Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

Promiscuous men can handle their promiscuity better than promiscuous women can handle theirs.

Compare and contrast:

This is how a man looks after twenty lovers:

This is how a woman looks after twenty lovers:

That’s the thousand cock stare. You can’t miss it. It’s derangement that penetrates right to the soul.

Not only are promiscuous men more emotionally stable and contented than promiscuous women, they are also happier spouses.

Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages – but men do no harm by playing the field, a study has found.

According to  new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.

But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.

But, for men, the number of partners [sic] they [had] appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage.

Researchers said the study showed that sex with many different partners ‘may be risky’ if the woman is in search of a high-quality marriage.

If you heed not lies and accept the truth of biological and psychological sex differences, you won’t be surprised to learn that men, the sex with a trillion sperms to please their lovers, are hardwired to spread the seminal wealth without incurring psychotraumatic blowback. Men are geared from the get-go for poosy variety (though not all men will fulfill their directive and not all are geared in fifth) and therefore have the cortical capacity to easily tolerate the comings and goings of numerous lovers without having a breakdown or fretting constantly about how well new lovers match up to old lovers. Men occasionally reminisce about a teenage fling, but they don’t endlessly bemoan that one “alpha female” who got away like women are prone to do with their long-gone alpha male lovers.

This is why a man with a promiscuous past is not necessarily a bad bet as a marriage prospect, and also explains — along with the fact of maternity assurance — why women don’t care as much about men’s sexual histories as men care about women’s sexual histories. A man can sample the slits and furrows of outrageous fortune and survive the whirlwind of passion to mark a day in the future when he contentedly and without pathological second-guessing slips into a stabler, longer term commitment.

Women who have sampled a poo poo platter of penes accumulate emotional scars that never heal; promiscuous women have a mental storage closet filled with five minute montages of alpha male love, and these exciting, prurient memories rob the female id of something important. Call it purity or innocence or self-worth or ability to appreciate romantic idealism, the slut with ass chafing from riding the cock carousel is never the same as she was before she let herself get pummeled by dick. No uxorious beta male she settles down with in nuptial risk will have power over her senses like her past alpha lovers enjoyed. She is damaged goods.

Read Full Post »

A Japanese company claims to have reached the next level in developing the most genuine looking sex doll which comes complete with realistic feeling skin and authentic looking eyes.

Orient Industry say their new range of dolls, made from high quality silicon, are so realistic there is very little to distinguish them from a real girlfriend at first glance.

The dolls, which are non inflatable, are sold under the name ‘Dutch Wives’, a Japanese term for a sex doll, and adverts in the media boast that anyone who buys one will never want a real girlfriend again.

The Japanese are getting close to scaling the uncanny valley.

The dolls come with a “skeleton”, which means they can be arranged into any position. Any position.

The coming sexbot revolution — and make no mistake, it is coming — will have profound ramifications on social order and the functioning of the sexual market. To this day, people underestimate the effect the Pill had on Western society; multiply that effect by a thousand and you’ll get an idea of the subversive havoc mass consumable sexbots will wreak.

 

Read Full Post »

The Economist ran a piece about the economics of prostitution that reads like it slipped by the Hivemind perimeter defense drones under cover of night. There’s so much RealTalk and UglyTruth it’s a wonder equalist foot soldiers haven’t converged on it to drown it in a vat of squid ink and sophistry.

FOR those seeking commercial sex in Berlin, Peppr, a new app, makes life easy. Type in a location and up pops a list of the nearest prostitutes, along with pictures, prices and physical particulars. Results can be filtered, and users can arrange a session for a €5-10 ($6.50-13) booking fee. It plans to expand to more cities. [...]

We have analysed 190,000 profiles of sex workers on an international review site. (Since it is active in America, it was not willing to be identified for this article. A disclaimer on the site says the contents are fictional; we make the assumption that they are informative all the same.) Each profile includes customers’ reviews of the worker’s physical characteristics, the services they offer and the price they charge.

The data go back as far as 1999. For each individual we have used the most recent information available, with prices corrected for inflation. Some of those featured may appear under more than one name, or also work through agencies. The data cover 84 cities in 12 countries, with the biggest number of workers being in America and most of the rest in big cities in other rich countries. As this site features only women, our analysis excludes male prostitutes (perhaps a fifth of the commercial-sex workforce). Almost all of those leaving reviews are men.

Lots of platitude-pummeling charts follow. First, the inflation-adjusted price of prostitution services has been going down.

The article offers several reasons why this might be so; however, I think the primary causes are shifting social norms and demand substitution (online porn, video gaming).

Meanwhile, broader social change may be reducing demand—and thus, prices. Free, no-strings-attached sex is far easier to find than in the past. Apps such as Tinder facilitate speedy hookups; websites such as Ashley Madison and Illicit Encounters, adulterous ones. Greater acceptance of premarital intercourse and easier divorce mean fewer frustrated single and married men turning to prostitutes.

Disincentives matter. When the public shame of stepping out on your wife is lessened, the motivation to do so increases. This is all part of a society morphing from a predominately K-selected one to an r-selected one.

Most services above and beyond the base vaginal rate (BVR, could be a band name) cost more, because they’re niche services and because women, even hardened whores, instinctively feel some sexual acts are more degrading than others. Funny, if unsurprising, findings:

Women take kissing very seriously. Kissing is a more intimate act for women than it is for men. If you want to kiss a whore you’ll pay more than if you want to poke her in the pooper. PUA haters who scoff at players getting “make-outs” that “don’t go anywhere”, take note.

Like most regular women, most whores would rather spit than swallow. What I don’t get are the johns who insist on paying for her to swallow. It could be a dominance move, but then a money shot to the face is more debasing.

“Multiple men”. The data was pulled for female hos only, so this category represents putatively straight men who get off on sharing a ho with another dude. It’s disturbing that the cuckoldry fetish appears to be on the rise in Western megalopolises. Could this self-annihilating, self-castrating psychological disorder be caused by a parasite?

As surprising as the cuck finding is, the highest price commanded by its inverse — one man, two women — is predictable. Men dig non-gay threesomes.

The next chart will make a million fatties and fug feminists sprout martyrdom stigmata on their marbled labia.

Appearance matters a great deal. The customers who reported encounters to the website we analysed clearly value the stereotypical features of Western beauty: women they describe as slim but not scrawny, or as having long blonde hair or full breasts, can charge the highest hourly rates (see chart 3). Hair that is bleached too unconvincingly to be described as blonde attracts a lower premium, but is still more marketable than any other colour. For those not naturally well endowed, breast implants may make economic sense: going from flat-chested to a D-cup increases hourly rates by approximately $40, meaning that at a typical price of $3,700, surgery could pay for itself after around 90 hours. The 12% share of women featured on the site who are described both as athletic, slim or thin, and as being at least a D-cup, suggests that quite a few have already taken this route.

Pop-a-boner quiz: What do men dig?

Feminist: They dig rubenesque feminists with short black hair and flat business-friendly chests.

Patriarchy: They dig slender, long-haired blondes with big round boobs.

Patriarchy wins.

(For those wondering, when men say they prefer “athletic” women, what they mean is they prefer toned slender women who don’t have cellulite. Or, “athletic” is a euphemism for “barely legal”.)

Where da white hos at?

(You’ll notice that the cities with a higher proportion of white men — NYC, London — have the greatest skew in prices between black and white whores. But even in majority-black cities like Atlanta white whores still command a price premium.)

We had too few data from other cities for a reliable breakdown by ethnicity. But Christine Chin of the American University in Washington, DC, has studied high-end transnational prostitutes in several countries. In Kuala Lumpur, she found, black women command very high rates and in Singapore, Vietnamese ones do. In Dubai, European women earn the most. What counts as exotic and therefore desirable varies from place to place, and depends on many factors, such as population flows.

Baby got lumps. I guess black hos could go to Kuala Lumpur and… Bueller? Bueller?

Yet a cost-of-living index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, our sister organisation, suggests that Tokyo is the most expensive city overall of the three. The apparent anomaly may be because escorts who appear on an English-language review site mostly cater to foreigners, who are not offered the more unusual—and expensive—services Japanese prostitutes provide for locals. These include the bubble baths and highly technical massages of Sopurando (“Soapland”), a red-light district in Tokyo, which can cost ¥60,000 ($600) for a session and involve intercourse (although that is not advertised).

The Japanese are weird, #3,187 in a series.

A degree appears to raise earnings in the sex industry just as it does in the wider labour market. A study by Scott Cunningham of Baylor University and Todd Kendall of Compass Lexecon, a consultancy, shows that among prostitutes who worked during a given week, graduates earned on average 31% more than non-graduates. More lucrative working patterns rather than higher hourly rates explained the difference.

Easily explained. Smart women are better at exploiting market niches, and smarts correlate with beauty (up to a point).

Although sex workers with degrees are less likely to work than others in any given week (suggesting that they are more likely to regard prostitution as a sideline), when they do work they see more clients and for longer. Their clients tend to be older men who seek longer sessions and intimacy, rather than a brief encounter.

Older men need testosterone replacement therapy so they don’t wind up emptying their wallets for pillow talk and a cuddle.

A mother in Scotland asks how other prostitutes juggle child care and selling sex, given that bookings are often made at short notice so babysitters are hard to arrange. Another contributor who is thinking of having children asks how much other women saved before taking time off to have a baby, and whether the new calls on their time meant they earned less after giving birth. One reply points out that prostitution is easier than many other jobs to combine with motherhood: it pays well enough to cover child-care costs, and can be fitted around school holidays, plays and sports days, and children’s illnesses.

A nation of whore mommies. Ah, but it’s genetics all the way down, so no big deal. Until it is.

A greater awareness may develop that not all sex workers are the victims of exploitation.

I remember reading a study from not too long ago that found most teen prostitutes get into the business volitionally. Kidnappings and sex trafficking are actually quite rare, especially in East Europe. Also, prostitution does have a damping effect on rape and sex assault rates. This isn’t necessarily an argument for decriminalizing prostitution, but it does suggest that the god of biomechanics likes to prank our moral codes.

Read Full Post »

It seems there are still a few hermits and delusional freaks who think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every beholder is different so, following the logic of this platitude, anyone can be beautiful if they immerse themselves in enough Jizzebel pep talks. Your Citadel Chateau stands athwart this march of moronic posturing, yelling shiv, but it never hurts to twist the knife and add a little more hurt.

Pierre Tourigny created composites of Hot or Not female profiles and the results are nothing short of dryly predictable. This first series is based on the 1-10 female beauty scale:

There are very few male beholders who will mistake the 1.0 girl for the 9.5 girl. There are fewer still who, given a free choice, would choose to have sex and romance with the 1.0 over the 9.5. The opinions of the beholders, averaged out, will reach a very objective consensus about the rankings of all these composites.

Tourigny notes,

What did I conclude about good looks from these virtual faces? First, morphs tend to be prettier than their sources because face asymmetries and skin blemishes average out. However, the low score images show that fat is not attractive. The high scores tend to have narrow faces.

There’s more to female beauty than that, but yeah, bloat kills beauty dead.

The ugly truth about beauty is about to get uglier. Here are composites of 2005 Miss Universe contestants by total, region and finalist:

The first thing that jumps out at you is just how similar very beautiful women look. Beautiful women from all races resemble each other more than they resemble the uglies of their own races. The big wide-set eyes, the bright smiles, the good teeth, the high foreheads and cheekbones, the dainty noses…. it’s almost as if there’s a universal objective standard of beauty that exists in the world inhabited by humans!

The second thing you notice (if noticing doesn’t make your bowels erupt) is how these worldwide representative composites of pulchritude converge, give or take a few racial idiosyncrasies like epicanthic folds, onto something close to what could be regarded as archetypical white woman beauty. Tourigny:

Miss Universe contestants owe their delegation to a mix of local and universal standards of beauty (or at least the pageant’s version of universal). I created multi-morph composites (see some details how here) for each continent from photos of the delegates.

The Americas composite most closely resembles the one from all delegates while the Europe composite more closely resembles the one from the finalists. Bias in the judging or in the standard? Who knows?

It could be bias. Or it could be an accidental revelation. If cosmetic surgery trends are equally indicative, it would appear that the pinnacle of universal female beauty coincides with the pinnacle of European female beauty. Where da white women at, indeed.

Finally, as Peter Frost has described, men all over the world prefer lighter-skinned women (relative to their own race’s hue). In the above Miss Universe composites, the representative African woman is not that much darker than the non-African women. And her nose… almost as petite as the European nose.

The trifecta of ugly truths about female beauty is complete with the following composites based on age:

Tourigny on the details of this composite,

The Hot or Not web site gives people the option of rating women of all ages or of seeing only a specific age group.I collected photos of women who scored at least a 9.5 average and created multi-morph composites (see some details how here).

The only thing I noticed was that the attractiveness standard people use is more lenient the older the subject.

Some people dispute the existence of The Wall, and point to the fact that beautiful 40+ year old women can be found in the wild. My answer to these Wall doubters is two-part: One, numbers matter. There are vastly more 25 year old female 9s than there are 41 year old female 9s. Two, longitudinal comparison matters. No matter how hot a 41 year old woman is, the 20 year old version of herself was hotter.

The exceedingly rare exceptions prove the rule.

People do get more lenient judging the attractiveness of older people, but that’s not proof of a magical reformulated age-adjusted objective beauty standard. Rather, what the leniency demonstrates is rationalization resulting from a restriction of options. As the average man gets older and falls out of the primary sexual market, he fools himself into believing his secondary sexual market female peers are just as attractive as the pretty young things he would prefer to fuck if the possibility were open to him. It’s Consolation Prize Syndrome.

That’s enough shivving for today. There’s blood all over the shag carpet. I’ll end on a hopeful note for the ladies: If you’re a pretty girl with boner-inducing face structure, you can avoid a premature impact with the Wall and sexual worthlessness by simply refusing to get fat. Look at that 41+ year old composite. No fat face there. No wrinkles either, but like Tourigny said, all he had to work with was blurry source images. Heh.

Read Full Post »

A reflexive male impulse to white knight for women may have evolved because, one, enough women in the past sexually rewarded men who went out of their way to protect female virtue and, two, the precoital penumbras of female sexual vice are fainter than the leery male sexual vice, and therefore more easily missed or misinterpreted by constitutional white knights.

White Knights and Pussy Polishers provide a useful context for the topic to be discussed in this post. Many men, especially pedestal-primping provider-primary beta males, are utterly oblivious to any signs that their girlfriends or wives may be growing romantically removed from them. Worse, when a man does feel that sinking feeling that his woman’s nethers retract to his touch, he reacts with self-abasing misunderstanding of the nature of her sexual withdrawal, often wrongly supposing his own fault and figuring that more of what she claims she wants from him is exactly what she needs.

More cynically, there’s an ego protective mechanism in men, evident in its advanced stages in married men, to elide the existence of, or the causes for, any romantic dissatisfaction percolating in their lovers.

Given the characteristic white knight urge of men to, basically, assume the best of women and the worst of themselves, it should come as no surprise that women often begin cheating in their hearts long before their boyfriends or husbands are aware of the limbic detour. The stereotype of the befuddled beta hubby oblivious to the real reasons for his wife’s foreclosed desire is a sitcom staple.

Luckily, you are honored to be on the elite Chateau Heartiste guestlist, (“I’m an H-lister!”) which means you have access to knowledge that the ancients pondered. Here you will learn what signs to watch for that betray congestive infidelity in your woman’s heart.

She has stopped spontaneously touching you.

White Knight/Pussy Polisher Imagined Cause: She’s reacting to your emotional distance.
Real Cause: You lost that alpha male mojo.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Tenderly express your feelings so she’s comfortable being intimate again.
CH Solution That Will Work: Slap her ass after flirting with a waitress in front of her. Ass-ownage is 9/10ths of the law.

She’s stopped acting jealous when other women talk to you.

White Knight Imagined Cause: She’s matured into a secure woman with a healthy self-esteem.
Real Cause: You no longer inspire her to mate guard.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Compliment her on her independence.
CH Solution That Will Work: Dread game.

She’s nagging all the time.

White Knight Imagined Cause: You aren’t doing your share of the household chores.
Real Cause: She’s becoming repulsed by your beta stink and lashing out by subconsciously emasculating you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Be a helpful househusband.
CH Solution That Will Work: Tell her to shut the fuck up. Leave for a few days. Don’t say where you’re going.

She’s stopped asking for your opinion about mutual concerns.

White Knight Imagined Cause: She’s a strong independent woman who has learned to think for herself.
Real Cause: She cares as little for your opinion as she cares for your dick in her pussy.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Leave all decision-making to her.
CH Solution That Will Work: Rudely inform her when you think she’s about to do something stupid. When she complains that she didn’t ask you, act nonchalant. “No shit. But I said it anyhow.”

She’s stopped dressing like a feminine woman in your company.

White Knight Imagined Cause: Love is unconditional and she doesn’t have to prove herself to you all the time.
Real Cause: Women don’t try to please men they don’t want to fuck. You’ve become weak.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Learn to appreciate her ratty sweatpants.
CH Solution That Will Work: Have another woman’s perfume on your shirt collar.

She’s staying longer hours at work.

White Knight Imagined Cause: She’s an ambitious woman.
Real Cause: She wants to fuck her boss.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Support her!
CH Solution That Will Work: Come home even later than her. Humming a happy tune.

She’s making impossible demands.

White Knight Imagined Cause: Her demands are reasonable. You’re letting her down.
Real Cause: She turning into a cruel bitch who hates having to live under the same roof as you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Supplicate harder!
CH Solution That Will Work: Agree and amplify. “Yeah, I’ll do that right after I bang your mom’s hole ten ways to Sunday.”

She shows no appreciation for what you do.

White Knight Imagined Cause: Whatever you’re doing for her is not nearly as much as she’s doing for you.
Real Cause: You turn her off and she’s lost any desire to please you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Drop passive-aggressive hints about feeling unloved.
CH Solution That Will Work: Stop doing things for her. When she notices, tell her, “You have two arms and hands? Use them.”

She’s never satisfied.

White Knight Imagined Cause: You aren’t treating her like the strong, independent woman she is.
Real Cause: She despises you.
White Knight Response That Won’t Work: Compliment her. Cuddle her. Perform cunnilingus. Ask for nothing in return. Promise to do more.
CH Solution That Will Work: Flip the script. Get her Skittles for her birthday. Make her do favors for you.

The number one sign that your woman is thinking of cheating may be a monthly biological process, which moderately correlates with all of the above signs.

The male infidelity urge resolves itself quickly. When men start feeling that tug toward fulfilling their primal genetic compulsion for poosy varietals, they will, if unburdened by scruples, execute in fairly short order and without the psychological torture that emotionally distancing women will put their men through. But a woman’s winding road to infidelity is longer, twistier, and unmarked. She’ll take a while getting there, and she’ll drop moldy bread crumbs for you along the way, but once she’s there she’s never coming back, not in the same way you knew her, and you won’t be able to reach her when she’s that far out either.

A woman’s unfaithfulness is like Ebola; by the time you’re bleeding from the eyes, it’s too late. You have to catch her waywardness early and deliver the proper correctives — 90% of the time, this means stop being beta. At the first notice of any of these omens of unfaithfulness, you have a window of opportunity to switch her bitch off. Dial down the beta provider comfort giver, and dial up the alpha lover excitement giver. If you are already at the stage where she’s denying you sex on flimsy pretexts (“My cat needed his asshole Nair’ed”), it’s probably too late. Her heart has left your stable and is trotting away for alpha pastures.

Read Full Post »

One of the more amusing private pains-turned-public spectacle to leak out of an internet pustule recently graced the combox of Reddit (/r/relationship). A sexually deprived married man (but I repeat myself) crafted a meticulous spreadsheet documenting the number of times his wife denied him sex and the excuses she gave each time. He then emailed this “unspread”sheet to his wife while she was away on business (red flag right there). She went public with it, hoping to both shame her thirsty hubby and to trawl for advice from male feminists that would rub the fur of her hamster with the grain.

at least she didn’t use “i have a headache”

For those keeping score, that’s three marital congresses out of twenty-eight attempts, for an 11% successful lay ratio.

An 11% lay ratio is pretty good for the average single beta male picking up girls (1 out of 10 approaches yields sex), but horrible for a married man who pledged his freedom, natural polygynous urge, and HALF to a woman who presumably loves her husband unto death, and who tacitly agreed by signing the marriage contract to offer her body on a regular basis to him.

But as visitors to Chateau Heartiste know, marriage is no respite from the perpetually clanking meat machine of the sexual market. If you recline into complacently dull beta maleness, you will lose your wife’s desire to please you as readily as you would lose a girlfriend’s, or a fling’s, desire. Worse, if you make the mistake of thinking that marriage will energize your wife’s sexual cravings beyond the limp gestures she had exhibited toward you pre-marriage, you’ll learn soon enough that the line that is dotted is not the ‘gine that is prodded.

No marriage contract in the world is sufficiently coercive to wrest sexual desire from the limbic node of a woman’s arousal center. Sexual desire is an animal instinct that predates legal fictions or social expectation. If the animal slumbers, “talking it out” or making it promises won’t rouse it to rutting; the animal must be confronted on its own terms, with equally primal cues that waken its instinct to mate.

The trope of the married man reduced to begging for sex from his wife stricken with yet another “headache” is a stereotype for a reason. These things hardly ever materialize out of thin air. But exactly how many married men labor in the purgatory known as the thirstzone? Numbers are hard to come by, although General Social Survey wizards have played the contrarian and dug up data suggesting married men have slightly more sex on average than unmarried men.

The problem with that survey data, beyond the inherent flaws of self-reporting and social expectation bias (and burning shame), is that the huge swell of omega and lesser beta single men who suffer involuntary celibate lives greatly skews the stats to promote an illusion that married men enjoy a cornucopia of sex (with one woman, let it be reminded). This incel ballast must be jettisoned to get a truer picture of what kind of sex lives married men actually enjoy. If the typical married man gets laid once per month (as our pubic flogging victim above has documented), then a more accurate assessment of his bounty would come from comparison to unmarried men who aren’t hopeless sex market rejects.

Compared to an incel, once per month married sex sounds like a pretty good deal. Compared to single men with girlfriends, fuck buddies, and flings tossed in for flavor, once per month sex sounds like painful blue balls. Ask any single man what a year-long relationship with a hot girlfriend is like, and he’ll tell you it’s a copulation carnival. His married buddies will turn green with envy.

As often surfaces on megafeminist sites like Reddit, hackneyed hackers and bromide belchers rush to fill the void of useful advice with Hivemind-approved diagnoses that abjure the wife of even the tiniest bit of responsibility for her role in her husband’s desperate sexual deprivation. Two common refrains — the husband isn’t doing enough to “support” his wife, and the wife has “low libido” — receive rounds of applause from the benighted.

These are handy rationalizations without a scintilla of realistic relevancy. In the real world, husbands who support the shit out of their wives are often less sexually rewarded than husbands who follow a program of benevolent sexism. And no scientist has yet, to my satisfaction, proven that there is an epidemic of pathologically low libido among married women. What is much more likely is that married men are, or become, less sexually stimulating to their wives, and the infamous “low libidio” of their wives is nothing more than selective female libido. Divorcee tell-alls revel in confessions of rejuventated sex lives once the beta provider hubby package was sent adrift.

A married man stuck in the thirstzone is not without options. Mistresses have traditionally been outlets for such men, and the culture used to give a wink and a nod to such arrangements, because the culture used to have a healthy and normal appreciation and acceptance of innate sex differences, before everything turned to poopytalk and hamster fuel.

There, too, is the advice offered by this very outpost of recivilization: A dab of dread will make legs spread. The poor sexless husband who attempted to shame his wife into fulfilling his most basic need in a marriage has, by accounts, ended all contact with her. Radio silence, while not the ideal solution to such crises of the cunt, is better than abject mewling and prone apologia. It has, at the least, made his wife think so hard about her lack of desire for her husband that she has taken to an internet forum full of spergs to find serenity now.

Dread game works, but only if the timing and execution occur before betatization has metastasized. A husband who repulses his wife is in a sorry position from which no remedy will work within a time frame not measured in years. The unspreadsheet man had undoubtedly been suffering months, perhaps years, of sexual isolation from his wife before he became so desperate that he felt it necessary to painstakingly chronicle his pain and accost her with it while she was at a hotel bar thinking about unleashing her inner bed fiend with a business associate.

At that late stage, any active effort to reverse his misfortune would be perceived as spite by his carnally estranged wife, stemming from a place of hurt and neediness. Perception is king in the mating arena, and butthurtness is kryptonite to women’s horny levels. The proper dose of dread needed to be delivered earlier, under circumstances less likely to be confused for vengeance.

The most effective punishment for a sexually withdrawing wife is punishment that can be construed as inadvertent. A woman is validated equally by intentional punishment as by intentional reward; both tell her “I’m so desired I rouse my husband to flattery and to retribution.” And a validated woman is an unpliable woman.

But punishment that appears almost “off-hand”, or apathetic and callous, is gold. This is the kind of punishment of female misbehavior (and, yes, denial of historically regarded marital duties counts as misbehavior) that strikes wee hamster nerves. It’s the punishment of indifference that follows when a husband’s mind has started wandering to thoughts of other women. The classic “late night phone call to wife with girls laughing in the background” ploy is an example of indifference punishment.

Wives can handle being punished when it validates their higher status. Cause-and-effect kneejerk punishment won’t rattle their self-possession or shake them into suddenly renewed desire. But no woman, wifed up or not, can handle being an afterthought to her man without compensating for her perceived demotion with reinvigorated lust.

This type of “punishment by gradually escalated indifference” of wayward wives/girlfriends — what a reader suggested can be called the “De-escalation Ladder” — will feature in a future post.

***

PS: Here’s an example from real life of “accidental” dread game in action.

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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,967 other followers

%d bloggers like this: