Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

The number one killer of your game is a function of time, but it’s not time. Time — a merciless decay directive that commissions the end of everyone — is too crude and imprecise an agent of character change to rely on for guidance. We need to measure a new reality closer to the heart.

Around age 11 or 12, preteens experience a significant reorganization of their brains. New neural connections are made while gray matter is “pruned”. This process continues throughout adolescence, and doesn’t fully end until the mid-20s, when the brain reaches its final resting phase. The adult you is, in a mental sense, forever 25.

The biggest brain change in the early teen years is the shift away from prefrontal development and the shift toward emphasis on the amygdala, the brain’s emotional center. We become limbic creatures, more feral and impulsive, once we hit our teenage stride, because our decision-making ability, especially under conditions of stress, is then relegated to the control of the amygdala.

There is a sound evolutionary reason for this brain change. If teenagers were overly risk-averse and worried about the consequences of their actions, they would never take those first vital steps to establish their identity by trying new things. Instinctive bravery, or stupidity, is what pushes baby birds out of the nest to fly. Without that neural window of risk-attachment encouraging teens to bust out of their comfort zones, they would never leave home, rightly calculating that life is perfect under the auspices of their hearth managers.

After those heady teenage years, there’s a slow loss in the mental capacity for satiating curiosity and for risk-attachment. This, too, likely has evolutionary origins. Adults who remain wild and thrill-seeking like teenagers do their own children no good, because what those little shits need more than anything is a stable family environment. We are as hard-wired to step into the comfort zone as adults as we are to step out of it as preteens.

There’s another word for the risk-attachment that defines the teenage/early 20s experience: Passion.

Game is all about taking social risks and withstanding blows to the ego. It’s about reckless experimentation. It’s about an inner energy that drives a man to seek new or better lovers and romantic experiences. It’s about denying the soothing siren song of comfort zones with a force ten tenacity. Game is, in its essence, the exalting of passion over passiveness.

Unfortunately, game has a mortal enemy, and it is the brain itself. The loss of risk-attachment — the pure energy of passion — for the gain of risk-aversion — the serene submission to contentment — will kill a man’s game more completely and with greater finality than physical shortcomings, than financial ruin, than even marriage and its punitive bindings.

The number one killer of your game is the same inexorable biomechanical algorithm that killed your passion and replaced it with placidity: Your changing brain.

If you are a man of keen mind, you may even feel this loss of passion. You’ll sense the changes partly in your day to day behavior and partly by way of the nostalgia fuel your living memory provides. Ironically, although the tragedy when viewed from an unbiased distance is immense, you won’t feel the pain of passion loss as much as you should because you won’t have the passion left to mourn it. Kind of like how I imagine a very old man gazes wistfully at a young beautiful woman while his cock remains undisturbed by the commotion.

Regrettably, there’s nothing on offer that could guarantee you avoid this date with dispassionate destiny. But there are weapons that may help you beat back the gathering storm of brain-reconfigured apathy and keep you seducing women in top form for decades to come.

1. Willpower.

If you can sense it, you can slow it. The first step begins with self-awareness. Instead of bleakly shuffling into that fading light like a gelded automaton, turn your mental howitzers against inevitability and embrace the fight. Go into battle knowing full well your defeat is assured but that you’ll have a blast blowing holes in as many passion-killing droids as you can center in your crosshairs.

2. Understand that experience can make up for some loss of passion.

You will get better with women as you get older. This is a natural result of mastering the dating market learning curve and accepting the psychosexual foreignness of the female mind. Improvements in your knowledge and self-control will mitigate some decline in your baseline passion level. To put it more succinctly, you won’t need as much animating passion to seduce new women at 30 as you did at 15.

3. Weightlifting/Testosterone replacement therapy.

Testosterone is the fark matter of the pooniverse. It’s soul juice. It’s the git ‘er done drug. It’s the molecular chakra that unites man’s head, heart and hogzilla. Weightlifting has been proven to raise T levels both temporarily and permanently, and this is true for most men who follow the Law of Iron. So does eschewing the modern high-sugar, high-carb fattyfest. Refusing to allow your T to sink into oblivion is a clarion call for more intrinsically summoned passion. (Recent evidence finds that estrogen inhibitors may work better than testosterone boosters. I leave it to the reader to research the issue.)

4. Spermatogenesis.

WARNING: Experimental territory. Enter at your own risk.

Read this comment. It’s anecdotal, but the associations he draws have some founding in the scientific literature, not to mention similarities with the conventional wisdom. Boost your sperm production and that wonderful I’M ALIVE blue ball feeling through the interventions of no-fap, HCG, and something called LJ100. Scrotum pressure is a pathway to scoundrel passion.

5. Set an expiration date on all your long-term relationships.

If you make it a principle to escape LTRs before the two year mark, you’ll evade comfort zone entrapment and artificially reignite that dreamy teen passion for new experiences and thrills, and screw the consequences. Your brain will rewire itself to accommodate the new stresses you put on it. Call it, whoremesis. Of course, as great as this is for your love life, it’s as bad for the continuation of the species and a prosperous society. Maybe you’ll figure you can contribute in a godly way to society later in life, after you’ve had your fill of the best kind of pleasures and passions, in which case you’ll want to save some of that archaic energy for your sequels.

A killer is coming for you. Heed the immortal yearning of Roy Batty — I want more life, fucker — and follow him into that rain to die kneeling as you were meant to… but not before proving to yourself and the world you’ll damn your destiny on your feet.

Read Full Post »

Touch — aka “kino” in the pickup artist lingo — is a powerful courtship tactic that increases women’s compliance to men’s requests.

Previous research has shown that light tactile contact increases compliance to a wide variety of requests. However, the effect of touch on compliance to a courtship request has never been studied. In this paper, three experiments were conducted in a courtship context. In the first experiment, a young male confederate in a nightclub asked young women to dance with him during the period when slow songs were played. When formulating his request, the confederate touched (or not) the young woman on her forearm for 1 or 2 seconds. In the second experiment, a 20-year-old confederate approached a young woman in the street and asked her for her phone number. The request was again accompanied by a light touch (or not) on the young woman’s forearm. In both experiments, it was found that touch increased compliance to the man’s request. A replication of the second experiment accompanied with a survey administered to the female showed that high score of dominance was associated with tactile contact. The link between touch and the dominant position of the male was used to explain these results theoretically.

Touching a woman early and often during the attraction phase of a pickup, and escalating the erogenous intent of the touching as familiarity deepens, is one element of what I call the core precepts of game. (Qualifying, teasing, body language, and outcome independence are other core precepts.) Womanizers and love maestros have long extolled the virtues of touching, and now science has added its stamp of approval.

Most interestingly, touch appears to work its magic on women by signaling greater male dominance. Women have a feedback loop that registers male touch as dominant behavior; behavior which arouses women because evolution honed in them a subtle appreciation for men who can protect them from danger and provide them hard-gained social and material resources. A sexually, romantically, and tactilely entitled man is attractive to women for the same reason a beautiful, hourglass-shaped, young woman is attractive to men: They both signal possession of deeper traits that would maximize an opposite sex mate’s reproductive advantage.

If you spend any amount of time in the field, one of the first things you’ll notice is how men who stubbornly refuse to touch women, often from fear of rejection or of “crossing lines”, fail to close the deal. I could pick out the handful of alpha males in a bar with no information to go on except which men touch girls the most often and effortlessly.

***

The second study (from 1987, but given the feminist-polluted condition of current sociology departments, that is perhaps a good thing) is a diamond shiv straight through the black heart of sex difference denialists. Dominance behavior increases male attractiveness but not female attractiveness.

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general likability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

Dominance alone, as apposed to sheer aggression or domineering control freakery, made the male subjects seem more sexually attractive to women. The effect was not seen when the sexes were reversed.

Color me shocked. Women prefer virile, dominant men and men prefer feminine, deferential women. Thank you, ❤science❤!

(I bolded the second part as a reminder that, although it may appear at a glance that general likability is a prerequisite to female arousal, it is not. Players intuitively know this, and most men would, given the choice, choose passionate sex over “being liked” by women.)

Naturally, this will come as “news” to those creepy recluse losers and bitterboy sex difference denialists who haven’t come within ten yards of catching a cute woman’s intoxicating estrofabulous vibe. And just as naturally, these motley twerps will project the pain of their miserable anhedonic loveless lives with their internet provider or frump wives onto ruthless, charming motherfuckers like yours truly for daring to point out the bleeding obvious.

And it won’t end, it can’t end. The dance of sadistic cruelty with deluded losers, like the dance of love with youthful beauties, is a pleasure incomparable.

Read Full Post »

From a Facebook feed:

Self-report bias may make sex survey data less than reliable indicators of when-the-lights-are-off sexual behavior, but widely-held cultural perceptions that can elicit knowing chuckles from most people are often windows into real world behaviors of a Silent Depravity that aren’t captured by pencil and paper divining tests.

The graphic above doesn’t say that married couples are all swinging dicks ruling over Golden Whore concubines. What it taps into instead is a recognition that the premarital dating market is skewed in ways big and small toward the advantage of alpha males who, when they and their female admirers are left to their own devices, tend to juggle concurrent lovers while women who catch the eye of these lordly alpha males tend to ignore lesser men for their true desires.

This sexual market reality may dissipate under the constraints of the marriage market, but it never fully disappears. One ignores deeply rooted psychological and libidinous differences between the sexes at peril of their own romantic fortunes.

Read Full Post »

eofahapi asks,

are you going to write about the Rotherham thing? It needs a voice that is not delusional like the “Not all Muslims are like that” blah blah blah.

There are two camps of thinking. One says Rotherham is the logical outcome of extreme white ethnomasochism, which is itself a manifestation of pathological altruism, a reflexive mental condition that evolved over millennia of outbreeding. In this take, self-loathing, holier-than-thou whites in positions of power (and less powerful whites refusing to demand accountability from their leaders) are so wedded to their equalist ideology that they will allow the rapes of 1,400 white women and girls by brown skinned goatherders to continue ad infinitum until they are called to the carpet by the preponderance of evidence (and by samizdat rebels releasing uncomfortable facts). This theory presupposes that the ethnomasochist ego is so tender and fragile it cannot withstand confrontation with ugly truths about the reality of race and diversity, so the ego acts to preserve itself with PC social rules that create a bubble of self-soothing pabulum which permits them to go on confident that their worldview isn’t discredited. Since ethnomasochists thrive on external validation from other ethnomasochists, what happens is that their status signaling apparatuses get warped into self-abnegating paeans to the lie that whites are the root of all evil.

The second theory is that the anti-white elite whites aren’t at all ethnomasochists, but are instead a burgeoning new (or orthogonally ancient) race of whites — and here I use the term race in its figurative as well as genetic senses — who don’t perceive themselves at all as part of a broader white identity that must be preserved against barbarian attack. If this theory is correct, the sacrifice of 1,400 white women to brown predations will hardly move them emotionally. They won’t feel sympathy because they don’t feel any kinship, and so for them to sweep the evil of non-whites committed against non-elite whites under the rug is practically a procedural formality with little consequence. If anything, they would welcome such third world predators as allies in their own psychological war against “less enlightened” whites.

Which theory is true, or more true, is debatable. What isn’t is that these traitors need to swing from the gallows soon, before their sickness infects us all and dooms us to extinction.

***

eofahapi also wonders about the nature of feminists,

Because we know that there are differences in male and female brains, if a woman had hyper testosterone, would she really be feminist? I am skeptical, because feminists tend to be not the most logic people. Feminism is a very emotion based movement, and if you try to challenge one with logic it usually becomes heated ad hominens.

Feminists appear to be burdened with the worst of each sex: The aggressive posturing of men combined with the emotional irrationality of women. Not unlike misbehaving children. And what do you do with misbehaving children? You set boundaries and punish them when they act up.

Read Full Post »

Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. They exist because people make observations and notice patterns, and then draw generalizable conclusions based on what they see and experience. The accurate observations gain traction and become conventional wisdom, until such time the Krimethink Kommissar orders a media brainwashing blitz and the stereotypes are pushed into people’s subconscious world, where they are extracted by white coats in exercises designed to demoralize the enemy, such as implicit bias tests, and through open-source proxies like neighborhood demographics.

Add another widely-held but covertly-discussed stereotype: Not only are avowed feminists ugly and unhappy, they’re manly too!

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and dominance: A possible explanation for the feminist paradox.

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e. those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

(From the results section):

In summary, the feminist activist sample had a significantly smaller (i.e., masculinized) 2D:4D ratio than the general female samples. The size of this difference corresponds approximately to a 30 percent difference in prenatal testosterone/estradiol ratio, which was the index found to have the strongest association with 2D:4D (Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Knickmeyer, & Manning, 2004). Directiveness self-ratings also exhibit a large and highly significant difference in the predicted direction. It is notable that the feminist activist sample 2D:4D was also more masculinized than those of the male comparison samples, except for the left hand in the aggregate sample (see Table 2).

As commenter chris, who forwarded this study, shivvily exclaimed:

Biology and ideology are intimately entwined. It should surprise no one who isn’t deliberately self-deluding that screechingly insane man-hating feminists are ugly, biologically masculine women who resent their sexual market invisibility to men and crave to rearrange society to accommodate their freakish unfeminine testosterone-drenched psychologies. To take a feminist seriously is to elevate the deviant to the normal. It’s akin to unloading thousands of liberty-loving Somalis onto Minnesota because you fervently believe they are just like Northwest Europeans in temperament and will assimilate any day now… oh wait.

Not coincidentally, the best allies feminists have got are plush, beboobed, effete male feminists who perhaps suffered a toxic dose of mom’s ovary juice while in the womb. We already have evidence that lardassery lowers a man’s serum testosterone, so given the current obesity plague ravaging the aesthetics of Western nations it makes sense that fat male feminists would suckle at the flapjack teats of domineering femcunts belched from the bowels of the Jezbuzzalon beast.

Talk about a sickly stew: Aggro feminists + mendacious manboobs. All the degenerate freak mafia ugly in the world compacted into a dense turd by the Hivemind megaphone for maximum truth-suppression and gimp ego masturbation.

The occasional concern troll will stop by here and ask “Why do you give feminists such a hard time? It’s not like they’ll listen.”

Ah, but the goal is not to reform lumpencronetariat feminist grotesques. They are laboratory pets from whom to excite howls of limbic pain with both the chainsaw and the scalpel. Amplified through the stone halls and domed atria of the Chateau, their pain serves as a lesson and a warning for the others.

Normal, pretty, feminine women may not know it, but they too are targets of feminist malignancy. Cursed with her unchangeable outer and inner ugliness, the self-declaratory feminist wagging her masculine 2D:4D fingers finds succor cutting her distant competition off at the knees. We are all Harrison Bergeron now, except for the dyke-y pigs making the rules.

That strategy will fail, as long as CH stands a citadel above the fetid swamp engulfing the West. Divide and conquer. Victory comes when the sick and demented are isolated and ostracized from the healthy and normal, the cultural immune system returned to full functioning, and the icy wastelands where spiteful misfits go to drown in tears of their unfathomable sadness are once again open for business.

Read Full Post »

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 »

Anyone who’s lived a day in his life (or played summer football in a city park or worked out at a vibrant gym) has noticed that different races have different musculature and athletic talent. Blacks are the most ripped, and often the biggest, particularly in the deltoids and lats. They respond the fastest to resistance training and are amazingly agile on their feet, (something you have to marvel at the first time a black guy with the ball makes a cut around you).

Whites are the most varied, ranging from nerd skinny to hulking well-marbled powerlifter. Few whites can get as defined as blacks, so you really become aware of those white guys who do manage to carve their abs and delts well past the norm for their race. Whites also have wider waists than blacks, and tend to stockiness, although this is far from a universal white trait.

Asians are the slightest and the least toned, and are less varied in appearance than either blacks or whites, (although asian sub-groups, like Koreans, who hit the gym hard can become quite strong in compound movements like the squat that leverage their naturally lower center of gravity and shorter limbs).

Hispanics (or amerindians, if you prefer) resemble their asian progenitors in muscle tone, but not in gracility. And depending on how you define “hispanic”, their physical variance is either very large (think Spanish-Cuban vs Mestizo) or very small (the round mamacita millions).

All these racial differences in physique are far more noticeable in younger men (and women) than in older representatives, owing primarily to the fact that most people of any race get fatter and looser with age, the biological upkeep of their sexual dimorphism becoming less relevant beyond reproductive age, and this symptom of aging is greatly exacerbated by the Western obesity plague, especially in black women who get so enormously fat soon after leaving high school that you’d need a team of archaeologists to excavate evidence of their buried female form.

So, you’d have to be blind or a self-deluding status whoring SWPL leftoid to not notice these differences.

For a while, curious noticers wondering what accounted for their observations would assume that testosterone had something to do with it. After all, T and T mimics are injected by bodybuilders to build huge blocks of muscle. Naturally, one infers that the less muscular-looking races (if not necessarily the less strong) have lower levels of testosterone in their blood.

Finding data on racial differences in testosterone hasn’t been easy, but here’s a website (can’t vouch for impartiality of author) which aggregated study results and compiled the available evidence. What was found was the following:

Average total plasma testosterone in the “Big Three” races, in descending order

East Asians
Africans
White Europeans

The slightest and least muscular race has the highest average T levels!

The complete T level ranking looked like this:

Indo-Aryan (i.e. Iranians and Indians!)
East Asian
African
American
European
Middle Eastern
Latin American

If this meta-analysis is accurate, then clearly average racial serum testosterone levels have little, if any at all, effect on average racial physiques and athleticism. Something else must be contributing to the obvious real world differences in racial musculature and athletic potential. It could be androgen receptor sensitivity. It could be non-free form T levels. It could be serum estrogen levels! It could be an environmental or dietary influence. It could be a suite of genes whose properties we have yet to discover.

The point of all this is that knowledge is inherently good, and lying liars who wish to bury this knowledge under layers of sophistic equalist fat are enemies of the good.

UPDATE

Commenter jeff writes,

The website referenced in the post is bogus. Any desire to frame the material on the referenced website is just an exercise in establishing closure.

The world is as you see it. White people are almost always in the middle of some human measurement; when that falls out of whack you know the data is probably, but not necessarily, incorrect.

Check here:

jcem.endojournals.org/content/91/2/687.full (Swede/Korean study)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20550541 (South Asian vs Caucasian)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12608929 (Pakistani v. White v. African)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22177168 (penis size & anogenital distance, correlation to higher testosterone)

healthandenvironment.org/ docs/Eisenberg_2012_The_Relationship_Between _Anogenital_Distance_ and_Reproductive_Hormone_Levels_in_Adult_Men.pdf (same study from above in depth)

Read the linked individual studies. They’re very interesting, (especially the anogenital one… that’s out of left field), and some do support a Rushtonian B>W>A gradient in testosterone levels. The debate continues.

Commenter splooge adds that black men are beginning to dominate the “sport” of bodybuilding. In the article, eight-time Mr. Olympia winner Lee Haney admits that the reason blacks do so well in sports and bodybuilding is “our genetics”. Jimmy the Greek wept.

***

Another great comment, this time from roccopilsner.

You have Looks vs. Performance. Looks are for fags and narcissists (when talking about body building), and even women don’t get soaked over a veiny , high blood pressure having Body Builder…sorry they just don’t.

I have been involved in the sports world (boxing and later MMA) competitor , later as a trainer and later as a trainer/cut man for years. I have also been in and around a fairly high level of training of wrestling and powerlifting athletes for many years as well. It’s a simple break down that holds pretty true in my experiences:

– Blacks are quick. They have longer legs than other races on avg, they have greater stride and lots of fast twitch muscle fibers. They excel at jumping and sprinting activities. Speed positions in the NFL, NBA, Olypmpic sprinting (think the tiny Island of Jamaica for instance) The Yang to this Yin, and that the more speedy and explosive the man, the shorter his stamina. Kenyan Africans are thin and not very strong, they run for ever and a day…Jamaicans sprint , yet you will rarely see one go more than a few hundred yards. Blacks tend to be speedy with stamina problems while Asians are built for the long haul but get there very slowly. Whites span the middle ground…

– Whites are by far the largest and strongest (different from powerful and explosive) The largest and most powerful are usually Northern European. Think Strong man champions tend to be either directly from Northern Europe, or descendants of. Think some of the best NFL Lineman are usually white, 330lbs plus with agility and strength , but not much on the verticle. This is also where the genetics come in. You see an NFL lineman or a powerlifter and they might have some extra pounds around the waist line but it does not affect athleticism or power. (Check out ex Collegiate Wrestler and Offensive line pro-bowler for the Patriots Steven Neil and how he can do a back flip at 330lbs…also his 40 is insane)

This is another reason why MMA has more successful white, Hispanic and Asian competitors than pure boxing, because you are allowed to hold and clamp down on your opponent instead of focusing on fleet footedness + evasion + reach + Rhythm that you have in boxing which is tailor made for Blacks.

Asians – Philipinos , Laotians, Thai and Tongan peoples (Far South East Asia) have rhythm, tend to be very athletic and their behavior lends itself to higher T anyways,…Far more sexual ,more violent (boxing and kick boxing are very popular) etc etc

I would say Hispanic males (mestizo not mulato) have a fairly high testosterone level, as shown by their macho culture, success in boxing, aggression towards women etc etc…most latinos I competed against were strong for their size, had natural stamina (Hwt Champion of the UFC is a Mexican and has the gas tank of a 120 fighter) though they are not naturally muscular or cut.

Realtalk may be dying in the prestige press, but it is alive and well at the Chateau.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,008 other followers

%d bloggers like this: