There used to be a “sex positive” feminist who would comment here and offer up such breathtakingly backward Feminist Cunt Wave boilerplate on men and women that I started to appreciate her cuntributions for their usefulness as reminders of the self-medicating delusions that modren society inculcates in the sexual market losers of our age. Whatever she wrote, I would tell readers, take the opposite to be the truth.
She never posted a pic of herself from what I recall, but her comments were written in the unmistakable “aging, fading slut” style, filled with the caustic, slut pride snark which our current crop of pussyhatters think is funny, that belied a life nursing spiteful man-hate. Imagine a Nordic feminist-Jewish feminist recombination, with a touch of commercialist Anglo feminist, seasoned to a sarcastic spiciness by the rapid approach of the Wall, and twisted into a false braggadocio of her receding sexual ensnareline and her ability to manipulate men to do her bidding, and you have a good idea of this woman’s character. I could practically see her stringy blond hair with streaks of gray, and her manjaw strengthened from years of cock gobbling and chewing out pretty subordinates.
In sum, she was a “Swipe Left Broad”, from both sides of the swiping ledger. If Tinder was around then, (not sure if it was), she’d’ve bragged about swiping left on tons of thirsty guys while she herself was the recipient of numerous left swipes.
AnyHO, one time the topic was broached about what to say to a date (or potential mate) inquiring about your sexual history. I had written that men shouldn’t run away from a storied sexual past, because girls are attracted to men who are successful with girls (preselection is a powerful predictive evopsych theory). I also wrote that men should avoid openly bragging about their notches — it would strike any normal girl as try-hard desperation — but instead to couch their personal history of successful womanizing in ambiguous or teasing language. For example,
GIRL: You seem like a player. How many women have you been with?
TRUMP’S PUSSYGRABBING ID: Counting Alaska?
After my advice, embroiled as it was in a deep understanding and easy acceptance of innate male-female psychosexual differences, landed in the combox, Swipe Left Broad chimed in, acrid spittle nearly flying off the screen, to inform the assembled that her go-to line when a man inquires about her sexual history was:
“I lost count.”
Of course, I was compelled to spear her with the Shiv of Sexual Realism for her steaming feminist dropping, lest innocent girlies ambling into the free fire zone think her hag-words would be helpful to them. Swipe Left Broad didn’t take kindly to my informing her that a skeleton key which opens a lot of locks is more valuable than a slutty lock that can be opened by many rusty keys. ARGLE BARGLE, she replied, paraphrasing. Collecting herself, “Men love an experienced woman!”
No, men don’t “love” an experienced woman. Men may want to fuck an experienced woman, figuring (rightly) that she’d be an easy lay who will put out with a quickness, but men don’t cherish sluts like they do chaste girls with eyes and gines for their cocks only.
The thought occurred to me in the recounting of this tête-á-termagant that the three words “I lost count” crystallize with pithy efficiency the essential, core difference between the sexes. What works spectacularly to increase a man’s perceived SMV — a smirky allusion to his sexual experience — works equally spectacularly to decrease a woman’s perceived SMV. And in the crucible of this rhetorical clarification we see the power of the female ego when confronted with undeniable sexual market truths about her romantic worth to feed at the trough of self-delusion. Giant, gulping swallows of delusion. Deep-throated delusions. Every delusional drop swallowed, and a pearl of delusion whisked from her chin as an apéritif.
The crucial detail — the one that often trips up those accustomed to years of quaffing ego-assuaging platitudes — is the one embodied in the deepest, truest desires of men and women. These desires aren’t the same, and at the critical mate assessment junctures can be said to be contradictory and competing:
Men desire sex, women desire commitment.
Commitment is a euphemism for resources and protection, and love is the feeling women lean on as assurance they have secured a man’s commitment.
Women desire sex and men desire commitment, too, but these are secondary to the primary impulses which guide each sex, and guide them at especially important times, when life-changing choices are carefully deliberated or acted upon impulsively.
Women want an experienced man, and they project this want of theirs onto men who, for their part, want women willing to go all the way right away regardless of experience or, if the woman under carnal consideration is of exceptional beauty and modesty, want her to have a relatively unsullied sexual history and to at least have the sense to avoid bragging about the numbers of past lovers to whom she lays claim. To a man, a woman’s discretion is the better part of her allure.
It’s a self-defeating assumption women make, which they find out the morning after as their latest “conquest” is scurrying out the door, never to call them again.
This is why a slut bragging about her cock count is repulsive to any man with options, and why a pussyhound alluding to his gash and churn past is intriguing to any woman with a working tingle spigot.
A woman bragging about sex is like a guy bragging about buying a girl dinner.
LikeLiked by 7 people
I think it’s even worse than that.
More like a guy bragging about mooching off his parents by living in their basement. At age 35.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The difference is the girl has all of popular culture on her side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More like, a woman bragging about sex (to a man) is like a guy bragging about making dates pay (to a woman).
They BOTH leave a bad taste in their audience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A woman bragging about her number of sexual partners is like a man bragging about his number of divorces.
LikeLike
better comparison is guy bragging about how much he jerks off.
or, even worse, it’s like a guy bragging about his masturbation championship trophy. Very K-pop.
“yeah, so at hour 5 of non stop edging, I decided to change things up a bit with some light smacking…”
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] The Three Words That Reveal The Essential Difference Between The Sexes (All Two Of Them) […]
LikeLike
On the topic of revealing differences, just now, a few ladies at work found out that another female coworker just recently got engaged. In fact, one lady had heard it within earshot and sped over to where the engaged girl was at, talking to three other ladies.
I was already in a “don’t give a shit” mood for most of today so that barely registered on my “what’s up?” scale. (Although this broad has some juicy tatas, but a muffin top that ruins it all.)
My male coworker sitting next to me gave some boilerplate kudos. He’s in good with them all.
Two other men in my office didn’t really register what was happening.
But it’s odd that women somehow default to the “oh my gosh” mentality the second they find out shit like that. It’s damn near automatic. Pre-programmed for sure!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah. If I told my dad and brother I was getting hitched, they’d probably be like “good for you” and then we’d go back to watching tv. If my sister tells my mom she’s getting married there’d be much screaming, hugging and crying etc. I’ve always said that weddings are for women.
LikeLike
sex for a woman involves an element of surrender. (in the post on-demand-fetus-culling era she doesn’t necessarily have to COMPLETELY surrender, but she does still have to surrender to some degree in order to have sex.)
so if she has a high notch count, and each notch represents a surrender, then what does that say about her character?
and if she BRAGS about being an easy surrender, while she’s carrying around in her ovaries the eggs for the next generation, what does that say about how she feels about her own people?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t know if anyone here uses Snapchat (it unfortunately is a vital tool in my arsenal) but the propaganda on there is beyond belief.
They basicslly forcefeed their users news updates from sources like CNN and Puffed Ho.
There is also a promotional thing called “Brother” which is promoted as some sort of men-only domain, but when you watch it, it’s defcon level 2 propaganda about respect for women and blue-pill dating advice.
It’s bad. They are really getting in at ground level on the younger generation, before they’ve had a chance to form their own opinions about the world. It’s insidious.
LikeLike
I admit to watching a lot of TV shows aimed at the younger generation, but I can’t stomach it anymore. Lots of liberal propaganda; even the commercials were aimed at blue pilling and feminizing the next generation. These insidious bastards have an agenda to attack the next generation early.
LikeLike
It won’t work. They will rebel against it hard. We just need to keep pushing and putting work in, and supporting sites like CH and VP.
LikeLike
It’s everywhere they can wedge it in man. Popping up every 5 seconds on any electronics device imagineable.
Won’t be long before my toaster tells me that Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2044 as a femborg.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I hate this meme for its popularized misunderstanding: “Men desire sex, women desire commitment.” If we presume animals to animals, then sure, men desire sexual conquest of innumerable women and women desire platonic conquest of innumberable men, but not really. The liberated female imperative is truly animal and is far more base and destructive. She really wants permanently desexualizing conquest. She takes the man’s sexuality and destroys it with everything else he is and has. A woman with offspring is still a good lay in the wild. It is with property rights in a woman, i.e. culture pertains, that a woman is de-commitmentized by animal man conquest, but that is copacetic with her female imperative from the word go. Women only commit by patriarchal subjugation. They don’t want it to possess it. They want men give it as a debilitating burden. The NWO has by controlled selection aligned and released the primary female social agency for psychological abuse of the key demographic that would stop them. Victims of psychological abuse don’t know what victims they are and don’t fight back. Their friends don’t help and may strengthen the false narrative. Yin is not yang by a long shot. Conscious abstract thinking is too hard.
If we consider humans to animals, which is to say if we compare men innately capable of high culture to women, then the comparison is even more incomparable. Are we really to believe that men “cherish…chaste girls with eyes and gines for their cocks only.” Then how is it that men and women do not normally bond for life? Savages are not like other men, and do not cherish, are not capable of intimacy. Only women can mentally out savage the male savage. Women can feign intimacy, and if that is always her best option for animal power, it is the social truth enough. The answer to why no bonding for life is that women and savages have choice, brought to you by cucks who believe in universal redemption.
Men vary greatly in mental disposition and cultural capacity; women, not. The common RP understanding of evo psych is animals-to-animals wrong because there is not even instinctive animal social equivalence by analogy between the sexes. Moverover, Dark Enlightenment crux is that all men are NOT created equal, juxtaposed to the RP crux that all women are created equally base. The evaluation and judgement of culturally superior men on animal terms is guaranteed failure of any men with civilized tendencies. For men socially capable of qualitatively more than the savage, it is epic a priori capitulation. Some men desire sex that is more than animal sex, or civilization would never have existed. Culturally great men desire sex that is a foundation for greater affluence and quality capacity as a man, verses an animal that seeks greater quantity capacity of base things that never consume enough social latitude.
The idea that no good deed goes unpunished is another perversion via human-to-animal equivalence. No good animal lets an opportunity for exploitation go to waste because in the wild exploitation is infinitely more rewarding than productivity that require stable stewardship, which is not viable. A high culture man needs to be a better animal only to subjugate the animals, not to measure his worth against animalism and female ‘gatekeeping’. ZFG because s***hole standards are not mine.
I care about normie standards to exploit them as an all too plentiful resource, lemons to squeeze back, same as the natural libtard players care about cultural standards to exploit the cultural. If you are verbal with a woman or savage on anything of import, you have already lost. A capable animal takes what is not held by a higher ranking animal. Instincts were crafted when opportunities were few and base. Women are not sexually attracted to men who are not capable animals, but attracted they are.
LikeLike
Good and cogent if not a bit overly long. I mostly agree with you, mostly. Some points of contention but I’m too brain dead to peck out a response here. Overall, you got the big pic except are we back to savagery now? The idea I think is that we can use our ‘rational animal’ (hat tip: Aquinas) to NOT be slaves to animal instinct and id.
Even in the wild you rarely see female animals wildly copulating in most species. We have something hybrid and special. Which is the rational animal KNOWS it can fuck w/o consequence so goes well beyond even what the savage beast does naturally. Our women have turned into Bonobos basically. (that is the chimp breed that is a sex addicted matriarchy for the not in the know)
LikeLike
Thanks for reply, Jay. I admit to not understanding ‘rational animal KNOWS it can fuck w/o consequence’. I consider being rational to be agency to anticipate future consequences. I don’t know in what environment a rational animal could, relative to the unrational animal, better see a lack of consequences. The above embedded video clip from Idiocracy is what I mean. If animal evolution is purely genes evo, no meme evo, there is never good reason for a male animal to refrain from sex itself, just sex with the odd big ugly red and whatnot. I get the Sex At Dawn reference, but from listening to a high IQ fan of the book, I consider it to be propaganda. Women have not turned into anything. The bitches are simply free to be bitches. They aren’t actually anything because of their empathy capacity, which is a void to collect and consume social energy, in part to power her infinitely adaptive persona. There is little intrinsic in a woman for a woman to know herself. A long time with alpha makes here believe she has. And I could ramble on this topic quite endlessly. Intelligent life is not available to me in meatspace. I hope I help someone.
LikeLike
tl;dr…
LikeLike
Interesting.
But you talk about the ‘animal’ reference as if there is no difference between the wolf and the rabbit. There are. Enormous ones. Which animal type guides your animalistic instincts?
“Then how is it that men and women do not normally bond for life?”. Really? And please do not use the statistics from our f**ked up civilization as proof. The human offspring require more parental follow up than any other animal on this earth. The consequences implies the ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ for the human species and it’s necessary evolution, is a well developed super-ego and a tightly controlled id.
LikeLike
Thank you, that is pretty much a summary of what I wanted to say but was too mentally wiped to articulate.
Also Reality Doug- I should have more properly said “irrational animal knows it can fuck w/o consequence”. I was referring to women’s out of control sexual appetite. You don’t see this in nature because instinct is sex for reproduction not to be pounded by maximal dick. That is why I said we are in some weird uncharted water here these super id monsters that are modern females.
LikeLike
Glad for the commentary. I am a philosopher not an ideologue. The real difference is that you two are Xian and I am not, which is clear from the reliance on the rational animal of the Catholics’ Saint Aquinas and the r/K theory of Anonymous Conservative. We won’t agree, so we might as well agree to disagree.
Nevertheless, though I have no wish to attack, neither do I wish to give the air of debate capitulation or intellectual ineptitude, what Greg Eliot presupposes by announcing the handing someone of their ‘haid’.
It is a generally accepted principle that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. In my philosophical view, the ‘animal’ human or humanoid, and who knows how far back our current instincts derive, has no morals (not in our terms anyway). I object to the term ‘rational animal’ as a catchphrase implying spiritual animal or moral animal, and your innate goodness per your religion. Rational animal as a subtype of intelligent animal I would admit. Like with women, all still IMO, exploitive behavior by animals is just a matter of opportunity. Shout fire in a theatre. Shout #MeToo. Shout performative. Consider the lion (K) that kills another lion’s cubs. Squirrels (r) will eat the offspring of rival squirrels. I don’t see the r/K spectrum as an insightful divide between good and evil.
From “It’s Squirrel Eat Squirrel World” (http://www.birdchick.com/blog/2007/04/its-squirrel-eat-squirrel-world):
“Last week we saw “our” squirrel (the one who raids our bird feeder and chews the wood trim off our garage) with a bird in its mouth. My husband was disbelieving of his eyes. Last night we saw the demon squirrel with ANOTHER SQUIRREL (looked like a baby) and watched it eating it (photo below). This grossed me out so much I skipped dinner. Should we be reporting this to someone? Are we harboring a dangerous development on par with Bird Flu? (OK, we are not that worried, but is this normal?)”
Mothers of some mammal species will eat their still borne babies for calorie recovery. Mother rabbits will, see yootube, eat their babies if ‘stressed’ over potential predation, instinctively ‘hoping’ to live and breed another day by keeping a low foodstuff profile.
From “Understanding rabbit behavior and preventing and treating behavior problems” (http://veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/understanding-rabbit-behavior-and-preventing-and-treating-behavior-problems)
page 1:
“The females in the subgroup are typically related, while the males maintain a rigid dominance hierarchy by ritualized signaling.”
page 2:
“If a fight erupts, the rabbits must be immediately separated since they can seriously injure each other by biting and by raking with their claws.”
page 6:
“While most people think rabbits are harmless, they can inflict painful injuries by clawing with their front claws—which are long and strong for digging—biting with their incisors, and kicking with their powerful hindlimbs.”
I don’t suppose that animalistic instincts differentiate neatly by animal type into some mutually exclusive taxonomy that makes humans neatly unlike animals or subdivides humans neatly into Good and Evil,etc. I see plenty of overlap in the abstract living strategies of organisms,of mammals, of people. What I see as fundamental to human differentiation of behavior and results is human capacity for culture, which is to say mass cooperation that is not mass submission. Submission is degenerate cooperation by the absence of action and positive results. Culture must subsist by action not inaction. And the culturally exhausted West dies.
Of course the violent and hierarchical nature of your r-selected species or of libtards does not debunk the mystical chords of the human condition known by faith. I consider Aquinas’ rational animal to be a mystical black-box catchphrase meant to prove faith by faith in operant conditioning. Faith can’t be examined or specified. The theological narrative is as specific as people like, but faith as ultimate agency, assurance, and authority never is. It would not be convincing or comforting otherwise.
Women may pretend to obey authority in the abstract, but their devotions are always calculated on inputs of palpable presence with no regard for the compounding of productivity over time into the future, or her inevitable depreciation as a baby factory and helpmate. What is an animal? I’d say an organism that competes in genes-only evolution. What is culture? It’s a herd habit for herd animals but something that can be rationally questioned and designed by a full human in my conceptual parlance. Locus of control a la the Triune Brain model is what I suppose to differentiate those worthy of political partnership and those who are substandard vis-a-vis the requirements of viable citizenship and civilization itself.
My social model is predictive and helps me improve my social outcomes. I have not seen any other social model that is consistent with empirical evidence, personal or historical, where it is distinct from my model. I am not swayed by faith that will not fully admit faith in evidence and logic/logos. Neither will is sway from faith those that need faith in something greater than themselves, and pretty much invincible. The Left and the Right are Hegelian mirrors of each other enough to joyously synthesize our locomotion down the road to serfdom. To the bitter end the Left will keep eating the Right and the Right will keep redeeming the Left.
I call my hate the nihilist enlightenment. I will not sacrifice my love of self for love of the other with what little of my vitality I have left. To hate can be to love just as to kill can be to defend or to eat. It is simply a matter of who wins and who loses. Animal calculus does not allow win-win, and any calculated efforts to redeem ‘America’ have already lost. The full humans don’t need a brand name to have civilization: they are civilization potential or actual. No hate, no actual.
The End.
LikeLike
CH,
Longtime reader, first time commenter and I need some advice. I would describe myself as a lesser alpha/greater beta depending on the day and situation. I’ve had some decent girls…mostly 7s-8s…I can’t really stomach less than a 7. Total partner count is probably about 13-14 and I’m 35 years old.
I am a chiropractor in a very small town in rural Missouri (3500 pop), and about 3 months ago I had a patient come in. She was 28 years old, tall, blonde, and her face is flawless. The body is a little on the skinny side for my normal taste, but she is able to talk and has a wicked sense of humor that I’ve rarely if ever seen. I’ve never actually enjoyed interacting with a woman like this one. Most of the time, I just glaze over as they talk and then I try to sex them.
Well, I’m at the point in my life where I would like to have kids. And this girl is into me by her own admission. The problem is that she has been with the same guy since high school and has never left this shithole town. She has had only the 1 sexual partner (we haven’t been able to find the opportunity to get to that point yet), and you know from the research how tough that is to overcome. She tells me all the time that she has no feelings for him and they probably have only had sex 3-4 times in the last year and none since October of last year. But she is determined to not alert him to any extra curriculars so far and I haven’t been able to get her to move out of his house.
My question is, what can I do to get her out of that house in order to have a real relationship? Or should I just cut and run? Bear in mind, the number of attractive women in this area…especially never married, without kids, not on meth or heroin, and haven’t been passed around like a bucket of beer at a frat party is exceedingly low. Also, moving isn’t really an option for me right now…
LikeLike
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
LikeLike
Termagant. CH fucking used termagant. There are several reassons to regularly visit this site, but shit like that is a god damn golden gift.
Termagant!
LikeLike
Have heard a variation: “I stopped counting”. Has the same effect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Men desire sex, women desire commitment.”
I think this paints the picture with an overly broad (heh) brush. It’s true, but it doesn’t incorporate the depth for which women have lust for Alphas coupled with no regard for the lives of Betas. Women don’t desire commitment from Betas.
A man receiving the best sex possible will be satisfied with his wife. His eye may wander, but his cock won’t.
A woman receiving the best commitment possible, from a Beta, is fully ready at all times to bail out if a better man comes along.
A woman receiving the best commitment possible, from an Alpha, will be satisfied with all aspects of her life (because an Alpha will make her work for his love, satisfying her failsafe ‘I’m not good enough for him I’d better try harder’ condition).
tl;dr Men desire sex, women desire Alpha commitment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I also take exception to that mantra used by CH. Great minds think alike, but riddle me this: How does an Alpha make her work for his love within a committed relationship? That’s a thorny issue.
If women’s instincts are the judge of alpha, commitment is beta, period. Many don’t accept that premise. The Sexy Son Hypothesis I take as truth. One problem with alpha commitment is that the state muscle requires subservience of the man for mere involvement. The other, but fully natural, is that a man can’t make a woman work for his committed love unless he coordinates his life with her, which is to focus on her to the detriment of himself, to positively work at something not ‘his mission’. No, I’m not married or in an ltr, so my answer is uninformed by ‘successful’ practical experience. I would gladly defer to the happily married. Are there any here?
LikeLike
instant boner kills.One DC girl with a bucket of condoms next to her bed would sometimes mention how much she dated. Damn girl.
LikeLike
DC chicks are mentally ill. I had one first date I had known the girl about 30 minutes and she was telling me she had a 22 yo boy toy who couldn’t speak too good english but he was packing a burrito in his pants she liked to option for maximal tearing of her cunt lining.
You can’t make this shit up. Had I been in a more hateful mood that day I would have banged her out that same night and nearly choked her to death because 1) she would have gotten off on it, women that damaged always do and 2) she deserved it.
I’m in the mode now because I’m just so fed up with their insanity and over the top whoring that it will almost always be option B. Hurt her during sex, she will call you back, I promise.
LikeLike
If she was serious and not just trying to shock you for the lulz, that’s truly disgusting. Dodged a disease or five there, methinks.
LikeLike
yah, I knew another who decided to do that. Like “I like rich white guys but I think I’m going to use this somali as my sex slave”.
LikeLike
You’ll be surprised about how many men today will marry a woman they know is an ex-slut. Humans are social creatures. Consider this, how many men suppress their attraction for younger women in favor of cougars? FFS, you’ll hear men my age (I’m early 30s) openly say that they “feel weird” about even finding a late teens, early 20s girl attractive. You’ll hear others say that they wouldn’t want a college aged girl because “they’ll have nothing to talk about”. And they’d rather have an “experienced” cougar sometimes old enough to be their mom.
If men can be brainwashed into wanting older women as opposed to younger women, they can be brainwashed into disregarding a woman’s sexual history and thinking it’s nothing wrong that she has a sextape on Pornhub that shows her being the center of attention in a gangbang.
If a man my age says he’d prefer to marry a 20 year old virgin, he’d be told he’s insecure because he has a small penis and he only wants a young virgin instead of a promiscuous same age or older woman because the virgin doesn’t have anyone to compare him to.
LikeLike
Marry the 20 year old virgin, have children with her, and drink in the anger and jealousy of those telling you you shouldn’t.
Those disgusting women your own age are only concerned with getting what they know is rightfully theirs, that being a well-off man to rescue them from their bad decisions. Feckem. Let them suffer.
If you keep that 20 year old virgin pregnant and build yourself a big family, you aren’t going to care anymore what the spinsters think.
LikeLike
[…] This post is little more than a comment awaiting moderation at CH. What’s new? The comment thread is here. […]
LikeLike
In the last two weeks I slept with two women. One a 24 year old who had a ‘phase’ where she was 21 and on the cock carousel. She regretted my application for a notch count tally.
The other was 32 and had a fairly modest 7 notches on her post.
I could have put my fist in the 24 year old’s blasted furrow. It was roomy as anything. She otherwise had a lot of steamy sex appeal, but that spacious atrium behind her labia was enough for me to excuse myself a few days later.
The 32 year old was tight, sexy and everything down there was in its proper place and natural. Body was tight, padded in the right places, soft skin, feminine. Didn’t expect that at all. She also just ‘felt’ better, as a person, as a lover.
There are very real physiological, and dare I say energetic, consequences to promiscuity for women. One of which is it seems to age them rapidly.
LikeLike
Test
LikeLike
Weird. I can post the word Test, but nothing about spinsters trying to ruin men’s lives.
LikeLike
[…] Chateau Heartiste’s “The Three Words That Reveal The Essential Difference Between The Se… […]
LikeLike
The answer to women’s desire for commitment is to make them commit. And only after they have done that should you.
LikeLike