Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ 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 »

Approach Week has officially ended. The comments are open again. This is your opportunity to recount in the comments section your favorite approaches from the past week (you did approach during Approach Week, right?). Consider it a teachable moment. The best anecdotes will be added to this post in an update below.

So… now that you’ve approached, how do you feel? Do your testes hang heavier? I’ll tell you one of my approaches. (Some details redacted to evade GPS locators.)

SHIVCALIBUR: Hey there.

Mary’s Little Clam: Wut?

SHIVCALIBUR: I said hi.

Mary’s Little Clam: Oh… hi.

SHIVCALIBUR: Can’t wait for this conversation to heat up.

Mary’s Little Clam: That’s so weird. [she trots off]

OK, that came up a bit short of WINNING. But you know what? It still felt better than doing nothing.

******

Update: Readers submit their approach stories.

Eeyore had a George “the jerk store called” Costanza moment:

Actually said: That’s a pretty name. What do they call you [for short]?

Should have said: What’s that, Spanish for freckles?

Approach Week was not about the perfect opener. It was about approaching. Get over the fear first, then work on improving your delivery.

***

Martin’s approach turned out to be an accidental neg.

Well, I fell short of my goal to get a phone number, but I did learn this is probably a difficult thing to achieve. I approached an asian woman who I would guess was maybe 30 who is a receptionist at the front of a library but she was not working. I asked her if she happened to own any cats because for some reason she looked like a cat person. Well, I felt numb with anxiety as I was asking her this and especially in the pause where I waited for her response but we ended up having a brief conversation and she mentioned she had a boyfriend during the course of it. I suppose it was a subtle cue but maybe not. I have seen her before on many occasions but never talked with her so I guess I did not go up to a random woman I haven’t met before. I am not sure if there was really much of a learning experience that took place. While I don’t think she was terrified or repulsed, I can’t say I got any idea about how to be successful doing this.

A girl will curiously recall “you look like a cat [lady]” a lot more readily than she’ll remember a man asking her about her job.

***

Rick250 gives us his approach.

Hot woman in beginner yoga class i take had a shirt on with an artsy looking nuclear symbol.
I approached her at the end of class where people drink tea, “So your shirt has a radioactive symbol on it. Does that mean i should keep my distance?”

You certainly get points for the approach, but in future I would steer clear of self-denigrating openers like this one. (You have implied she would want you to keep your distance.) A better frame with which to use this opener would be: “Your shirt has a radioactive symbol on it. Are you toxic to men?”

***

stigletz writes,

approached in Edinburgh the other day (I’m from the states)

a tremendously hot girl jay-walked across the street in front of two cops so I walked up with a, “you got a lot of balls for jay-walking in front of two cops like that”

explain how it’s a whole nother offense in Europe, generally

she was giving me that smirk (or perhaps a petrified rictus?) for having the balls to approach but I could tell she was weirded out / overwhelmed

a silence fell over (I was comfortable
enough with this) and she says, ‘why are you still here?’

a haughty shit test. best thing to do was start a new thread and not acknowledge or play it against her (and did I ever fail the ‘you must be drunk for even talking to me’ shit test by that error) but instead I sort of just ‘misinterpreted’ the question and said I was just there from the states trying to get to know Edinburgh

we conversed some more and she hopped on her bus and left. didn’t bother salvaging the number scraps.

I have to say, “why are you still here?” is a tough shit test that most inexperienced betas would fail. You did well. I suggest any man who gets this shit test (or something similar) respond as they would to a child who said the same to them. For example: “Because those are the rules.”

***

Nyan Sandwich confesses,

Did way less approaching than I should have. That said, did more than I would have otherwise.

Went to a club and chatted and danced with cute girls. They seemed to lose interest. It was fun, but then I ran out of mojo and it stopped being fun so I went home.

Made an extra effort to chat up sales girls.

Have to actually start doing daygame yad-stops.

Awkward but improving.

You won’t approach girls unless you set aside a specific block of time or devote a compartment of mental energy to do them. That was the goal of Approach Week… to get you guys into the right head space where inaction could not be rationalized.

***

Troubadour puts his cards on the table.

My Approach Week was weird. I saw four girls worth approaching, but didn’t approach any of them. I have just accepted that unless I catch the right break, approaching girls while I’m working is just too much for me.

I have decided to try a completely different approach to everything. I need to get out during my time off, when I’m not representing any brand other than my own. I really hate going out alone just to try to meet girls, and given a choice between going out alone trying to find girls to meet and staying home with my wife, I have decided to just stay home with my wife 90% of the time. This is getting me nowhere.

So what if I went out with my wife, and tried to meet girls? I’ve been saying I ought to do this, and some of you have said if I actually have the balls to do that, it’s beautiful game.

Well, why the fuck not?

So here in a little bit, I’m going to put the wife in my truck and ride up to see my friend girl. We all know friend girl was just using me for attention, and I’m never going to fuck her, but this will amuse the shit out of me anyway, so I’m going to do it. I’m going to get my wife to stand there with her hand on my cock, stroking my beard, while I totally ignore her and talk to friend girl for the last time. I need closure to get over that stupid obsession, and you never know… Yeah, it’s a desperation play, but WHAT a desperation play!

Girls want what other girls want. Being married only proves my wife hasn’t taken the cash prize yet. I have a woman who will do ANYTHING to keep from being dumped, and I can prove it by making my wife stand there attending to me while I’m actively trying to fuck some other girl. (I don’t have one yet, but she has agreed to wear an “I AM A FAT PIG” t-shirt, and a dog leash. Heh heh heh.)

The last time I got laid on the side, this is actually how it happened. I used to massage that girl’s tits directly in front of my wife, and I fucked her, and then I spent 20 years feeling guilty about nothing, and never cheating again. It’s a fucked up way to get laid, but it worked once. Why won’t it work again?

My wife is fat and plain, so this won’t be as effective as it could be. It may turn out that trying to use a fat wife as social proof doesn’t get me anywhere at all.

I can terminate the experiments at any time. We’re going to see how this goes. I would enjoy having company as I go in search of pussy, and I truly don’t give a shit if she divorces me, so I have everything to gain by trying this.

After we see friend girl, I’m taking her to a titty bar, and making her pay for everything and sit there stroking my beard while I stare up some hot girl’s snatch.

This is my brand of honesty game. I’m just putting all my cards on the table; some good, some not so flattering.

Mission accomplished.

My instincts were telling me not to do this the whole way up there, and the closer you get to doing the right thing, the more last minute excuses you find not to do it, so… I did it!

I guess what I really accomplished was shattering the stupid fantasy. I didn’t succeed in communicating my message at all, and everything went over like a lead balloon. Friend girl was freaked the fuck out, and probably scared half to death.

Well, that’s better than believing there’s some extreme wild ass way to get out of the friend zone that only works for me.

I got laid three times tonight. Life could be worse.

No further comment necessary. Editorializing would distract from the brutalist poetry of Troubadour’s rendezvous.

***

The Supreme Gentleman drops “No Fly Zone” game.

Met a cute girl at a party this weekend. When I went to the bathroom, I hatched a great idea. I deliberately left my fly unzipped and sat next to her. The following happened after a few minutes:

Her: um, lulz, your pants are unzipped

Thief of Hearts: (nonchalantly) oh how embarrassing. at least we know where your eyes are at now *devious smirk*

She had a twinkle in her eye and her jaw dropped with a hint of a grin. I left it unzipped for the remainder of the conversation and carried on like Satriales sausage shop wasn’t open for business. I number closed her and I might be taking her out for drinks this week, depending on my schedule.

My cold approaches didn’t have much of a success rate, but this was pretty much the highlight of the week. Something tells me I’m gonna fuck close this chick next time I see her.

By the way, CH, as far as cold approaches go, one thing I’ve always seen in movies is a guy approach a chick at a bar and whisper something into her ear. Sounds kind of corny, but it looks like a good way to initiate touching. I’d like to hear your take on this. What sort of sweet nothings would you whisper into a girl’s ear during a cold approach?

No Fly Zone Game is a great contribution to the seduction literature. As for “Whisper Game”, no doubt it’s powerful, but also limited in application. Most venues, bar or otherwise, are too loud for whispers to register. Then there’s the creep factor; unless the context is just right, and your delivery honed to perfection, you’re liable to receive a retreating head jerk as soon as the first eddies of your hot breath tickle her ears.

Given the inherent limitations, I nevertheless have a nugget of experience using whisper game. Sweet temptings I’ve stitched into the ear lobes of prospective plunders:

“Do you have the time?” This works especially well if you build up to the whisper with a dramatic flourish, as if you’re about to tell her a secret.
“It’s me” or “Don’t turn around.” Then when she swivels to see who it is, affect a shocked look as you exclaim you thought she was someone else. Shrug your shoulders and start a new conversation.
And for the warm post-approaches (pre-known girls): “Now you know what a skipped heartbeat feels like.”

The key with Whisper Game is to approach the ear slowly and deliberately, if you are facing the girl, as if you are expecting nothing less than full compliance. A quick lurch for her aural cavity will startle the prey.

Read Full Post »

Your gracious CH host for the day left a number of meaty comments in the discussion to this post about another education system maiden offering her womb chute to cackling dementors. Enjoy the documented decline.

PA also chipped in with some zingers. You can’t say Le Chateau doesn’t provide good entertainment value for the money.

Read Full Post »

Is confidence an outcome of validating external factors, or is it an internal mindset that creates its own validation?

The feedback loops of male confidence are copious and fluid, so the question is the wrong one. External validation and internal beliefs synchronize to lift or deflate a man’s perception of self-worth. But it’s the nature of constitutional pessimists and unimaginative nerds to overrate objectively measurable variables that contribute to a man’s mate value and undervalue the invisible psychology that imbues a man with serious muff-massacring mojo. If you’re looking for proof of concept, I have a simple real life test.

How many naturals (with women) do you know, and have known for years, who physically or economically deteriorated with age? Most of us know one or two guys like that… high school romeos who packed a gut and a dead-end job by their late 20s. The guys I know like that continued doing well with women, despite losing their high school glam. They never stopped smashing grade A ass even as their more transparently conspicuous player traits abandoned them.

And you know why? Because they had the attitude. Their confidence that they could get women when they wanted never left them. True to their charming selves, their pudginess or crap jobs or studio apartments presented no obstacle to their mesmerizing game. Confidence — which is really a synonym for an abundance mentality — is like this; once you have it drilled into your subconscious, it’s hard to get rid of it.

Inner game matters. Confidence is transmissible over years and through different life stations. It can be cultivated with many fertilizers, and harvest time always means, “There’s enough clam to feast like a king. I will never go hungry.” How crucial is confidence? If you have no belief in yourself, a six pack or a year-end bonus aren’t going to transform you into a lady slayer. But if you think yourself god’s gift to women, and truly believe that should the need arise you can easily find fresh pussy, then a submerging six pack or a missed promotion at work won’t put a dent in your game.

Of course, the quickest way to achieve Voltaire level confidence is by amassing years of experience bedding women. But what to do if you’re new to the only game that matters? You strive for that elusive abundance mentality. Make approaches. You won’t convert every approach into a lay (not even close) but you will get some smiles and other positive reactions. These reactions will accumulate and reinforce your growing belief that women are plentiful and it wouldn’t take much effort to push at least a few of them into lascivious contemplation.

Another trick to crush limiting beliefs is a daily reminder that, whatever sexual market advantage women have got, you have a sexual marketplace window of viability that triples that of most women’s. When you’re feeling self-doubt, there’s nothing quite like the brisk pick-me-up of waking up a man with decades of romantic opportunity ahead of him.

Read Full Post »

CH’s power grows, but it hasn’t grown enough to prevent thieves from plagiarizing classic Chateau tomes. See for yourself.

Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo article titled “How to Get Your Ex-Girlfriend Back” that dates to September 19, 2007.

Rule number one: Let her leave. Don’t beg and plead for her to stay or text and call her incessantly after she does. This only adds to the image of you being needy and nothing without her and as we all know, women love power. Take at least 3 days before you even consider contacting her. If she doesn’t get a hold of you in those 3 days, consider waiting longer, to each his own. When you finally do talk to her be in control of your emotions. It is vital at this point that you do not let her get under your skin. VITAL! Keep the conversation general and don’t pester her or talk too heavily about getting back together.

And here’s the related CH article titled “How to Win Back an Ex-Girlfriend” published on April 10, 2007.

The less experienced man caught offguard will need to learn the art of turning it around after her decision to leave is made but before she has reached the no-looking-back stage.  Chances of re-notch success are much lower once she has verbalized her need for space, but with proper post-relationship game you can improve your odds dramatically.  The key is in the timing.  A mathematician has shown that the dumper’s loneliness and nostalgia for the broken relationship peak at about 3 weeks after the breakup, unless she has found another man in the interim.  Therefore, your job is to let her go and not speak to her for 3 weeks.  This will amplify her feelings of loss.  Then, at her most vulnerable 3 weeks later, call to say hi.  Keep the convo short and friendly.  Chances are best right at this moment that she will offer to meet you for drinks.

Once more, from the Yahoo article,

Women want what they can’t have any while they love the chase, keep your distance and keep them wondering. If she calls, don’t immediately answer or don’t answer at all. If she leaves messages call back at your convenience. Have some back bone and discipline, don’t be a lap dog! If you try to make plans with her and she either denies or agrees and then blows you off, don’t offer again, let her make the next move.

And the (earlier) CH version,

You must be the one to leave first.  Minimize face time.  Don’t call her.  Be friendly but ambiguous.  Don’t inquire into her life.  Laugh off her crappy attitude.  Most importantly, act as if nothing is wrong.  If she senses you are acting aloof out of spite the spell will be broken.  Eventually, she will wander back to you, bewildered and intrigued, filled with doubt about her hasty judgment.  You will resume a pattern of dating and sex that eerily resembles the first few weeks together.

Even the writing style is similar.

It’s a net benefit to society that the Rude Word of CH is disseminating to the masses, but blatant plagiarism is a theft too far. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to be done about it. Libertardians bemoan a trend to excessive copyright litigation, and they perhaps have a point (if only they could see how diversity and copyright mania intersect), but on the ground, in the ascii alleys of ideas, stuff is stolen all the time and there’s little recourse to those unwilling to pay the fee in time and energy to right the wrong. If you value the freedom that anonymity gives to speak truthfully and boldly, you have to put up with a fair amount of idea pilfering.

 

Read Full Post »

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered what drives some women to the cult of feminism, when every real world observation refutes nearly all the foundational premises of feminism? Why do so many women cleave to such a wrong-headed, insipid ideology?

Chateau Heartiste explained the phenomenon of feminism as shivvily as possible:

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

Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy.

By the Beard of Amanda Marcotte, alongs comes ♥♥♥science♥♥♥ to slurp the CH knob to completion.

Value-added commenter (yes, value-added… hint hint to you dopier commenters) chris writes,

My God. I think he just described feminism here:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

He is talking about this study here:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130079

Abstract:
Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children’s and grandchildren’s needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother’s genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The benefit of such tactical reframing is; what woman wants to be seen as a loser (ugly and slutty) and not as a winner (beautiful and lovely)? What woman wants to belong to the bottom quarter and not the top three quarters? To admit this would be to destroy their feminine egos. With such reframing, you could get the hamster working for you.

Great stuff. It’s a nifty addendum to the CH Theory of Feminism above. Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other. CH makes no glib assertion when we compare the obesity plague to the ugliness and lies of feminism and equalism. They are all born of the same toxic mentality, issuing from the breast of the Lord of Lies himself, and their waste and foulness and repugnance and stink and deception flows outward like hellshit, suffocating truth and beauty under an ash cloud of offal.

To the casual observer, a random fat chick may seem to have no relation to, say, anti-white animus. But they are connected in ways deep and true, even if the players themselves remain unaware of their invisible binds. This is why, when you fight one, you fight the other. Strike a shaming blow against obesity, and you draw blood from a degenerate open borders scumbag and a screaming banshee pushing for women at the front lines.

As a count or countess of CH, your enemy is, and should always be, the enemies of truth and beauty.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,967 other followers

%d bloggers like this: