Archive for the ‘Sluts’ Category

A distinct pleasure of being alive during the decline and fall of a Western world power is bearing witness to the technicolor debris that spins off of rapid cultural collapse. CougarLife.com is one such belch of asocial ejecta. The promo video is short and sweet, so recline poolside and sip your Molotai cocktail as CH presents to you a dating website dedicated to matching imminent Wall victims with inexperienced younger men hauling a knapsack of blue balls.

CougarLife.com’s catchphrase is “Meet divorcees, single moms, and sexy singles looking for a young stud!” (Studs are called “cubs” for female members trying to emulate Mrs. Robinson.)

The revelation in this cheesy ad is the surprising bounty of (unintentional) bracing truth. Of course, the truth is mixed in with a dollop of sophistic slop, but it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to uncover some timeless Heartistian shivs.

So let’s play a game. (“Let’s not and say we did”, says the recovering beta practicing his alpha chops.) Watch the vid, and list all the ways it conforms to sexual market realities. See if you found as many sterile Easter eggs as CH.





OK, here’s what I found.

1. Right out of the spinster gate, a roar of propaganda hits us. Few cougars are as Hand-Alternative-Threshold-Exceeded (HATE)* fuckable as porn star Julia Ann. Your typical cougar looks like this:

grandma why are you clawing my chest?

The Wall feasts most gluttonously on former beauties who never thought the day of reckoning would come. I’m not about to make an account to tally what kinds of mangy cougars are on offer, but I’d be surprised if Julia Ann quality cougars numbered more than 1 out of 100. 1 out of 1,000 might even be pushing the odds.

By way of comparison, your typical man — cub, as it were — who joins a dating site specializing in cougars, single moms, and divorcees looks like this:

it’s been ten years! my precious fell off.

2. “So are you tired of meeting the same types of girls in bars?” Translation from the cougarese: “So are you ready for an easier if less visually stimulating lay?”

3. Julia Ann shoves a sandwich in the face of a not particularly skinny younger woman, (the girl’s reply: “Ugh, meat!”), implying she needs to grow some curves. Notwithstanding the absurdity of the implication (the younger woman is far from anorexic), this amply demonstrates the anti-feminist ugly truth that women are other women’s most misogynistic enemies.

4. A younger woman snidely remarks on her date’s job as a “computer geek”. Julia Ann leans in (her giant tits leading the way) and reminds the girl she folds sweaters for a living. Awesome reframe… which would be far more useful to a man who wanted to knock down the self-esteem of a bona fide hottie a peg or two.

5. Older women may know what they want (“young guys”, according to our esteemed MILF, because apparently the older guys are too busy chasing younger women), but that doesn’t mean they automatically get it. The presumption that cougars can get sex when they want it from younger men rests on the unspoken premise that the kinds of men most likely to take up the offer are undersexed goons or desperate virgins. Or non-famous YOLO black guys. And even that low grade supply will get cut off once terminal Wall impact is achieved.

6. Younger woman (to her date): “Buy me a drink?” Cougar drop kicks her and assumes her place. She smiles at the man, “How about I buy *you* a drink?” This is just a plain admission that older women have to price themselves lower if they want a scrap of male attention that younger, hotter, tighter women take for granted. (Note: The guy sitting across from her doesn’t look all that young.)

A sexual landscape of prowling unmarried cougars, single moms, and divorcees forced into settling for two minutes of cartoon love with awkward dweebs ten beers deep is indicative of a fraying society. All boundaries are coming apart; the hedonist impulse is the last standing principle. Interestingly, CH not only predicted the rise of cougardom, we held it up as an ideal arrangement in an anarchic sex bazaar where the broken incels and insols pile higher than the 99% vacancy rate Burj. Neophyte beta males increasingly getting shut out of the sexual carnival can get their rocks (and their apprehensions) off in the dusty muffs of grateful cougars, while older, suaver players can scoop up the younger morsels for long time love.

*Hand-Alternative-Threshold-Exceeded (HATE) Fuckability is a simple concept: Given a den of cougars (or other category of mostly undesirable women) and a lack of better options, how many are more interesting to your penis than your crabbed hand? For most normal men with functioning self-esteems and some experience bedding younger women, there will hardly be more than a tiny fraction of cougars capable of stimulating arousal beyond that which can be accomplished with one’s hand and imagination. The few cougars that can outclass your hand are said to be HATE fucks.

The HATE fuck ratio is actually a very useful stat for measuring a man’s standards and discriminating taste (which, ultimately, are themselves contributing factors as well as conspicuous indicators of his overall SMV). For example, if urgency and circumstance dictate an opportunistic cost-free 30 second rutting, and you are willing to fuck one cougar in a roomful of one hundred stalking cougars, then your HATE fuck ratio is 1:100.

The higher your ratio, the lower your standards, and the more you hate yourself for requiring the shabby hole of a bottom shelf jezebel to alleviate your incel. That is the essence of the HATE fuck… a tepid squirt of pallid pleasure in exchange for your dignity and psychologically distressing confirmation that this is the best you might ever do.

Consider yourself lucky if you have a HATE fuck ratio of 1:100. Some omega males shuffle along this mortal coil carrying the burden of a 1:2 HATE fuck ratio. Imagine being that guy who surveys the wrinkled menu at a cougar convention or the buffet at a NAAFA mixer and thinks to himself, “Yeah, I’m desperate. I could make myself sexually available to at least half of these assembly line rejects.” If you’re that guy… WAYSA?

Read Full Post »

Sex survey accuracy is suspect because of “social expectation bias“, which influences sex survey participants to respond in the way they think is socially acceptable. Sex surveys are back in the news because word is getting out to the masses that recent survey data shows younger generations are having less sex, something that strikes people as odd given the current Western cultural climate of utter depravity.

But besides social expectation bias (and the verified observation that women tend to lie more than men on sex surveys), there is something else at play that corrupts social survey findings: The ambiguity of the terms being used on the surveys and in synopses of results.

For instance, what exactly does it mean to “have less sex”? Yes, it means numerically to have less frequent sex (say as measured on a per month basis), but the assumption then is that this means fewer partners. It doesn’t. It is possible, (in fact, as CH will argue, probable), that less sex means more partners.

Compare a 1950s 25-year-old woman to a 2014 25-year-old woman. If sex survey results are to be believed without qualification, that 1950s woman was sluttier; she had sex 6 times per month compared to the 4 times per month the 2014 woman is having. The unthinking reader may exclaim, “holy crap those 1950s housewives sure got around!”

Ah, but that’s where a little knowledge of the sexual market can help your powers of induction. A married, faithful 1950s housewife who deeply loved and admired her bring-home-the-bacon husband would welcome sex six times per month. She would be ravenous in the sack. A sexually voracious woman is not a slut unless she spreads her sexual voracity among many men.

Now fast forward to our 2014 Götterdämmerung sexual market. Our 25-year-old woman is not married, and she is not dependent on any man for her discretionary cash needs. She dates a lot, but needs at least three dates before having sex with a man. She had one long-term relationship in high school, but since then it’s been all short-term post-collegiate flings. She meets a new man she’d like to bang about once every four months, which means she endures long dry spells between dates. She has a lot of sex with a man after he’s stuck around for longer than three dates, but her dry spells mean that her average sex frequency is only four times per month. Her relationships usually top out at six months now, so although she has less sex than her 1950s counterpart, she is far sluttier, having amassed a lifetime partner count in the double digits.

The lesson of this post is that the only reliable way you’ll get accurate data on how many different dicks the typical American woman invites into her chamber of intercourse is by insect-sized drone spying on her and recording every moment of penetration. Otherwise, it’s just her word on a piece of paper, and that plus a buck will get you a buck.

Read Full Post »

The recently outed Duke porn whore Belle Knox (real name MIRIAM WEEKS) was interviewed by an intrepid CH reporter.

You can watch the interview here.

Ok, so she’s not much for words. Her mouth is busy doing other stuff. And yes, she really is a women’s studies major. Like millions of other women with useless degrees and six digit student loan debt, she had no choice but to turn to facial abuse porn to survive.

At least one member of her immediate family will self-deliver before the year is out, count on it.

ps MIRIAM WEEKS. She wants the publicity, she and her family will get the publicity, good and hard. I’m sure she can accommodate.

pps This story is less about MIRIAM WEEKS than it is about our leftoid, pozzed media who love to jam stories like these down everyone’s throat. I dunno, but I imagine in halcyon days of American yore a stone bold slut like MIRIAM WEEKS would be shunned by everyone, including the media, to live out her diseased days alone and isolated from normal human contact. She might not be a changed person, but the culture that enveloped her would be different. And what worse fate for the BPD attention whoring sociopathic slut than being utterly ignored?

pps I love that porn whores and obese monstrosities are the only real allies feminists have left.

Read Full Post »

The infamous lawyercunt is an archetype first identified (and happily ridiculed) by CH artisans of the hairy oyster. But the lawyercunt has gotten a little long in the fang. It isn’t that she’s grown mellower with age, or that her occupation has started attracting a less lizardly class of humans. It’s just that times change, and new opportunities for leeching off productive society attract the attention of master class attention whores with a taste for gratuitous drama and lying through their teeth.

Enter the social media consultant, aka Twittercunt.

If anyone can usurp the lawyercunt in cuntishness, it’s the Twittercunt. I was reminded of the Twittercunt’s foul ascendence up the social status ladder of our declining American empire whilst perusing the musings of the Lead Sadist over at MPC (My Patriarchal Cocksmanship):

real talk all the social media consultants I have met, which is a few, have been amoral opportunistic scumbags

I’ve also seen a few partners of mine stung by them, where they’ll bring in a social media person who will then shmooze the client and steer all the business to him and his friends

really they make used car salesman seem like altruistic do-gooders

It’s funny because around the time of reading that I was retelling a salacious story to a friend about a past lover of extraordinary wantonness who transmogrified into the very thing we both assumed she was fated to become: A social media consultant. I’ve known in the French way five or six Twittercunts (all women), and all but one were sociopathic sluts, capable of lying to their mamas’ faces if it meant an extension of family credit to shack up with a bike messenger. (The one exception, ironically, happened to be one of the sweetest, kindest girls with whom I’ve had the pleasure to share pleasure. I do fondly recall her on occasion.) I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of them amassed cock counts in the triple digits.

Not that I’m complaining. If you have game, a challenging demeanor, and an asshole attitude (to which she deeply relates), the social media cuntsultant is a sure thing, and down to submit to just about every degradation under a harvest moon. Just don’t expect her to make even empty gestures toward fidelity. She’ll fuck around on you, but as long as you go in knowing what she is, there’s poon gold to be mined until the bloom wears off the romance (three months, tops).

We now live in the age of high-tech, field tested, focus grouped, multimodal mastery over human perception, and the social media cuntsultant is its most psychopathically committed avatar.  You think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at this list of occupations which attract the most psychopaths. Number 2 is Lawyer, and number 3 is Media (TV/Radio). If you add number 4 (Salesperson) to number 3, you birth the social media whore anti-christ.

Oh well. A declining nation gets the middlewoman, amoral, self-promoting parasites it deserves.

(Good rule of thumb: If your nation has a lot of engineers working to put a man on the moon, you live in a golden era. If your nation has a lot of hucksters spinning gold out of carts of dung, start thinking about early overseas retirement.)

So here’s to you, Twittercunt, ouster of argumentative lawyercunts. You’re just as untrustworthy, slutty and good to go as your sophistic sisters, but at least you don’t make a federal case out of every minor disagreement.

A song for the new kunt in town:

There’s talk in the bars it sounds so familiar,
great expectations everybody’s watching you.
Players you meet they all seem to know you,
even your old friends treat you like the town screw.

Twittercunt maven,
the new ho in town,
everybody bangs you,
so chug your Pill down.

You look in her eyes the crazy is on display,
sex in the bathroom, here we go again.
But after awhile you’re thinkin’ she’s gonna stray,
it’s those restless muffs that always spread.

Twittercunt maven,
the new ho in town.
Will you catch VD
from her sideways frown?

There’s so many cocks she went and holstered,
but night after night you’re willing to bone her,
no rubber,
pray you recover.

There’s jive on Facebook it’s there to inflate her,
doesn’t really matter which client she sucks.
She’s LinkedIn and buzzed, creating nothing of value,
they will never forget her ’til her boobs are hitting the floor.

Where you been lately?
There’s a new ho in town.
Everybody bangs her,
don’t they,
and she’s SEOed
every penis around.
Oh my my
There’s a new ho in town
Just another new slore in town

hooooo, hoooo
Everybody’s banging out
hooooo, hoooo
the new ho in town,
hooooo, hoooo
Everywhere she’s walkin’ like
hooooo, hoooo
the town pound.

There’s a new ho in town,
(and you’re gonna hear it)
There’s a new ho in town,
(you just wanna hit it)
There’s a new ho in town,
a social media clown,
Her life’s a PR campaign.
Everybody’s talking
There’s a new ho in town
Players start to working
There’s a new ho in town…
and she gets passed around…
like her padded CV…
people say she’s easy…

It would be great if the reader who performed The Wreck of the Beta Male Cuckold could do a rendition of There’s a New Kunt in Town. He has a good voice.

Read Full Post »

A new study provides further confirmation of the CH view of women’s sexual nature. (For a review of the study run through a typical Slate writer’s nancification algorithm, see here.) Executive summary: women screw around with charming cads and ignore beta providers when their financial needs are met by the state or by a rich daddy, and their emotional needs are met by a supportive culture that condones the removal of all restrictions on female sexuality.

While a great diversity of sexual norms exist around the world, ranging from strictly enforced monogamy to polyamory, according to Scelza’s new study there are two environmental contexts where women commonly choose multiple partners. The first is where women have more material support from their kin or economic independence from men more generally. This may explain why multiple mating is most common among small-scale matrilocal societies (in which women remain in their home village after marriage), such as the partible paternity societies of South America or the Mosuo of China. It may also explain why female infidelity has increased in Western societies as women have gained greater political and economic independence. (For example, Iceland was ranked first in gender equality by the World Economic Forum in 2013 at the same time that 67 percent of children were born out of wedlock, the highest rate in the Western world.) Under this scenario, women choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.

The second environmental context Scelza identified is where the sex ratio is female-biased (indicating a scarcity of men) or there is a high level of male unemployment (indicating a scarcity of men who can provide support). Women may be trying to “make the best of a bad situation and capitalizing on their youth to improve their reproductive prospects.” In such environments women tend to have higher rates of teen pregnancy as well as illegitimate births. Multiple mating may be a way of hedging their bets in an unstable environment. By pursuing an ardent sexual strategy, women are able to choose the best potential males as well as gain the support they need in order to maximize their reproductive success.

The Slate author digesting this study is another one of those borderline males suffering from cerebral Scalzi. You can tell by how dutifully he parrots feminist boilerplate in a vain effort to whitewash the real implications of the study or to redirect readers away from crimethink. “OMG I DON’T EVEN WOW JUST WOW SLUT SHAMING LET OUR WOMEN BANG TRUE SEXUAL EQUALITY WHEN WOMEN CAN SCREW AROUND LIKE MEN”.

If you can get past his vagina flapping, there are some nuggets of inference to be made. For instance, when the provisioning and support services of beta males are rendered extraneous by the economic self-sufficiency and pro-independent tankgrrl cultural agitprop afforded modern Western women, those women are more likely to chase alpha cads for fun and genetic profit. Chateau Heartiste called attention to this phenomenon years ago, and now ♥science♥ — as is its wont — has once again vindicated eagle-eyed CH observations about the machinery of the sexual market. (You gotta swim with the sharks to know how dangerous they can be.)

Or think about what a world of financially and sexually freed women pursuing an “alpha fux betas chucked” strategy looks like. Yeah, if Sub-Saharan Africa leapt to mind, you’re on the right track. A feminist utopia is not far removed in practice from the worst shit pits in the world. You take away any incentive for beta males to invest in cock carouseling post-prime women and to cooperate with shameless sluts to raise the next generation, and you are looking down the barrel of civilizational rot.

Luckily, there’s much ruin in a population group’s ingrained sexual mores. The West — still mostly white — has an evolved store of genetic imperatives that drive them to favor monogamy over promiscuity or free love “sex at dawn”-style polyamory. As Razib demurred, the problem with these sorts of studies so beloved by the degenerate freak mafia over at Slate et al., is that the “main gripe is not west vs. rest. eurasian ag. vs. rest”. In other words, be careful about international comparisons of sexual behavior; you may not like what the data imply about your beloved pet cultures.

But that Western store of monogamous feeling can run out, or become so warped from mismanagement that dysfunction blooms in the absence of once-venerated social constraints. Genetic predisposition can become overwhelmed by strong cultural forces acting in the opposite direction. Enervate the people of the West enough — acclimate their women to state largesse and shamelessness — and any desire for monogamy and paternal assurance will wilt under the pressure.

Pussboys who cheerlead for a female-led promiscuous feminist future have a blind spot regarding any blowback. It’s a “there’s no victim” party all the time for leftoids, who are incapable of considering the consequences of their childish, narcissistic acting out. Like most manginas, they lack the intellectual integrity to tackle the reality of female hypergamy, and wrongly assume that a free love paradise that impugns marriage and female chasteness will mean more sex for all men. No, what it will mean is more sex for alpha males.

No effort is given to understanding the male reaction to unfettered female sexual autonomy. Not a scintilla of curiosity how men will respond when women “choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.” Do Western women live in a vacuum? Or do they live in a world where men exercise choice and respond to incentives? Where men loathe the prospect that their girlfriends or spouses might be carrying the love child of a DJ or yoga class instructor?

That feminist-lauded “support network” with Hillary-esque “it takes a village” overtones will surely become less supportive as increasing numbers of men disillusioned with the growing ranks of cad-chasing sluts drop out, taking their sweat and their money with them, ultimately depriving the state of its ability to transfer resources from men to women. Civilization banks on getting men to invest in its continuance, and the tool it uses is monogamy and guarantees of one woman-one man. If women renege on their end of the deal… well, don’t be surprised if men renege on theirs.

The sexual market is a giant biofeedback loop. More female economic and sexual autonomy will cause perturbations throughout every facet of life. And you don’t need to cast afar to see what a free love society that caters entirely to women’s sexual prerogatives means. Just listen for the sound of gunshots in the ghetto and the silence of empty playgrounds in the suburbs.

Read Full Post »

Recall the Chateau Heartiste description of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

If you examine feminist ideas in detail, most of them amount to justifications for the above formulation. A feminist utopia is one in which women, particularly ugly women, have limitless options in the sexual and economic markets while men’s options are curtailed to the fullest extent possible. (Which would necessarily have to be the case, since a low value woman can’t have increased sexual options — i.e., amplified hypergamy — without negatively affecting the options of a man with similar SMV.)

Eager to prove the CH elucidation of their ultimate goals correct, feminists and their psychotherapist allies are now pushing to sanction female infidelity.

But recently, a handful of therapists have started to push the idea that affairs can rescue a marriage and to define exactly in what instances that might be true. “People shriek and cry when they are confronted with an affair,” Brown writes in her essay, “The Affair as a Catalyst for Change,” which appears in the book Infidelity“Almost never do they realize that it might be the best thing that ever happened to them.”

Last year’s annual conference of the American Family Therapy academy allowed a panel about affairs called “From Trauma to Transformation,” which was the first time that idea officially entered the lexicon, says Esther Perel, author of Mating in Captivity and a couples therapist who is writing her next book on affairs. It was public and professional acceptance for the idea that an “affair doesn’t necessarily end a marriage and can possibly make it stronger.”

Ignore the psychobabble. It’s smoke and mirrors meant to distract from what the real intention of this change in judgment signifies. What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to fuck alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle. CH predicted it: Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses.

You might say, “Well, this means men can be unfaithful without consequence, too!” Oh, ye of precious naivete. Men won’t be let off the hook. The divorce industrial and family court complexes are rigged against the interests of men, and getting more rigged by the day. An army of leftoids fed on the swill of legalese will barely break a sweat holding the contradictory beliefs that women cheat for good reasons and men cheat because they’re oppressive patriarchs.

Eventually, with the help of dazzling sophistry, the law will be twisted to such a warped geometry that the people will come to accept injustice as fairness and lies as truth. And those who bitterly cling to old-fashioned notions of justice will be scorned as rubes and cast out of polite society, their reputations and livelihoods destroyed with the ease of smashing an insect.

The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term. Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them. This is because men, unlike women, can easily sever sex from emotional connection. A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife. A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”. There’s a reason “eat, pray, love” is marketed to the fantasies of women.

This isn’t to suggest that excusing male infidelity is good for the institution of marriage and the sustenance of an advanced, high trust civilization. Only that, if we are to set down this road of rationalizing the benefits of infidelity, it makes a lot more sense to grant husbands the generous latitude to pursue extramarital pleasures than it does to grant wives that same freedom. The consequences of wifely betrayal are a lot worse. (“but… the kiiid is not my son. woo hoo hoo”)

Feminism is the sick, wheezing spawn of its parent ideology, equalism, the belief in a magical flying spaghetti monster that imbues all humans with equal ability and equal worth, interchangeable flesh cogs that can as easily master astrophysics as lawn care given the right dose of self-esteem boosting pablum.

Whatever the self-professed noble intentions of their advocates, these ideologies are as wicked and destructive as any genocidal revolutions that have come before them. This is why CH, a citadel firm, guarded by sentries of ancient woods, illuminating a path to enlightenment, will never cease in its mission to utterly crush evil, sick ideologies like feminism so totally that there is no space for even the ashes of its immolation to gather in a stiff wind. Feminism’s proponents will suffer endless ridicule should they choose to fight, or they will retreat from the public square to lick their wounds in the comfort of their silent seething thoughts. And, if the spoils of victory are rich indeed, some will self-deliver to release the pain.

In related shivving, here’s a video of Hanna Rosin’s family engaged in a mock trial about the superiority of girls to boys. On the next episode of “The Hanna Propaganda Hour”: My boy’s first sexual identity crisis!

Read Full Post »

The Cuckold Fetish Epidemic

Have testosterone levels fallen so far, so fast, that men are now down with doing the equivalent of sitting in a corner and watching their wives rut with better men? Does the fapping feel better when lubed with their salty cuckold tears?

askjoe pithily remarks,

Hey, my wife wants to hang out with some guy who’s on tv, maybe I should tag along, what?

Something is going very wrong with Western white male culture. The signs are everywhere. Manboobs to the left of me, male feminists to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with SWPL “anti-racists”. It’s as if a giant cosmic vacuum has hoovered the manly essence from every white man’s nut sack and left a dangly wrinkled uvula in place of their scrotums.

As orc armies vault over the Cathedral’s two-inch fortress walls, as subversives and traitors stockpile the airwaves with lies so egregious they border on farce, as drone operators and internal spies use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, white men valiantly respond to the crisis in their nation’s character by hoisting their battle flag and….

bending over so that their enemies may have the pleasure of ramming it as far up their rectums as propriety will allow. And in this gleeful anti-white male climate, that’s a lot of ramming.

Forget about inflection points. Western white men have passed the insertion point.

Read Full Post »

AMOG Tit Grab

A reader passes along a quickie anecdote that you don’t hear everyday:

I would like your take on this situation that arose with my GF. Been together about a month.

Went to a pub, I brought a friend, its kind of her turf so she runs into coworkers and friends there a lot. Two dudes she used to work with come in, she hugs them. She is pretty bad for introducing me to people…often she says hello to a group, I wait a minute then introduce myself. She follows up by saying I’m her BF, etc, but she leaves it to me to break the ice.

Once again no intro, this time I didn’t care much to say hi, so me and my friend went for a drink. At last call, her and I are chatting, I see another friend and go say hi, she sees these two coworkers again. I come up to do the introduction, and one of the dudes grabs her tit when she moves in for a hug. She shoves his hand away but laughs and hugs him. I’m literally over this dudes shoulder, she knows I saw it.

What’s the alpha play here? (I walked away, she chased after me asking why i was running away…fully aware of the reason)

1. One month is not long enough to call any girl your “girlfriend”. Not even if you’re banging her six ways to Sunday. Already I sense your mentality is beta, for only a beta male would count his chicks before they’ve latched.

2. It’s a very bad tell when your “GF” doesn’t introduce you to people she knows. She either doesn’t want them to know the full extent of your relationship with her, or she’s not sufficiently attached to you and easily forgets you exist. Third option: She’s a sperg with naturally bad social skills. But that’s a low probability option.

3. The AMOG dude obviously felt comfortable enough to grab her tit without fearing retribution, from either her or you. Therefore, he either knows, through her, that she’s not that into you, or he’s actually fucking her on the downlow. Her reaction — or rather, her barely concealed joy — strongly hints at the latter.

4. The alpha play is to never talk to her again. Seriously. She’s a lost cause, even if she didn’t technically “cheat”. Yet.

5. But if you just want to keep the sex going for as long as possible, give it two weeks, then re-engage. Treat her like absolute dirt. I figure this strategy will net you three more months of hungry blowjobs.

Read Full Post »

A bitter, delusional fattie (BDF) with disfiguring tattoos plastered all over her porcine hide has a blue spruce up her pancake batter butt about the normal people who are claiming 26 year old Lena Dunham’s character Hannah on her show Girls (said show cribbing liberally from this blog, and the proprietors know it) is not hot enough nor skinny enough to entice the sexual attentions of a 42 year old handsome doctor. (Speaking of Hannah and BDFs: Why the hell is it always the grossest women who are the biggest exhibitionists? Wait, we all know why. Because you have to give it away for free when no one is interested in buying it. This explains the phenomenon of aging, Hollywood ex-starlets dropping their moral compunctions against nudity and eagerly stripping down for the cameras. Thanks, ladies, for the day-late, dollop-short consolation prize.)

The normal people are, as per usual, right as rain. In real life, no doctor who isn’t a total dweeb will bother with a frumpy, dumpy, plumpy formless flesh entity like Hannah, even if she’s fifteen years younger. Men with high status and thus plenty of options in the dating market will choose pretty women with discernible hourglass figures. They will choose younger pretty girls over older attractive women, but if the choice is between an older (pre-wall) attractive woman with a nice body and a younger, uglier woman with a bratwurst impersonating a body, the red-blooded man will opt for the former.

The BDF under the Chateau laserscope for this go-round is truly an exemplar of her foul genus. To wit, here is a quote from the gelatinous beast:

Aside from being sexist and sizeist and just plain fucking rude, this idea that you have to have a thin, perfect body and the face of a model in order to be sexually attractive is just patently untrue. Sexual attraction is oozing and amorphous and refuses to live in boxes. Regular women, women who look like Lena Dunham, or me, get laid easily and often. Some men who look like Patrick Wilson are attracted exclusively to women 3 times Dunham’s size. Men who look like Patrick Wilson get rejected by women who look like Lena Dunham.

Couples are “mismatched” because these boundaries, these “leagues” are made up by society and easily crossed. Anybody can have sex with anybody else!

Friends, that is a hamster triple bank shotting on roids, ECA stacks, and crack cocaine. CH is in a Christmas mood, so let’s unwrap this rationalization rodent offal.

Aside from being sexist and sizeist

If the -ist fits…

and just plain fucking rude

BDF complains about rudeness while squeezing the word fucking in every sentence.

this idea that you have to have a thin, perfect body and the face of a model in order to be sexually attractive is just patently untrue.

Forget the science, forget clear-eyed observation, forget the reality that swims all around us… she said it, so it must be true. Rejoice, repulsive fatties! BDF says that men actually want to have sex with you even though the millions of decisions that men make every hour of every day, the preference for sex and love with thin women they attempt to satisfy, and the cruel mockery of fatties they indulge, demonstrate the exact opposite.

Sexual attraction is oozing and amorphous and refuses to live in boxes.

Well, it’s definitely oozing on her.

Regular women, women who look like Lena Dunham, or me, get laid easily and often.

Proof by assertion. But for the sake of further evisceration, let’s assume she’s not telling a bald-faced lie, and that she does manage to get a fuck dumped in her when the planets align. For the typical BDF, getting unceremoniously and absent-mindedly banged out by a desperate omega loser whose closest companion is normally a couch crease is not a trophy to place on the mantel. There are enough degenerates who will spelunk a convenient flabby hole when no other more attractive alternative is available that it is possible for a fat chick to sustain a belief in her marginal desirability, however threadbare that belief. Men are, on the whole, less discriminating about whom they will penetrate than are women about whom they will allow to penetrate. This is because for each egg that a woman produces, a man produces billions of sperm. Each sexual congress is therefore of far lesser biological, and thus emotional, importance to a man than it is to a woman, even to a BDF simulacrum of a woman. A woman who makes herself readily available to every wanton horndog who can’t afford adherence to standards is a woman who essentially announces to the world that her eggs are worthless mass market crap. Emphasis on mass.

Some men who look like Patrick Wilson are attracted exclusively to women 3 times Dunham’s size.

But most men aren’t. And in the zero-sum arena known as the sexual market, it’s the mate preferences of the majority that will most impact how much happiness any individual will extract from it.

Men who look like Patrick Wilson get rejected by women who look like Lena Dunham.

But most men don’t. It’s more often the case that alpha males are doing the prompt rejecting of women who resemble Lena Dunham. Remember, BDFs, male rejection usually takes the form of emotional rejection, and that’s the rejection that hurts you most.

Couples are “mismatched” because these boundaries, these “leagues” are made up by society and easily crossed.

Hugo Schwyzer agrees! Losers of a feather…

Anybody can have sex with anybody else!

Only if you count forcible rape.

There are some egregious BDFs out there, but this one takes the cake and inhales it. You can distill her crass self-motivational to two points, and neither one casts her in a flattering light:

1. She says she has had sex with “movie-star hot men with chiseled Adonis bodies”*, some of whom were “wealthy and successful”.

Try-hard. If you have to say it, it’s less true than true. If you have to say it so hyperbolically, it’s likely not true. If you have to say it so hyperbolically while looking like a propellor-scarred manatee, it most definitely is not true. But you keep telling us pigs can fly, BDF, and we’ll keep pointing and laughing at your ego-pricked obtuseness.

Here’s the deal whenever one of these asinine BDFs or her close kin rumbles into view to claim they have wonderful sex with high value men: they are almost always lying.

Nearly every instance when a low value woman claims she dates high value men, it will invariably reveal itself upon closer examination that the men she dates are supplicating, socially awkward, dull beta males, unreliable drunkards, or fly-by-night players who couldn’t give a shit about her beyond a late night booty call and who are clearly embarrassed to be seen with her in public. This is Rationalization Hamster 101, wherein the compulsion to assuage one’s BDF-riddled ego by declaiming the handsomeness, charm, high status and virility of sex partners overrides all consideration of truth value.

2. She implies that amassing a notch count of sex partners is an achievement for women like it would be for men.

Self-deluded fattie gonna self-delude. Spreading as far as two hamhocks can spread for a loser to stick his dick in and jab a few tepid spurts into sea cucumber labia is not an accomplishment. There will always be a contingent of wretched, loveless omega males roaming the wilderness like zombies to occasionally service the land whale through three seconds of love, for no other woman remotely attractive will have them, and sheep aren’t always as receptive as fat chicks. Now multiply the relative ease of convincing a loser to participate in greasy pig rutting by ten million to get an approximation of how effortless it is for the typical good-looking girl to entice a whole battalion of higher value men to line up for a free blast inside her exquisite heart-shaped pussy, and you’ll have an idea of just how inconsequential is sex itself as a measure of a woman’s romantic worth.

The crux of the cunt is this: a woman’s sexual worth is measured by the ease with which she can convince a worthwhile man to commit to her and stick around for the long haul. It is not measured by the accessibility of her sperm receptacle. You’ll note that the BDF under discussion refers in the past tense to these “Adonises” whose intimate company she allegedly enjoyed over the years. Presumably, they all fled before the last jizz stream swirled down her belly button drain. Who could’ve guessed a noxious, fat, ugly, hallucinatory, tatted freak would have trouble getting any of them to fall in love with her? Rhetorical.

Some of you kinder, gentler, naive readers ask, “Why flay this poor fattie’s soul? What has she done that’s so bad? She’s just masticating on the internet, giving girls a self-esteem boost.”

If she were gloomily masticating in her bedroom, alone and out of earshot of impressionable darlings, she would escape the torture. But she shouts her rampant idiocy from the rooftops, sliming the minds of thousands (millions?) of young women who teeter at the precipice between unhappy fatness and happy slimness. Thankfully, most thin babes know in their lovely bones that getting fat will hurt their chances at finding love, so a whole goon platoon of bellowing fatties would do nothing to dissuade them from following the right and true path in life. But some girls are emotional basket cases, and in their weakened conditions are susceptible to infectious mind disease.

If this BDF propagandist can potentially convince even one slim girl that she would suffer no romantic consequences were she to bloat up and ruin her desirability, ruin the scenery, and ruin the attitudes of hotter girls who relax self-constraints on their bitchiness when their competition is reduced, then the BDF is a legitimate enemy of the natural state. She has earned her designation as a prime target. The incalculable cruelty of the breaking wheel wrenching screams of agony from her blubbery carcass will serve as an example for the others thinking that it’s a wise life decision to dedicate oneself to spreading lies and destroying the looks of pretty girls.

*PS: The cynics will interpret this BDF’s outrageous claim — “movie-star hot men with chiseled Adonis bodies” — as a fat white girl euphemism for black guys. They are onto something. You brothers won’t like to hear this, but too many of you are willing to drop your standards, however temporarily or conveniently, and plow white fatties with finger-wagging ‘tude to spare. While proof is lacking, it’s a strong possibility that this particular BDF is another data point in favor of the African Megafauna Size, Shape, Color and Texture Theory of Conditionally Flexible Black Male Mating Preference.

CH is on record stating that black men, when they are free to choose high value women, will, like men of other races, generally choose thin, pretty women, especially if the choice is for a woman who will be a long-term relationship lover. C.f., Will Smith. And yet, there is also plenty of evidence, observational and analytical, confirming the stereotype that black men, when they date or screw around interracially, slum it with the refuse of white womanhood.

Two things ought to be said about this: One, most white girls prefer sex and relationships with white guys, if online dating statistics are to be believed. So a fat white chick transcending earthly bonds on wings of passion with a vibrant black dude is likely feeling a powerful discomfort on a subconscious level that she is settling. Two, it’s a good bet none of these black lovers are staying around to cuddle and raise a nuclear family with their BDF gory holes.

It’s fair to surmise, then, that a fat white chick who brags about snagging indiscriminate black guys with chiseled abs is not feeling the winner vibe those abs are supposed to make her feel. In the morning, she is left confused about what the fuck is happening to her life. This is what is happening to the BDF: You are a loser, you will continue to be a loser, and you will die a loser. And no amount of pain-addled transparently ego-massaging insistence to the contrary on a feminist website will change that. Only pushing away from the table will help.

Read Full Post »

The corn&porn arm of the MSM is catching up with CH teachings. A woman has written an article about female infidelity warning signs, (supposedly culled from women who have cheated on their partners), and the information sounds suspiciously similar to earlier Chateau Heartiste red flags for women who are high infidelity risks. For instance:

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 1: She accuses her man of cheating. This common sign is an attempt to divert the guilt away from herself, and to project her dishonest behavior onto her partner.

Ministry of PoonandGrabass CH:

She asks you how many women you’ve slept with or accuses you of being a player. One word: projection.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 2: She starts dolling herself up. If a woman suddenly starts taking hours to get ready for places like the gym or the grocery store, then there may be someone she’s trying to impress.


She undertakes beautification projects. [A] girl who suddenly begins an exercise program or wearing carefully applied makeup or buying new sexy cocktail dresses is prepping herself for a return to the market.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 3: She tells her husband she needs space.


Chances of re-notch success are much lower once she has verbalized her need for space, but with proper post-relationship game you can improve your odds dramatically.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 4: She drops hints that she’s not happy.


A woman is honed like a machine to be a first responder to relationship crisis. She uses her intuition to pick out subtle nicks in the relationship armor that could grow to chasms if left untended. [...] Women therefore have evolved an exquisite sense for sniffing out warning signs that a man is losing interest, or that his love, and hence his commitment, is cooling. Women therefore have evolved an exquisite sense for sniffing out warning signs that a man is losing interest, or that his love, and hence his commitment, is cooling.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 5: She has a new BFF her partner has never met. For starters, this new “friend” may not even be a girl at all. The friend could also be a single gal pal looking for a wing woman… and sometimes a woman is all too eager to go along for the ride.


She has a lot of slutty friends. Ye shall know her by her support group.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 6: She changes her plans… at midnight. If she consistently ends up staying out all night, then it’s time to question her loyalty.


This red flag is so obvious — hey, my girlfriend/wife is out again at midnight without me! — that I don’t need to dig through the CH archives to find a record of this blog stating the same thing.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 7: Someone else thinks she’s cheating. “I knew someone who had firsthand knowledge my girlfriend was cheating,” Mark says. “But I believed her when she said it was a lie, because nobody wants to believe the worst, no matter how obvious it may be.”


This is a milder version of catching her in flagrante delicto, *when it’s from a third party*. But there’s the rub. Many of your girlfriend’s or wife’s friends will not be your friends. If you hear something that suggests your wife’s infidelity from an oblivious sidewalk grocer, you should take the accusation seriously. If you hear it from her BFF who secretly hates you (or loves you), default to skepticism.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 8: She has a sudden increased interest in her partner’s whereabouts. A woman carrying on an affair needs to cover her bases. If she starts wanting to know her man’s plans for the day, especially when she’s supposedly at work or otherwise busy, then she could be making plans of her own.


This is pretty good advice for an MSM fem entity, but its accuracy as a warning sign depends a great deal on who’s downlow-ing whom. A wife will show increased interest in her spouse’s whereabouts if she suspects *him* of cheating, too. So if you are a faithful dude, and your wife is suddenly asking a lot of questions about your schedule while sounding like she’s pretending to ask in a spontaneous manner, as if it “just popped into her head”, then you may have something to worry about.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 9: She gives excuses to not have sex.


[W]e now know the number one dead giveaway that your wife or girlfriend is about to cheat on you:

Is she withdrawing sex during days 10-16 of her monthly cycle? Then you, my friend, are about to be betrayed.

If you hear from your woman “I have a headache” any time during her peak fertility, she has either cheated on you, is thinking about cheating on you, or is getting sufficiently turned off by your burgeoning betaness that cheating will soon become an option in the calculation of her moral universe.

MSM fem entity:

Sign No. 10: She’s checked out. If another man is meeting a woman’s emotional needs, then she will lose her enthusiasm in her current relationship, even when it comes to things like arguing.


[M]en are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man.

So, did this MSM fem entity plagiarize CH, or is it just a coincidence that there happens to exist in the world a woman who can speak as truthfully as the lordship of Chateau Heartiste?

Ps You have to love the spate of articles in recent years about cheating women. Is this a subject that would have been broached so explicitly in any putatively mainstream outlet fifty years ago? Either the culture has become less queasy about parading in print the true nature of women, or more women are cheating and the need to discuss the topic has reached critical mass, or both. Whatever the reason for the trend, it doesn’t do much for American women’s marriageability.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,950 other followers

%d bloggers like this: