do what they think others will do,” says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. “The Obama campaign really got that.”

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. “It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it,” Moffo tells TIME. “These guys really know what makes people tick.”

Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.

That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.

You can thank Game for our first two-term halfling SWPL President and the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy. Now, if Game can do that, imagine what it can do on bored girls at bars yearning for a little excitement in their lives.

Some have said the 21st Century will be the age of biology. I think what we are entering is the age of Orwellian mastery over human psychology. Scarily, the two might be related. The power to shape people’s opinions and emotions through mere word and expression, and guide them to actions they may not have taken otherwise, is reaching an apotheosis that could be magnified a thousandfold coupled with the power to alter people’s genetic architecture.

If your eyes are open, you don’t have to look far to see foreboding signs of this new age of the human aquarium rising into view. Unaccountable secret government agencies using the internet to “manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations”. Your webcam commandeered by shadowy operatives. Cameras on every street corner. Cathedralsourced slanderswarms of crimethinkers.

Cialdini’s name has been found in NSA documents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man himself is working for them.

Doubters can snark about “PUAs” to their hearts’ content, but the arc of recent history is proving that PUAs were at the leading edge all along. Will people listen only when it’s too late?

Read Full Post »

Commenter “H” passes along a quote from J. D. Unwin,

CH have you heard of J. D. Unwin? From wikipedia page: In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe….According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”

Unleashed female sexuality is great fun… while poolside lasts. But then a price must be paid, and that price is nothing less than civilization. Why are women primarily to blame? Because as the sexual gatekeepers, their lack of restraint is more destabilizing to societal prosperity. The female sex is, despite cultural pabulum to the contrary, the wilder sex.

Tragically (and this is one instance when the word tragic correctly applies), it would seem shining civilizations are doomed to eat and screw themselves to oblivion. Restraint — i.e., devotion to the gods of the copybook headings — leads to prosperity. Prosperity leads to liberality. Liberality leads to disintegration.

One can as successfully stop this civilizational cycle as one can stop the cycle of tides. So, you may as well clink a glass and enjoy the time you’ve got here.

Read Full Post »

Recall the CH extended definition of Game:

Applied charisma, i.e. psychological mastery over human perception.

This broader definition is important, because it clarifies to the lay reader the applicability to game to human interactions and pursuits other than those involving romantic gratification. For instance, notice the commonality between Poon Commandment V

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

…and the advice in this article to emulate the email habits of successful businessmen:

Want to get ahead? Emulate the super-successful and never send a long email. [...]

“For various reasons, short emails are more associated with people at the top of the food chain. If you also send short emails it puts you in the company of the decision-makers,” said Will Schwalbe, co-author with David Shipley of Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better. Short emails, he said, are “much more respectful of everyone’s time.” [...]

Writing short emails shows confidence in what you have to say.

It also shows high status. As in matters of the female heart, the person who invests less is admired/loved more. Replying with a shorter email than the one you receive will influence the perception of the person with whom you are communicating to presume your status as relatively higher than his or her own. This is because people instinctively infer, justifiably or not, that the lower investment party is less interested in seeking approval, and indifference to the approval of others is one signal of high value, particularly for men whose fitness — reproductive or otherwise — is determined in large measure by non-physical attributes.

Perception control is the energy source of game. It’s why overconfident men succeed with women just as they do in the world of business.

High status businessmen, like players who seem to have a supernatural pull over women, don’t get mired in long-winded transactions and deliberations with their customers/clients/love interests. They command respect and awe, and inspire curiosity, by holding back when others have an expectation or a desire for more, and by maintaining an emotional and social circumspection that entices estimation and affection.

Read Full Post »

What men are becoming:

What women are becoming:

something strange’s afoul in the land
when men are women and women men
a cataclysm in mind and soul
harbinger of deathly toll
these omens abound in plain sight
yet blind are we to our odd blight
our daughters’ wombs drying up
our sons’ spirits in a rut
our race teeters on the brink
of long decay and future bleak

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,949 other followers

%d bloggers like this: