Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Once again, ❤science❤ has entered, stage right, as a supporting cast member of Chateau Heartiste’s magnum opus. Once again, you won’t be led astray if you embrace CH observations as your own. You could say there’s a Heartiste Rule in effect at this happy hurting ground: 80% of keen-eyed CH lessons drawn from field experience are in short order confirmed by empirical rigor. The remaining 20% either await scientific vindication, or are too nuanced to mimic in the laboratory without great difficulty or unethical experimental tactics.

The latest salvo from science supports (right on cue!) the knowledge contained within a Heartistian Horcrux that the sexes perceive looks differently and are, as a result, affected by the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex differently.

In a series of interesting experiments measuring selective attention for beautiful people, it was discovered that,

When we strained our subjects’ attentional capacities, we found exactly what I had suspected several decades before: Men overestimated the number of beautiful women (though their estimates of handsome men were unaffected). Female subjects also overestimated the frequency of gorgeous women in the rapidly presented crowds, but they did not overestimate the frequency of handsome men. The whole body of findings points to a simple conclusion about beautiful women: They capture everyone’s attention and monopolize downstream cognitive processes. The conclusion about handsome men is different: They grab women’s eyes but do not hold their minds; good-looking guys quickly get washed out of the stream of mental processing.

This is in line with what we have been saying here for some time: Women are essentially less viscerally affected by good male looks than men are affected by good female looks. And whatever effect male handsomeness has on women’s senses is dissipated much faster from their mental landscapes than female beauty is expunged from men’s mental landscapes. This beautiful truth has far-reaching implications for practitioners of the crimson arts.

In our first study, [we] asked people to judge an average-looking woman after being exposed to one of two series of other women. Half the participants judged the target woman after seeing a series of unusually beautiful women; the other half judged her after seeing a series of average-looking women. As in the case of exposure to extremes of water temperature, exposure to extremes of physical appearance affected people’s judgments of what was average. As we had predicted, an average-looking woman was judged significantly uglier than normal if the subjects had just been gazing at a series of beauties.

And as game theorists will tell you, a charming man will be judged more attractive than he is if the woman in his company had just been hanging out with a bunch of boring betas.

Subjects in the control group first judged the artistic merit of abstract paintings such as Josef Albers’s Homage to the Square. The men in the experimental group saw centerfolds from Playboy and Penthouse; the women saw handsome naked men from Playgirl. After they had looked at either paintings or centerfolds, we asked our participants to rate their feelings about their current relationship partners. Again, there was a cover story — that psychologists were divided on whether being in a relationship opened people up to new aesthetic experiences or made them less open to novelty. To test which side was right, we told them, we needed to know about the extent to which their reported level of commitment depended on whether they had seen centerfolds.

Once again, the results displayed a curious gender difference:

Men who had viewed the centerfolds rated themselves as less in love with their partners; women’s judgments of their partners were not so easily swayed.

Once again, we see that male looks don’t compel nearly the same aroused urgency from women that female looks compel from men. Or, when women cheat, it’s not usually because they found a handsomer lover; it’s because the man they’re with stopped exciting them with their personalities.

The harmful side effect for guys … is this: Real women … do not look as attractive once the mind has been calibrated to assume the centerfolds are normal. And for guys in relationships, exposure to beautiful photos undermines their feelings about the real flesh-and-blood women with whom their lives are actually intertwined.

No this is the PC interpretation. More precisely, limited options and exclusion from beautiful women calibrates men’s minds to assume “real women” are prettier than they are.

But lest we’re too quick to assume men are the only ones who conform to the worst of their gender’s stereotypes, women didn’t fare much better when the experiment was repeated with power rather than beauty as the variable:

Seeing a series of socially dominant men undermined women’s commitment, just as seeing attractive women had done to men’s.

CARDIAC ARREST goes the feminist and manboob hamsters. Recall a very early post from the Chateau archives:

As I’ve written before, what men like in women is simple. In descending order of importance, here are the female attractiveness traits that men desire in women:

Beauty.
Femininity.
Sexual eagerness.

In descending order of importance, here are the male attractiveness traits that women desire in men:

Psychosocial dominance (game).
High status/fame.
Personality (passion/charisma/humor).
Wealth.
Good looks/height/muscularity.
Cleverness/smarts.
Dependability/reliability.
Sexual prowess.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
The rest is commentary.

And what a shitstorm of commentary it has been in the interim! Feminists and bitter beta males both heaving sandbags of rationalizations and wishful thinking and earnest platitudes against the ramparts so that they may bunker down and avoid dealing with these eternal earthy truths about the different sexual natures of men and women.

So what’s a mortal to do [about sensory overload and adaptation]? Are we helpless in the face of our evolved mechanisms, which may lead us astray without our conscious awareness? Not completely. People who understand the dangers of overabundant fats and sugars can control their diets. People who understand the dangers of an overabundant diet of mass-media images can stop gorging on Playboy, People, Sex and the City, or Dancing with the Stars.

Good god, this is some realtalk right here. Just as fatties can keep crap food out of their homes, the loveless and love-hungry can keep porn — the male and female versions of it — out of theirs.

It’s two for one day at Le Chateau, so here’s another recent relevant study that finds partner physical attractiveness is less important as a predictor of women’s marital satisfaction.

Do men value physical attractiveness in a mate more than women? Scientists in numerous disciplines believe that they do, but recent research using speed-dating paradigms suggests that males and females are equally influenced by physical attractiveness when choosing potential mates. Nevertheless, the premise of the current work is that sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness are most likely to emerge in research on long-term relationships. Accordingly, the current work drew from 4 independent, longitudinal studies to examine sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for trajectories of marital satisfaction. In all 4 studies, both partners’ physical attractiveness was objectively rated at baseline, and both partners reported their marital satisfaction up to 8 times over the first 4 years of marriage. Whereas husbands were more satisfied at the beginning of the marriage and remained more satisfied over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive wife, wives were no more or less satisfied initially or over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive husband. Most importantly, a direct test indicated that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting husbands’ satisfaction than predicting wives’ satisfaction. These findings strengthen support for the idea that sex differences in self-reported preferences for physical attractiveness do have implications for long-term relationship outcomes.

Happy wife, happy life? Happy husband, stronger lovin’. Husbands have a responsibility to provide emotional and material support. Wives have a responsibility to provide beauty and sexual support. If either party reneges on their end of the deal — the equivalent of the dull, withdrawn, couch potato husband is the fat, unfeminine, nag wife — then the deal is severed, in practice if not in procedure. This is as decisive an IF-THEN statement as you’ll come across in the realm of human social interaction.

Men, know that your dominance and self-confidence are your passage to bangkunt. Women, know that your youth, beauty and slender hourglass figures are your passage to bangkok. The losers in life will wail and rend their XXXXL muu-muus disclaiming this romantic reality, but after a million terabytes and a billion snarled memes they are still on their knees, receiving a hot load of ostracism and despair from the winners at the party they desperately, secretly yearn to join.

UPDATE

Three for one, baby! Reader Will passes along another study that used MRIs to peer deep into male and female brains to discover the elemental neural processes at work when an attractive member of the opposite sex is in view.

Apologies (not too sorry) for this off-topic. Not sure if CH or anyone else has read this (probably). But it’s *science* that shows that guys are biologically wired to be *motivated* (read: boner) for visual ques (read tits and an ass) moreso than girls. This is an MRI being done on the brain that shows the amygdala is fired moreso in guys than girls when sexyness is visually seen.

This can be interpreted as how guys don’t care so much about status because the blood is rushed to our amygdala based on visual…. Not comparative social relations (such as power). Girls thus have more blood focusing on other parts of there brain such as which guy will give me higher status in terms of my social context.

Quoting the study results,

The emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, shows significantly higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images, according to a Center for Behavioral Neuroscience study led by Emory University psychologists Stephan Hamann and Kim Wallen. The finding, which appears in the April edition of “Nature Neuroscience,” demonstrates how men and women process visual sexual stimuli differently, and it may explain gender variations in reproductive behavior. [...]

The fMRI scans revealed significantly higher levels of activation in the amygdala, which controls emotion and motivation, in the brains of the male subjects compared to the females, despite the fact that both males and females expressed similar subjective assessments of their levels of arousal after viewing the images.

Hamann and Wallen had a separate group pre-select the images to ensure they would be equally arousing to both males and females.

“If males and females found the pictures equally arousing, you would assume they would have similar patterns of brain activation,” said Hamann. “But we discovered the male brain seems to process visual sexual cues differently.”

The scientists’ discovery also is consistent with an evolutionary theory that natural selection spurred the development of different sexual behaviors in males and females.

“There is an advantage for males in quickly recognizing and responding to receptive females through visual cues,” explains Hamann. “This allows them to maximize their mating opportunities, which increases their chances for passing on their genes.”

Another CH truth lovingly caressed by SCIENCE. And this is a humdinger of science, because it directly measured brain activation rather than indirectly through surveys or behavioral analysis.

Men are more viscerally aroused by female looks than are women by male looks. Men, therefore, can neither rely on their looks to get and keep women, nor excuse their failure with women based on their looks. Game, aka applied charisma, is about exploiting that soft space between a woman’s subjective assessment of her own arousal and her actual, primal arousal. As always, don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do. And nothing watches as closely as an MRI looking right into her friggin noggin.

Read Full Post »

A 59-year-old woman, international speaker and writer (“productive citizen”), laments the icy rejection she received at the hands of a 55-year-old man who felt a surge of natural male biological disgust for her naked wrinkly old lady body.

And so, we planned a weekend together. That’s when things got confusing, unspoken and just-not-quite there. We went to bed in a couple’s way — unclothed and touching — all parts near. Kisses were shared and sleep came in hugs. I attempted more intimacy throughout the weekend and was deterred each time.

On Monday evening over the phone, I asked this man who had shared my bed for three nights running why we had not made love. “Your body is too wrinkly,” he said without a pause. “I have spoiled myself over the years with young woman. I just can’t get excited with you. I love your energy and your laughter. I like your head and your heart. But, I just can’t deal with your body.”

I was stunned. The hurt would come later. I asked him slowly and carefully if he found my body hard to look at. He said yes. “So, this means seeing me naked was troublesome to you?” I asked. He told me he had just looked away. And when the lights were out, he pretended my body was younger — that I was younger. My breath came deep and full as I processed this information. My face blazed as I felt embarrassed and shamed by memories of my easy nakedness with him in days just passed.

We talked for some time more, my head reeling at the content of the conversation. He spoke of special stockings and clothing that would “hide” my years. He blithely told me he loved “little black dresses” and strappy shoes. He said my hair was not long and flowing as he preferred, but that was okay because it was “cool looking.” I felt like a Barbie Doll on acid as I listened to this man. He was totally oblivious to the viciousness of his words.

She thinks this man a sadistic monster, but he was perhaps more honest with her (and with himself) than any man she has known. They aren’t called the ugly truths for nothing.

Men don’t get impotent; women get old. You won’t hear any therapist telling that raw reality to struggling older couples. Be prepared for soul-flaying pain of this nature to become commonplace in post-sanity and post-restricted female sexuality America. Marriage rates are at a historical low and never-married or divorced older women are desperate for romance. They’re in the field when they should be in the home with grandchildren, deluding themselves that the older men who they think by rights are theirs instead are more interested in the younger women with tighter bodies and fresher histocompatibilities. And to make matters worse, more than a few of those younger women love the company of older men.

The sexual market is not equal. It’s not fair. It’s not progressive. And it’s not a rom-com with a happy ending. It is a tearjerker, however.

Compounding the difficulties that older, single women face in the arena of zero-sum mate acquisition is the altered perspective of single older men who are accustomed to dating younger women. When you’ve tasted a morsel of Kobe filet mignon and washed it down with a 2010 Hewitt cabernet, an 80/20 ground beef burger with a tepid Bud Light just isn’t going to get you up in the morning.

Some commenters had a fun time with this lady’s id yelp.

I can relate…there is this woman who is obsessed with me who calls me everyday, she is the nicest woman I ever met,but when I saw her naked I freaked out.

I usually like to keep the lights on but with her I did not want to see, and I tried to think of my ex who had a superb body.

Everything is wrinkly and saggy…it is impossible for me to be passionate about such a woman even though she has the best personality.

Part of me feels sad for her, but I just can not be with her, I have to be passionate about what I see, not only about what us in her heart and her head.

Men are very visual, I am very visual. At some point I had no choice but to tell her I had trouble looking at her naked body.

She is my age but I look 15 years younger while she looks older than her age.

with clothes on she is cute, she even has an hourglass figure, she gets a lot of attention from men but they have no idea what is under her clothes. how everything is very saggy and wrinkly.

sorry if I go on and on, but I am right smack in the middle of a similar situation as the Huffington story..

***

Women gotta understand, God put our eyes right up front…

Personality? Well, okay… but our ears are way back on the head.

***

“I didn’t even want to try to explain the hurt and the horror that he had inflicted upon me. I actually felt sickly sorry for this man as I hung up the phone”

!!!Hamster time!!!!

HE HAD INFLICTED ON HER!

Try servicing a monster and you’ll understand what horror is.

Older women’s best hope is for an epidemic of mass amnesia to strike men and men only. In this way, no single older man crashing the dating market and creating tsunamis for older female hamsters to surf will remember what prime pussy looks and feels like under clothes. Unencumbered by these fond recollections, he can more easily be catechized in the belief of stylishly-clothed but surreptitiously wrinkled hags as the pinnacle of female sexuality… at least for a short while, until his occipital resumes control of his prefrontal and penile.

The whole sordid spectacle reminds me of a dating exploit from a time not yet beyond crystalline recall. I had met a 20-ish blonde in the dusky brick-relief bowels of a drunken after-party. Already buzzing from one drink too many, I began to imagine scenarios… transactions… with her shapely vessel as she spoke of childhood dreams and favorite movie scenes. I made feints toward a same night lay (never a dull moment on the CH sexpress) but she wouldn’t bite, preferring instead to indicate her interest with strong pleas for a follow-up date. “you will call me, right?” “you’ve got my number right there.” SMILE SMILE SMILE “i’ll see you soon!”

Sufficiently sated from recent conquests, I dropped the idea of an effortful seduction whisking her from venue to vainroom before sleepiness took its toll. I agreed to call her, and confessed to myself that the date was happily anticipated. I like blondes. I like 20-ish women. I like them most when they like me in kind.

Two evenings later, we met at a small bistro. She was already there when I arrived, seated indoors under bright light only paces from an outdoor area softly illumined by decorative patio lights. This was her critical mistake. From twenty feet, barely through the restaurant’s entranceway and acutely sober, I saw her heart-swelling silhouette from two nights ago, now unshadowed, had morphed into the splotchy, shattering skin wrap of a woman accelerating to her upper 30s. My smile dropped faster than an unsupported witch’s teat.

I am a master actor when crisis calls, but this disappointment was too great to conceal. She caught the full impact of it and, exacerbated by the contrast of my insanely youthful countenance, stood up from our table seconds after I had introduced myself to calmly but with a hint of croak in her voice cut the date short with a prematurity that must have set land speed records. “if it’s ok with you, we really don’t have to do this. i’m not ready for this. I’m so sorry.” Her entire body downcast and my guilt cresting a harsh wave, I eagerly (but not too eagerly!) accepted her offer.

It’s hard out there for the older woman. Yer ‘umble mareslayer revels in revealing the barbarous clashes that bloody the innersides of our polite vestments, but in real life he’s a bit less callous and handles life’s sad cameos with a softer glove.

Read Full Post »

After Randall Parker gazed in the crystal ball and saw chaos and decay in America’s near future, commenter “Jim” contributed a sound bite worthy of the coveted CH Freelance COTW.

Places like Brazil and the Congo have enormous economic potential just based on geography, climate, and natural resources. A place like Japan is mountainous (only 3% of the land area is arable), few natural resources, not located near major trade routes, subject to frequent catastrophic earthquakes and tsunamis. But Japan has the Japanese people who are more valuable than all of Brazil’s natural wealth.

Doesn’t that get right to the beating heart of all our loud, violent, useless social discourse?

whatever happens, japan has got
the japanese, and you have not

When future elites, at least those having evaded the gallows following Civil War II and walled off in far northern city-state compounds where the ice winds blow, dare to spend a moment to wonder when it all went south for America, a few of them with integrity — no more than a handful, mind you — will find the strength within to betray their ravenous egos and confess that the project of their forebears to flood their homeland with non-anglos and non-germanics was seppuku with a dull shiv. Cutting out the viscera of a country never ends well.

Read Full Post »

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

Patrick insightfully comments over at Liger of the Blogosphere, using the Elliot Rodger shooting spree as a backdrop to explain why chivalry no longer applies in the context of a modern, industrialized, female-empowered society where the state has a monopoly on punitive force.

Elliot [Rodger] feared, and eventually, hated women because he simply could not understand them. His ineptitude in this regard was almost cartoonish, e.g. sitting on a park bench waiting for a cute single girl to approach him.

“Nice guys finish last,” is a cliche because it’s a truism most people don’t want to believe.

Elliot, having never harmed anyone in his life, was a gallant gentleman in his own eyes. What he doesn’t understand is that the high-minded concept of chivalry originated in a time when the abject brutalization of women was commonplace and expected. It was a sort of counterculture set against the time-honored beat’em & rape’em de rigueur of the day. And it only mattered because those practicing it — knights — were those most capable of brutalizing women. An intimidating, armored and mounted professional killer acting in a genteel manner towards a maiden he could otherwise violently defile is the stuff of romantic legend, and it set them apart as a class above the brutish peasant infantrymen.

Because the context of constant fear of sexual subjugation no longer applies, “chivalry” is an anachronistic concept, and being a gentleman is in more looking the part and behaving otherwise, like the well-dressed and stately character of Christian Grey who enjoys whipping and inserting butt-plugs into women. [CH] would say this misdirection and unexpectedness is like crack to women. And it is.

None of this knowledge ever permeated Rodgers’ brain, because he refused to believe it.

As CH has said before, chivalry (or gentlemanliness) only works when it is accompanied by a cultural expectation of female deference to men. Since we are far FAR from the social conditions in the West where women are deferential to men (the opposite is more true), chivalry as a concept and a practice becomes a joke, akin to asking men to anoint the feet of haughty, entitled women in exchange for the masochistic delight of cultural contempt.

The point of mercy — which is what chivalry is, stripped to its core — is that it only means anything when there’s a credible threat serving as its justification. A mercy “granted” from a position of weakness is a fiction; an expedient that permits the continued operation of the fundamental premise without questioning. What the vast hordes of beta males fail to grasp is that their niceguy poses are only effective as a mate acquisition strategy when a jerk assumes them. Niceguys playing niceguys is a plushboy recursion matrix that repels tingles. If anything, niceguys should do the opposite and be *less* chivalrous, as a means of persuading women that they aren’t supplicating pushovers.

Men who think chivalry toward the modern woman will help their romantic prospects are worse than poetically deluded; they’re self-sabotaging.

Read Full Post »

If you waste ten minutes of your life scanning relationship or dating advice from female columnists, one theme you’ll often read is the belief that compliments and flattery are the way to a woman’s heart. Naturally, as it goes with 99% of the “””wisdom””” of your feminist elders, this advice is a crock. Any man who has interacted with live women in anything other than a submissive capacity will quickly learn from experience the self-defeating consequences of attempting to court women with compliments.

Reader Joe Sixpack forwards an example of the awful advice you’ll ingest from Hivemind drones, and of the glimmering shards of Realtalk that are beginning to pierce the veil of vapidity,

A Game element leaks out, of all places, a Yahoo! message board comment:

This was regarding an article that said, “Here’s a wakeup call for you: Women spend an average of 55 minutes getting ready every morning — frittering away the equivalent of 6.4 hours a week, or 335 hours a year, on looks alone, a new survey finds. ”

There is a good way to reduce these numbers. Men, tell your woman that she is pretty. I once dated a guy who told me on a regular basis how pretty I was, how much he loved my eyes, how I was the smartest girl he had ever dated, ect. Who cares if he didn’t mean all of it, it made me feel good. I started wearing a little less makeup and found simpler ways to do my hair just so I could get over to his house early before work. He still said the same things. Sadly the whole thing started to go downhill after his daughter called me mom. Now I’m married to a man who never tells me I’m pretty, smart, ect. I put on loads of makeup and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention with no success. I have decided to use up my makeup and only replace the ones I really care for. Maybe he will notice when I’m no longer trying to dress like the playboy playmates he claims he wants.

So, the one beta guy tells her how hot/smart/etc. she is all the time. The result? She turns frumpy and obviously is no longer with him.

She is now married to a man who never tells her such things. The result? She puts on “loads of make up and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention” and dresses “like the playboy playmates he claims he wants”.

[Ed note: Link no longer works.]

You can sometimes pry nuggets of truth from women, but it requires a facility with comprehending subtext. Women will drop clues revealing their true feelings stuffed between over-sized cushions of egoistic pabulum.

Do you want to persuade your girlfriend or wife to keep up her looks? (And if you’re a non-gay man with T readings above 0.1 ng, you will.) Then keep her on her toes.

Maxim #101: Compliments breed complacency. Critique breeds conciliation. A woman will never work as hard for a man’s approval as when his approval is most elusive.

Read Full Post »

Regular readers who are familiar with the long-running CH series cheekily titled “Chicks dig jerks” will fall deeply in love (or hate) with this study, which just touched down like an F5 tingle in the Provencal lap of the Chateau Lordship.

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: Investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data.

Criminality is highly costly to victims and their relatives, but often also to offenders. From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

Did you hear that thpppft? That was every prostrate manlet, peeved tradcon, and jizzebel gorgon loading their diapers in unison.

It’s as if ❤SCIENCE❤ thumped the great brass triskelion knocker on the oak doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, and uttered upon entrance, “I’m home”.

You’ll excuse me if I allow myself this moment of grandiosity. In keeping with the tenor, it’s well-deserved.

The concordance of this study with observations put forth over the years here at CH, and with the near-daily drumbeat of news stories about women falling hard for all sorts of badboys who flout convention, the law, and others’ well-being, should give the shibbolethians who nurse an ego-wounded hatred for CH pause. The hammer blows they have been taking to the noggin must surely be leaving an impression by now.

But if morale isn’t yet up to snuff, I guess the beatings will have to continue!

criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships.

Single mommery has exploded in the last two generations. If that isn’t a sign of low parental investment and low commitment to reproductive relationships, what is? Exposure?

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense.

laughing all the way to the end.

Paging Audacity of huge

Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders.

It takes two to tango. And badboys tango with a lot of willing dance partners (women who inexplicably lose their attentiveness to contraception use when beguiled by badboys). That part about criminal offenders being more likely to get remarried is telling; if an asshole has a little bit of a soft spot for (ceremonial) monogamy, he’ll have an easier time finding a second wife than the niceguy who got eatpraydumped by his bored wife. It appears that Swedish women (the most evolved of white women, wags may note), when they are presented with badboys from a broken marriage, can’t wait to offer themselves as second chance redemption to such misunderstood paragons of maleness.

Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

There’s a rumor spread from certain sectors of female astonishment that men with significant sexual histories turn off women.

We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country

Where have the enlightened CH readers come across a variant of this formulation before?

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

It’s clarifying to think of women as having two core sexual natures that can shift at the margins in the direction of favoring the expression of one or the other, and thus influencing mating behavior, in response to rapid and sweeping environmental cues. Scientifically, these core sexual strategies are known as r- and K-selection, the former epitomized in nature by the fast-breeding, fast-dying small mammal (mouse) and the latter by the slow-breeding, slow-dying large mammal (elephant).

For practical everyday purposes, the human female desire template is largely immutable. Feminist delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, you aren’t going to realign female nature to conform more closely with male sexual nature, (say, by making casual sex less emotionally impacting on women). However, if you had the power to perform an unethical experiment and rearrange society in the trajectory it has taken organically (or perhaps conspiratorially) in the West these past 100 years, you would begin to perceive changes, subtle at first and building to pandemic scale, in the choices and courtship rituals that women abide. You may, for example, start to see women pulling away from beta male providers and indulging more frequently their latent lust for exciting badboys.

What this study above is saying, and what CH has been saying for years based on real world experience in the urban wench trenches, is that criminality — in its milder, accessible form, jerkboy charisma — is quickly becoming a favored male trait by women, who are choosing these men using the only instrument that matters: their vaginas. When life is easy and contraceptives flow like the River Orinoco, women get bored and seek the orgasmic release of aloof, reckless, throwback assholes. Women in modern industrialized nations come to desire the sexiness over the security.

Maxim #70: Civilized, coddled chicks dig jerks.

I’ll leave it to the reader to infer the nuances of meaning from this maxim. Hint: “muh dik” is not an escape hatch.

This transformation in female mate choice doesn’t have to be huge to have a deleterious effect on civilized prosperity. In fact, changes at the margins can be enough to send the entire system careening into a tailspin. Like an advantageous allele, you move the badboy-loving needle from 1% to 2% and some serious consequences will accrue in a few generations’ time.

Now, I didn’t have a team of PhDs to confirm my hunches for me. All I had was my senses and my time in the company of the modern civilized American woman. I could see it all around me, what was happening. I had stories from my ancestors to compare my own experiences, and the contrast was striking. I figured change was going down, and a theory emerged.

and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

In the land of the deferential beta male, the rule-breaking alpha is king.

Permit yer ‘umble Poonstradamus another theory-of-everything prophecy: This *could* end well.

I’ll explain. As of now, the situation looks bleak. Criminals and cads monopolizing the prime sex years of Western women. Beta males being left with the used-up hags as recompense. r-selection creating perverse incentives that divide men from women, family from community, people from nation. A surge of bastards set to steamroll over the culture in the coming decades. Crushing debt loads piling up as once-dutiful citizens, aided and abetted by diversity, move toward a pragmatic philosophy of looking out for number one and shredding the safety net for filaments of silver.

Alpha fux, beta bux is credit-rolling bacchanalia, a temporary condition which must find its denouement in the ruin of a civilization abandoned by its watchmen and looted by its jackals.

How could this possibly end well?

Note the study participants: Swedes. People from a nation which is the pinnacle, or nadir, of feminized manboobery. This is a nation that is asphyxiating under the weight of its own feminist crackpottery. Perhaps, in a moment of hope, we can see the outline of a future Sweden where harder, sterner men — the issue of all those womb-widening orgasmic shrieks of delight squeezed from the firm choking grips of badboys — resume their place at the genetic table. Sweden’s jerkboy-chasing women may be, unwittingly, judging their emasculated beta males unfit for further propagation, and populating a future reborn Sweden with psychopath protectors of their way of life.

The Vikings (or Moors) may rise again.

***

This post went way beyond what I intended it to be — just another shiv in the crusty hides of deluded freaks. As much as I love to tune my twelve-string to their wails of pain, there is a benefit in all these “chicks dig jerks” posts for the common man who wants more, and better, love in his life. Think of the series as a field book to navigate modern womanhood. Dependability, humor, taking girls on interesting dates, paying their way… these things don’t cut it anymore. You need edge. You need aura. You need an asshole attitude.

You don’t need to commit crimes (although it can only help). You do need to be a little less deferential, and a little more inconsiderate, to the civilized Western woman if you want to make a positive impression on her.

You can already see signs, if you’re willing to look, of a trend among men toward maximizing their alpha traits (often at the expense of their beta traits) so that they are better equipped to leverage the modern mating market. It’s no coincidence that interest in testosterone replacement is sweeping through online discourse.

Our civilization is getting plundered, and women are first to the treasure chest with their grubby hands. You can lament this turn of affairs and withdraw from a fulfilling sex and love life, or you can do what is necessary to enjoy the rewards of women’s love that your civilization-building great-grandfather enjoyed when the wild sex compulsions of his time’s women were wisely constrained by better men.

You won’t stop this juggernaut of decivilization. It’s too big and moving too fast. Like the fate of empires that have come and gone before, it has to finish its preordained path of destruction. Something good may rise from the flattened earth, but in the meantime, poolside is the only sensible choice.

Read Full Post »

I know, I know, after an evening in your smoking jacket reading Jezebel and John Scalzi with blurry eyes and tending to your rickets, you wonder how anyone could think men and women aren’t exactly alike except for that bothersome business of the genitalia.

Well, my hermetically sealed friend, you can listen to CH telling you like it is from field experience, or you can get the same revelations from ❤SCIENCE❤.

Sex differences in personality are believed to be comparatively small. However, research in this area has suffered from significant methodological limitations. We advance a set of guidelines for overcoming those limitations: (a) measure personality with a higher resolution than that afforded by the Big Five; (b) estimate sex differences on latent factors; and (c) assess global sex differences with multivariate effect sizes. We then apply these guidelines to a large, representative adult sample, and obtain what is presently the best estimate of global sex differences in personality.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.

Significance

The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.

Sex-based personality differences are large and widespread, and result from competing evolutionary pressures placed on men and women.

In addition to their direct influences on mating processes, personality traits correlate with many other sexually selected behaviors, such as status-seeking and risk-taking (see e.g., [20], [34], [35]). Thus, in an evolutionary perspective, personality traits are definitely not neutral with respect to sexual selection. Instead, there are grounds to expect robust and wide-ranging sex differences in this area, resulting in strongly sexually differentiated patterns of emotion, thought, and behavior – as if there were “two human natures”, as effectively put by Davies and Shackelford [15].

Two human natures (you could argue for a lot more if you include racial differences in personality). This is the reason game works as a concept and as a practical guide. Women are very different, emotionally and psychologically, than are men, and game is a system which leverages this sex-specific personality contrast. Think about it: If men and women were completely alike, whatever worked for women in the dating market would also work equally well for men. But two minutes in the jungle are all you need to notice that the working strategies men and women employ to find and attract mates are very different.

The study is worth reading in full, especially the authors’ methodology of breaking down the Big Five personality traits into smaller components, and the importance of measuring latent variables.

So where do men and women most differ in personality traits?

In univariate terms, the largest differences between the sexes were found in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males). These effects subsume the classic sex differences in instrumentality/expressiveness or dominance/nurturance.

Feminists and equalists will try to ignore, suppress, or distort findings about sex differences like those in this study, because the notion that there is an archetypical female personality and an archetypical male personality that is biological in construct is a stake through the heart of everything they desperately want to believe about human sexual nature and the impolite and inegalitarian forms it often takes.

How is an ugly feminist supposed to exhort normal women to “lean in” when normal women don’t have any desire nor disposition nor, for that matter, talent to do so? It is a pickle.

Read Full Post »

An article by a Mzzz Pamela Clark has been making the memetic rounds. It’s titled “35 Practical Steps Men Can Take to Guarantee Involuntary Celibacy Support Feminism”. It is as vapid as you’d think it would be, just going by the lede. Excerpt:

12. Pay attention to and challenge informal instances of gender role enforcement.

For example, if you are at a family function or dinner party, pay attention to whether it is mostly/only women who are doing food preparation/cleaning/childcare while men are socializing and relaxing. If it is, change the dynamic and implore other men to do the same.

If you want to make yourself utterly sexually repellent to women who count, and a pariah among your cool male friends, sure go ahead and follow her advice.

The spectacle of these feminists one-upping each others’ stupidity and flights of fantastical voyage from reality seems to be exponentially increasing in absurdity and frequency lately. Why?

The answer is simple. Feminism is the limbic pain of ugly women getting amplified through the internet bullhorn.

Here’s a pic of the female who wrote the above article. WNB with John Scalzi’s thimblepeen.

When ugly bitter women meet the ASCII soapbox, Freudian hilarity ensues. You can set your watch to the accuracy of the CH feminism formulation. Nine times out of ten, when you see a photo of the female who wrote this or that feminist treatise aka foray into poopytalk, she will be fat, ugly, or an incomplete gender morph.

And that is the structural Götterdämmerung from which there is no semantic escape.

Read Full Post »

There’s a lot of chatter among the cuntocracy about how men aren’t “manning up” and doing their duty to marry off all the single ladies. But maybe, just maybe, part of the reason for this male abdication of the sacred institution of marriage is the poor quality of the women on offer.

Just how bad is the marriageable American female market? Jay in DC writes,

‘Hot 99.5′ is basically the hippest and most relevant DC radio station in that it has the youngest listener demographic.

They are currently holding a contest for “new brides” to post their hottest photo to win the contest (1,000 dollar prize). Now granted, more intelligent chicks are probably NOT going to put their pic out there. But there are about 100 submissions up there already so this is a pretty good cross-section of not only DC, but really the US.

Behold men, and look upon your ruination. Betas WILL marry anything. ANYTHING, and this is what keeps the perpetual cycle of disgusting fat entitled average americunts reproducing.

I really advise you take the 15 minutes or so to REALLY look at every photo. This is our future. Out of those 100 photos there are FIVE women I would date, a few more I would fuck, and 3 I would marry if they had the classic femininity to go with their looks.

That is a SAD ASS RATIO. 97 to 3 in a pretty good statistical sample are marriageable? Welcome to the USSA.

http://www.hot995.com/contests/summer-bridal-showdown/297456/Vote/photoDetail/402513

p.s. Don’t bother posting comments, they will be shot down in seconds, just enjoy the grotesquery that is these women in bridal gowns.

Browsing the blushing attention whores, I’d have to concur with Jay’s assessment; the majority of the American East Coast brides are beastly. Beauty and the beast, inverted.

Beta males won’t marry anything. That is a stretch. Ugly, older, masculine, and fatter women DO pay marriage marketplace costs that you won’t be able to readily discern in their smiling wedding day photos. The hidden nature of the cost does not preclude its exorbitance.

And what is that exorbitant cost? Settling. It’s all of the better men with whom the post-prime, pre-Wall, porky-princess American bride had to give up hope of fettering to a marital contract. As age, size and attitude veer away from the feminine ideal beloved by the vast majority of men, women will find it harder — sometimes impossibly harder — to land the man of their dreams. They will have to settle for second, third, or even 30th best if they want to be married at all.

And so what you don’t see in those blushing blimp pics are the men they truly wanted who pumped and dumped them, or ignored them for their prettier friends. What you also don’t see are the hapless losers who vowed last-ditch lifelong monogamy to a land whale in exchange for avoiding the walking death of incel, as their hearts privately sank away in forlorn regret.

That is the individual, human dynamic. What about the big picture? Interesting — in the horrible sense of the word — things happen when the supply of attractive women drastically shrinks in proportion to the supply of megafauna, feminists, careerist shrikes, manjaws, and bitter spinsters. When the marriage market essentially become an outpost of Wal-Mart (Wall-Mart!) — cheap, throwaway, high fructose corn syrup goods — men experience what could be described as an exogenous “restriction of range” problem when they set out to find marriageable women.

Instead of a normally functioning sexual market where men are presented with many options among marriageable women of varying degrees of attractiveness (who nonetheless meet the men’s threshold for long-term commitment worthiness), what transpires in a shit market like what we have now is a massive limitation in men’s acceptably attractive mate choices and a replacement with a dichotomous mate choice system. In a dichotomous mate choice system, beta males no longer have the luxury of choosing between, say, a feminine slender 6 and a tomboyish slender 7. Now they’re restricted to choosing between involuntary celibacy and marriage to a ghastly apparition.

Unfortunately for the progress of the human species, the male sex drive is so strong that more than a few hard-up betas and omegas will choose the sad, dreary marriage to a circus sideshow over the soul-crushing solitude of sexlessness.

Beauty is truth. CH is among the greats in asserting the truism of this plea for an aesthetic sensibility, and for good reason. When ugliness of body is the norm, ugliness of character and, ultimately, of nation is sure to follow.

Related:

obesity-map-GIF-j

Read Full Post »

The results from an experiment to domesticate wild foxes has led scientists to theorize that the transformation of humanity from hunter-gatherers to modern civilization is essentially a grand scale project in the domestication, i.e. feminization, of men. Reader D.R. writes,

I heard a radio segment the other day you might find interesting. It examines the physical changes that occur in animals when they’re domesticated, and then applies it to humans as we’ve gone from hunter-gatherer to modern society. Among other changes (like pointy to floppy ears in foxes), the animals became more feminine as they became more sociable. The cause? Lower testosterone. Here’s the link:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91696-new-nice/

Be warned: the show has that npr cheesedick feel to it, but this must be the kind of crap necessary to make science palatable to the masses.

John Scalzi explained.

What a shame that the price to be paid for civilized prosperity is male castration. And that’s not a figure of speech. More domestication means lower testosterone. And there is tantalizing evidence of this being a worldwide phenomenon. Sperm count and quality have been falling for generations. Fertility is dropping in all but the most testosterone-y regions (Africa).

The trade-offs would superficially appear to be worth it, (especially for women), but what if we telescope outward to the distant future? What happens to a nation of manboobs and male feminists? A dearth of masculine aggression has downsides: apathy, conformity, lack of creativity, disposition to believe feelgood platitudes. But perhaps worst of all, the fate of such feminized nations is always the same: overrun by manlier cultures.

(For a laugh, check out the comment from “Gigi Jacobs”. A perfect distillation of NPR leftoid psychological projection.)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,944 other followers

%d bloggers like this: