Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Days of Broken Arrows provides a short history of Charles Manson, convicted murderer, cult leader, psychopath, and alpha male with a knack for harem building and marrying much younger women while in prison for life.

Manson:

Son of a prostitute.
No father.
Awful childhood.
Barely literate.
5’2″ tall.
Spent most of his youth in detention centers.
When he was finally released as an adult, he begged to stay inside, worrying he could not handle life on the outside.
With a few years he had harems of women.
Held orgies.
Orgies were so great that Beach Boy Dennis Wilson invited them to move in.
Dennis Wilson was a major Alpha Male rock star of the ’60s.
Manson then order his women to kill.
They were so devoted that they did.
His women were not ugly losers — some were former cheerleaders.

Say what you will about the guy, but he had an innate Alpha quality. Shame it was put to such bad use. Guys who whine they can’t get women should think about his life and how he managed to not only get women to sleep with him but basically make them servants to his will. He had some serious charisma.

I’m not surprised at the wife who is a fraction of his age. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have groupies.

He was even a talented songwriter. He placed a song on a Beach Boys album and penned this, which was later covered by Guns N’ Roses.

True love.

<dr seuss>

Yes, chicks dig jerks.
Some dig them a little
some dig them a lot.
Some chicks dig them
in the parking lot.
Some dig them white
some dig them black.
And some chicks even dig them
when they go on the attack.
Yes, chicks dig jerks
this much is true.
They dig jerks more
when they’re black and blue.
Chicks dig jerks
of all sizes and hues.
They dig charmers and badboys
and prisoners too!
Some chicks dig jerks
of the jerkiest sort.
They marry crazy killers
60 years older, and short.
Nice men and kind men
need not apply.
It’s dangerous folk
who catch a chick’s eye.
So when you see a puddle
and lay down your coat
just remember the chicks
backstage at death row.
Ol’ Charlie Manson
got himself married.
While you sit at home
and whack your tally.

</dr seuss>

On a related topic, F. Roger Devlin pondered the reason for the observable preference of women for jerks, in an article titled “The Question of Female Masochism“. A CH read of the week. The take-home punch:

I would suggest that female sadism might be expected to emerge in a society where men refuse to or are prevented from displaying dominance. A society-wide failure of men to take charge of women is likely to produce a great deal of conscious or unconscious sexual frustration in women which may express itself as sadism. [...]

I do not know if frustrated masochistic instincts cause sadism in women—it is just my hunch. What I do feel confident in stating is that female masochism is a critically important subject which neither feminist denial nor the sanctimonious gallantry of Christian traditionalists should dissuade us from investigating.

You only had to listen… to yer loveable Heartiste.

Read Full Post »

SCIENCE! has given us a glimpse into the possible origins of the renowned human female mate preference for jerkboys of varying jerkitude.

Male sexual aggression: What chimps can reveal about people

Male chimpanzees that wage a campaign of sustained aggression against females sire more offspring than their less violent counterparts, new research finds.

The results suggest that such nasty behavior from males evolved because it gave the meanest males a reproductive advantage, said study co-author Ian Gilby, a primatologist at Arizona State University in Phoenix.

This chimpanzee behavior could also provide some insight into the roots of sexual aggression in men.

“It is possible that in our early ancestors there may have been an adaptive value to male aggression against females,” Gilby said.

Chimps aren’t the only closest living ape relatives of humans (bonobos and gorillas are the others), but their present-day characteristics could help shed light on deeply embedded human sexual behavior that is resistant to shorter term cultural or ecological changes.

But sexual aggression in male chimpanzees isn’t directly parallel to rape, because it typically takes place at times distant from copulation. Female chimps also mate with multiple males anyway, Gilby said..

To understand the roots of this behavior, Gilby and his colleagues recorded instances of male-on-female violence in a troop of chimpanzees living in Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. The researchers studied violence that occurred both when the females were sexually receptive, or swollen, and when they were not. The team then compared that information with paternity tests on all the offspring born since 1995.

Chimps have a strict male dominance hierarchy, and more-dominant males generally engage in a greater amount of gendered aggression. But even when taking this into account, the team found that aggression increased a male’s chances of siring offspring — regardless of whether the chimp was more or less dominant.

The sustained intimidation in which chimps engage, which has some parallels to human behaviors such as stalking or domestic violence, is a form of mate guarding. The behavior may make female chimps less likely to sneak off with a partner of her choosing during her most fertile times, Gilby said.

So male aggression isn’t primarily about coercing sex from females. It’s a mate guarding strategy, similar to the violence that lunkhead alpha human males may occasionally visit upon their in-demand hottie girlfriends (cf., Chris Brown). And according to this study, that mate guarding aggression has a genetic payoff, so it would be selected over genes for “niceguy” supplication and everlasting tenderness.

Obviously, this isn’t the whole human story, as niceguys are still with us, and women don’t fall for jerks all the time every time. But there is clearly an observable female preference for jerkboys that has no parallel in a male preference for jerkgirls. Think of a jerkboy bell curve, and place women on it. At the far left, you find good girls who never go for men with even a hint of jerkish characteristics, in the middle are the majority of women who like their men best when they exhibit some jerkboy flair, and at the far right of the bell curve are your women who fall in love with serial killers and prisoners.

There is no such equivalent bell curve for men.

The study explains why men might have evolved a taste for flashing gang signs of intimidating assholery upon lovers, but what about women’s taste for receiving that assholery with open legs? One can surmise that a “jerkboy gene” which improved men’s reproductive fitness (in an environment where reproduction wasn’t thwarted by cheap and easy contraception) would, over generations, ride sidesaddle with a “jerkboy loving gene” in women that improved the reproductive fitness of those women who acquiesced to, or even sought out, the very special lessons in love that jerks are fond of teaching. It’s a variant on the sexy sons hypothesis; call it the sexy sonofabitch hypothesis.

Read Full Post »

Step 1: Stop feeding them.

Step 2: Introduce predators.

Step 3: Profit economically, socially, spiritually.

Best,
CH

Read Full Post »

The Great Men On Girls

Libertardian introduces CH readers to Herman Wouk, adding to our “Great Men On [X]” series,

‘“Pretty girls are just girls, Margie, you see. That’s what finally emerges. The most immoral slut among them, even a dumb roundheels like Imogene, at heart just wants a fellow and a nest and clothes and furniture. What’s more, they tend to be stupider than other girls, because being pretty makes life too easy for them. The day they sprout those charming breasts, they usually turn off their brains, and just bob along on the tide of attention and fun that starts up. Then after a while they’re twenty-five and have to start thinking again. Because by that time the breasts are beginning to droop and the fuss is dying down. Of course by then it’s too late, like as not. They’re empty-headed fools, they can’t read, they can’t talk, they can’t think, their emotions have been gutted by random sleeping around, and their lives are a shambles—”

Marjorie said, “You’re a cruel hound, do you know? A cruel hound.”’

Cruel to be kind.

Bonus Wouk:

Sadly every iteration of technological progress unlocks a new level of potential mental illness. Here’s Herman Wouk again with a rant from sixty (!) years ago:

“Being an actress (or a model, same damn nonsense) has become to the average American girl what being a knight in armor was to Don Quixote. It’s a process that’s going on all over the country, this addling of girls’ brains. … Nothing can stop it, until our civilization changes. Year after year troops of Marjorie Morningstars will converge on Hollywood and Broadway to be seduced, raped, perverted, prostituted, or—if they’re lucky like you—to merely tangle up in fornication for a couple of years and then go home to marry the druggist’s son or the doctor or the real estate man. I say you’re lucky because I’ve been a little more interesting and amusing, I’m sure, than the usual show-business deflowerer. It’s generally some asinine chorus boy or actor, or lecherous third assistant stage manager, who does the job. Or a producer, if a girl’s really worth bothering with. Or maybe a musician, or a phony Village writer needing a bath and a haircut. Some idle joker, anyway, who stays up late and has a lot of time on his hands for fooling around with the Morningstars.”

The attention whoring technologies of social media have opened possibilities for mental and emotional disorders like HPD to far more women than filmmaking ever did. It’s mass scale “addling” with even less payoff than casting couch opportunism.

Read Full Post »

A hilariously droll response to that Shoshana Roberts catcall-baiting (s)troll through the heterodusk community was recently uploaded to YouTube. It features an attractive white woman taking a 10-hour walk through predominately white Auckland and having her experience recorded by a companion operating a concealed GoPro camera.

Nothing much happens besides a few head turns by men as she walks past them. I suppose a deranged feminist would use that as evidence of eye harassment. Dem man eyes boring holes through women’s souls… eye rape!

The first interesting reaction starts at 0:25, when she struts past a construction site. Two brown men stare at her for a while, but say nothing. It’s hard to tell if they’re very tanned white men, or nonwhite laborers; nevertheless, the scene is reminiscent of the CH observation that the colorful excesses of “diversity”, whether of the race or class variety, tend to be kept in check if subsumed into a larger culture firmly in control by a self-assured and demographically dominant white majority. Some would call this an example of a people “owning a space”.

At 0:37, she receives a very aggressive eye rape from a mustachioed man who, it should be noted, looks conspicuously nonwhite.

The dramatic climax starts at 0:44. A white man notices her as he walks in the opposite direction, does a turnabout, and skips ahead to her side to drop some indirect day game on her. He stops her and asks if she’s Italian. Is this guy a Yad or Krauser acolyte? No mention is made in the video if he got her number. Her GoPro companion keeps walking, possibly to give her some privacy to exchange numbers with the bold pickup artist.

Which leads to another point: Catcalling is anti-game on white women. You will actually lower your chances more by sloppily catcalling a pretty white girl than you would by doing nothing except posing and hoping she digs your contrapposto. White men either intuitively know this and therefore deliberately refrain from the practice, or white men are constitutionally averse to picking up women like a carnival barker. Catcalling is one of those male mating dances that appears to be mostly race-specific; that is, blacks and pedros love it, and their women might very well enjoy it and even occasionally reward it. These guys will also catcall white women, but mostly because they don’t understand that white women don’t vibe with that style of primitive machismo.

Catcalling is also qualitatively different from game-savvy street pickup, the latter which is honed and practiced by, mostly, white men. Hooting at a girl to “show some love”, or “smile more”, or following on her heels for blocks without saying a word except a mewling “Am I too ugly for you”, is not game. Walking up to her side, stopping her, asking some nonsexual question with plausibly innocent intent, and swiftly moving the topic of conversation into more fertile ground leading to a number or kiss close is game that works, and importantly it’s game that works on the world’s most desirable women: Slender white women. (The qualifier is, tragically, more necessary than ever.)

Other than the white PUA flashing some game, and a flabby beta foreigner asking her for directions, she manages to walk the entire city unmolested by white men with active sex drives.

Lesson of the tape: White men don’t catcall. If you are a woman who secretly wants catcalls to feel attractive to men, and you don’t care about catcaller quality or courtship skill level, your best bet is to have a steatopygic ass stuffed into fuck-me jeans and a parade route through Harlem during work hours.

Read Full Post »

Leading sociologists like Charles Murray have examined the social phenomenon of cognitive stratification — the generational separating into two classes, or even subspecies, of the smart from the less smart. It’s considered a bad thing (and I agree) because an IQ elite will not just amass an unequal amount of national wealth, but their precious IQ genes will get trapped into a small caste instead of spread to some degree around the general population. There is also the issue of dysgenic fertility among the overeducated women of the cognitively gated class.

The causes for cognitive stratification are manifold, but there’s one very plausible mechanism which I have yet to see discussed by mainstream white knights pundits.

The Southerner writes,

attractive 21 year old white women exist for marriage? By the looks of things they’re all in college capitalizing on their smv, therefore wasting their fertility and become un-marriageable (and untouchable). I don’t think I’ve ever seen a young post high-school white woman not in college and who wasn’t at least overweight.

Can someone tell me I’m wrong?

One of my theories is that female obesity is a big (heh) contributor to cognitive stratification of SWPL elites from other whites. If more working class and lower class women were thinner and sexier, more lower AND higher class men would happily marry them. This is particularly the case for those sassy smart lower class girls who could easily entrance lonely high IQ SWPL bachelors if these girls weren’t all so goddamned fat.

The same goes for single moms, even the thin ones. Men are loath to commit to single moms, sensibly figuring that her little bastards are romance killers and there’s no upside in raising another man’s fly-by-night spawn.

The sub-elite classes are filled with fatties and single moms, and this goes quite a ways to explaining the abandonment of marriage by the men who have these loser women as part of their social milieu.

Unemployed and unemployable men, driven by mass brown world immigration, are doubtless a factor in declining marriage rates among the cognitive outcasts, but due diligence should be paid to female obesity and single momhood as equal, if not greater, contributors to the decline in social stability of non-elite whites. The only reason I can think that this tenderhearted Heartistian worldview is studiously overlooked is because it gives conservatives the hives to shift some blame onto women and their poor life decisions.

Read Full Post »

Ultimately, the problem with stupid, bitter feminists and their lackeys is their inability to understand, let alone empathize, with how differently from women that men are aroused to desire. Once you have convinced yourself that there are no real biological or psychosexual differences between men and women, it’s a small step from there to bemoaning catcalling while your tits are thrust three feet in front of you. This is what a religious adherence to feminist lies gets you: Fear and loathing of men because they get turned on by visual stimulus with an intensity and swiftness that is alien to your gynocentric worldview.

Most women who aren’t deranged feminists trying to make a victim class point know that, for instance, catcalling is mostly harmless, and take it in stride (even if driven to annoyance by excessive street solicitations). Normal, psychologically healthy women (read: pretty women), intuitively grasp that men and women are very different on and under the hood. They may not know the evolutionary reasons for the differences, or care to know, but their acceptance of men as men permits them to behave in a more charming feminine manner, and to appease men’s desire (or avoid inciting it when necessary) because it’s fun and exciting instead of an “injustice” that must be raged against. Feminist spite and resentment towards men comes from a place of studied ignorance and, in some instances, envy of male sexuality. I think a lot of avowed feminists are ugly broads who secretly yearn to possess the liberated and unencumbered sexual joy that is the birthright of men.

If there’s one common bond that unites all feminists and feminist-lite pundits, it’s a loathing of male desire. Scour away the SJW jargon and that’s the angry little id you’ll find deep inside shaking a clenched black fist at an unforgiving reality it cannot change.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,060 other followers

%d bloggers like this: