Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Vapid shell entity Caitlin Dewey is at it again, snarkily uptalking in her late Millennial patois and squirting out mental masturbation material for bitter feminists left behind by a merciless sexual market. She links to a study which found that male Halo players who were losing the video game badly were aggressively hostile to female players and aggressively submissive to better male players.

Dewey uses the “””findings””” that are a little too conveniently friendly to feminist shibboleths to grind her cunty battle axe. Unfortunately for her religious tenets, the study is so flawed as to make it nearly self-debunking.

Nowhere in the linked source for the study did I see a reference to ages or races of the study participants. Were these all white kids trash talking what they thought were female teammates who were letting the team down? Or was there an unfortunate racial skew the study researchers felt disinclined to note?

And what about the ages of the male players? 12 years old, or 25 years old? This makes a huge difference. No one should be surprised when a 12-year-old boy lashes out at UGH GIRLS. But these natural and normal development behaviors of boys tend to dissipate by adulthood.

Here’s an ugly scientific and common-sensible truth with which the Caitlin Deweyettes of the SJW world should acquaint themselves: Sexist men are more attractive to women. Or, in urban SWPL ditz parlance, sexist men are QUITE LITERALLY winners.

Here’s a quote that will simultaneously trigger Caitlin’s man-hating ego and jerkboy-loving vagina.

And, in what is sure to be a shot straight to the flabby feminist gut, women are more sexually receptive to assertively sexist men.

Sexist men are socioeconomic winners and sociosexual winners. Women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who scoff at feminist poopytalk.

Now, this is not an endorsement of the 12-year-old boy variety of hostility to women. The sexist adult men who win women’s hearts are best classified as “benevolent sexists”; that is, they aren’t hostile to women; they are patronizing to women. Chicks dig a man with amused mastery. You know what chicks don’t dig, in the digging way that truly matters? Avowed male feminists sucking up to them at every turn.

Read Full Post »

Remember the CH post about walking like an alpha male? For shits and remotely activated tingles, I decided to try out the MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE MODE walking style in a beautiful baby zoo near you.

I walked about town like a guy who absorbed a piece of gorilla DNA in a telepod, similar to Jeff Goldblum’s unfortunate mix-n-match in The Fly. I strutted and swaggered. Not quite as comically as this buffoon:

…but getting close.

Result: After an hour or so performing the “here are my steely balls, ladies, feast your eyes” gait, I can conclusively say that a lot… no, a WHOLE LOT… of women tossed me lascivious stares. Not “what is this weird guy doing?” looks; real hardcore “i want… i need… to get to know this man” stares.

Ok, there were a couple of “who’s the weirdo?” looks, but most were definitely in the “checking him out” camp.

I want… I need… to report that I felt foolish walking like I had an anvil in my crotch that I had to swing my legs around, but sadly, with heavy heart, I felt no such discomfort. What I did feel instead was confidence boosted major.

To this day, and after so many years of confirmatory experience, it still astounds me how autonomically women are magnetized by a man exhibiting alpha male characteristics. It’s almost… robotic.

Read Full Post »

No one knows for certain how the Neanderthals went extinct. There are many theories propounded — climate change, resource competition with newly arriving anatomically modern humans, megafauna population declines, etc — all of which are plausible, and some of which are supported circumstantially by recent genetic evidence.

I’ll suggest another, uncomfortably familiar, extinction mechanism for the Neanderthals: Diversity™ killed off the loveable brutes.

I don’t mean, exclusively, Diversity™ in the usual senses — warfare, rape&pillage, territorial disputes, food shortages. I mean it in the Calhoun rat “behavioral sink” sense. That is, the flood of Vibrant AMH Diversity™ arriving from points south, who may or may not have mingled peaceably with Neanderthals in the latter’s homeland, (and occasionally shared beds), by their mere proximate presence and cultural dissimilarity induced immense psychic pressures on the locals until their native fertility rate plummeted to levels…

…not unlike what we are seeing today among white Westerners living in homelands rapidly populating with millions of alien world migrants.

Diversity™, itself, is what killed the Neanderthals.

Arguing against my speculation: Contraceptives, the Japs.

Neanderthals didn’t have the hedonism aids of condoms and Pills. If they were “secularizing”, relative to their race’s historical norm, and choosing to forfeit childbearing in favor of extracting the last bit of fun from a shrinking playground, they’d have a challenge trying to do all this to the beat of the rhythm method. Not that it couldn’t be done; Neanderthalettes might have stiff-armed a lot of horny men if they felt that conditions weren’t optimal for raising a family.

The Japanese. They have a very low TFR at the moment, and last I checked there wasn’t a ton of Diversity™ in Japan. But, it is an island nation, and there are a lot of Japanese living on it, living a neon-colored and optically-wired version of the Western lifestyle. Here, the mechanism is entirely raw numbers, rather than raw numbers + clash of cultures.

The Neanderthals, it now appears from genetic analysis, have gifted White Europeans with just enough of their DNA to make something of a difference to the trajectory of white history. Did Neanderthals also gift us with a warning for our own race’s future, or lack thereof?

Read Full Post »

♂😎SCIENCE😎♂ swoons for Game once again, or rather, for the biomechanical truths explored here at the Chateau. Via reader RedEleven, a slew of studies examining the role of biological sex differences in gaits and other physical motions (there is such a thing as throwing like a girl).

There’s a lab in Canada that does motion capture studies of people and has collected data and produced animations that show distinct differences in the male and female gait.

This interactive flash applet lets you adjust the masculinity-femininity of a wireframe animation.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html

This WebGL version allows you to rotate the wireframe and toggle between dot mode and skeleton mode:

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/webgl_walker/webgl_walker.php

And here’s an excerpt from one of the studies they published:

“A framework is outlined that can be employed to obtain gender and other characteristics of the agent from human motion patterns and subsequently use this information to synthesize motion with particular, well-defined biological and psychological attributes.”

And from the discussion section:

“For instance the exaggerated male walker has wider shoulders than hips whereas in the female walker this ratio reverses. Male walkers display considerable lateral body sway whereas this is not the case for female walkers. Hip motion in male walkers is 180 phase shifted with respect to the hip motion in female walkers. The position of the elbows is very different in male and female walkers. Men tend to hold their elbows away from the body whereas women hold them close to the body. In general, the exaggerated man seems to attempt to occupy much more space than the exaggerated woman — a display not unique to the human species. ”

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Text/WDP2002_Troje.pdf

There’s also an experiment that let’s you guess the gender of these 15-point figures as they walk, run, throw a ball, sit down, etc – based on data capture from real life.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Experiments/BMLmdsex/

That first biomotion link provides a few minutes of amusement if you adjust the sliders to MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE.

Male-Female: All the way to the male.
Heavy-Light: All the way to heavy.
Nervous-Relaxed: All the way to relaxed.
Happy-Sad: All the way to happy.

There you go, gentlemen. Mimic the walking motion of the MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE:

Elbows out.
Lateral sway in the upper body.
Knees high and out on the leg up-swing.
A little bit of bounce in your step. (“Get air” in your walk.)

In other words, lope like a pimp nigra.

j/k, but only sort of. Fact is, an alpha male gait that will turn on women is going to somewhat resemble a pimp roll. But Hwhyten it up. You don’t need to go the full gorilla to have an effect on lovely lady loins.

And whatever you do, don’t sashay your hips. Unless you’re John Scalzi, who is all about the swish.

BONUS: If you hoist iron, the resulting growth in your muscles and neural connections will naturally conform your gait into one that is more alpha male than beta male.

The second link is even funnier to watch in MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE MODE, (if not as educational), because it’s a full skeleton instead of a dot skeleton. You can practically see the silverback hair and prominent brow ridge.

How did you do on the “guess the sex” biomotion test at the last link? Your venerable Chateau host got 8/10 on the first sequence and 17/20 on the second sequence. Not bad considering the only clue to the sexes was a dot figure performing different motions. Do I know this because real world sex differences in gait and physical motion shape my impressions? Or do I know this because I was born with a mental template deep in my hindbrain that subconsciously informs my instinctive impressions? It’s probably both: Our genes create our sex differences, and our culture organically reinforces our genetic imprints.

Conclusion: The sexes are intrinsically, innately, immutably… biomechanically different!

Feminists, male and female? You there?

*crickets*

What about MAXIMUM ALPHA FEMALE MODE (i.e, how would an HB10 walk)?

Set the dot skeleton sliders in the first link to:

100% Female.
80% Light.
80% Relaxed.
80% Sad.

Try it, and I think you’ll agree that this female gait is the sexiest to male eyes.

Why? Because sex differences in mating psychology are telegraphed through our gaits. The HB10 is at her sexiest when she’s walking with:

– a 100% female gait
– a light step, but not so light she looks like a flaky slut
– a generally relaxed gait, but with a hint of nervousness that suggests vulnerability
– some perceptible sadness, because a 100% happy woman looks too strident and chirpy to properly ping those male radars for vulnerable faire maidens.

I hope this post has been as informative to open-minded readers as it has been hurtful and distressing to equalist fruit cups.

Update

Commenter mendozatorres notes that the more “male” the dot figure, the greater the “crotch thrust” and the wider the man-spreading! Spread those legs out, men, and let your hog light shine! The women want a show. And, vice versa, when the figure goes from male to female, the crotch area sways more, like a pendulum tantalizingly swinging a basket of fruit at its end.

***

From commenter “its me”:

50/75/25/75 – effeminate homo/hipster walk lzozlzolzzolzzolzzozlz

It’s lzozlol because it’s true.

PS Fat-woman-who-has-given-up-on-life walk: 75/0/100/100. She looks like she’s ready to fall through the earth.

Read Full Post »

A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.

1. More sexualized women.

Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?

In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.

2. Less sexual dimorphism.

It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.

Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.

In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.

3. More feminism.

Recall the CH maxim regarding feminism:

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

Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.

4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.

A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.

Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.

5. Hatred of beta provider males.

Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.

6. More aggressive sexual signaling.

A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.

Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.

7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.

A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)

A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:

Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).

8. More women acting out like men.

Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.

Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?

9. More men acting out like women.

This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?

Spite. Bitterness. Resentment. Contempt. Decivilization.

The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.

Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.

But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.

Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.

So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?

Read Full Post »

A long time ago , CH criticized “Sex at Dawn” writer, Christopher Ryan, for his beliefs that jealousy is a social construct (or a recent, malleable, adaptation) and his presumption that polyamory is the natural state of de-Christianized, de-programmed white Europeans.

But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them.

I don’t need a laboratory or multiple Pee Aich Dees to know that men feel more more white hot jealousy for a sexually cheating girlfriend or wife, and that women feel more jealousy for an emotionally cheating boyfriend or husband. One would have to have been born and raised in an SJW reeducation camp to believe otherwise.

These are the observed CH ugly truths that discredit feminism and its parent ideology, equalism, and drive their adherents crazy with rage.

Which is why, once the equalist liars are twisted into a rictus of butthurt, I like to ease the shiv in further, whispering to them in their death agonies, “Give up, you don’t stand a chance! Let’s end this here! It will be easier for you, much easier. You’ll see it will be over quickly.” And, since the anti-human leftoids pride themselves on their fellowship with ¡SCIENCE!, nothing quite delivers the killing blow like enlisting the aid of their godhead to betray them to their last breaths.

Apropos, here’s 💋SCIENCE💋 telling us that, yes, CH was right again: Men and women feel jealousy differently, and this difference is best explained by a biological, innate cause.

Highlights

• Strong sex differences in jealousy responses across measurement paradigms
• Sex differences in jealousy responses not subject to moderation or mediation
• Noteworthy sex differences in a nation with high paternal investment expectancy
Findings contradict explanations derived from social role theories.
• Findings support evolutionary predictions.

Despite some controversy about sex differences in jealousy, data largely support that sex differences studied with the forced choice (FC) paradigm are robust: Men, relative to women, report greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity than in response to emotional infidelity. Corresponding sex differences for continuous measures of jealousy typically have been less robust in the literature. A large sample of Norwegian students (N = 1074) randomly responded to either FC or continuous measure questionnaires covering four infidelity scenarios. Large, comparable, theoretically-predicted sex differences were evident for both FC and continuous measures. Relationship status, infidelity experiences, and question order manipulation (activation) did not consistently influence the sex differences for either measure, nor did individual differences in sociosexual orientation or relationship commitment. These large sex differences are especially noteworthy as they emerge from a highly egalitarian nation with high paternal investment expectancy, and because they contradict social role theories that predict a diminution of psychological sex differences as gender economic equality increases.

There will never be a polyamorous culture, legalized or de facto, in European-derived nations that doesn’t end in tears. Feminism, as per usual, is a crock of shit and a belief system that, contrary to its stated intent of enlarging the moral universe, strips humans of both sexes of their humanity.

Read Full Post »

Remember that unfunnygirl who performed a social science experiment up to the rigorous standards set by academic feminists everywhere, an experiment in which her results were presented as evidence men don’t want casual sex any more than women want it? Femcunts rejoiced, because femcunts will rejoice at whatever slender reed of feels gives succor to their pretty lies.

Dr. Jeremy, from Psychology Today, responded, vindicating the original Clark and Hatfield study finding that men are fantastically more agreeable to the prospect of casual, NSA sex than are women.

The difference between actual social science research and these pseudo-experiments is that, with real research, there are experimental controls put in place to reduce bias and alternative explanations for the findings. For example, the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study standardized what was said by the experimental assistants to ask for sex, so that each participant received exactly the same believable message. Specifically they said, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

Additionally, Clark and Hatfield (1989) used multiple experimental assistants to control for differences in attractiveness. Also, the assistants were asked to only request sex from believable partners (college students, relatively the same age, and attractive to them). Finally, participants were approached during times when they were most likely to have free time for sex (weekdays and not between class periods).

We see none of these experimental controls in the pseudo-experiment video. The woman is inconsistent with her approach and how she asks for sex. Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request. She also approaches many men who are not plausible sex partners for her, who are busy with their day, or who are otherwise unavailable for immediate sex.

Nevertheless, when she does approach men that she finds sexually attractive, who are plausible sex partners, who are available, and her request to them is more complementary and believable, then she more often gets a yes (for example, see video at 1:54 with guy in blue shirt). In fact, simply taking the men out of the analysis who are clearly considerably older than her (10), state they are too busy to go with her immediately (9), say they have a girlfriend and cannot have sex with her (12), or tell her they are gay (3), begins to increase her probability of getting a yes to sex (28/66 = 42%). If she only approached men that she actually found sexually attractive, used a standardized and believable request for sex, and hid the camera too, then it is quite possible that her rate of success would be even higher and better match those of actual studies that used such experimental controls. In fact, more recent experimental studies, following those controls and protocols, have indeed found similar results as the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiments (for more, see Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-54.

Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behaviior, 31, 453-458.

Feminists — ah, fuck it, let’s just say all women — will never be convinced by logic or reason to accept that there are deep, abiding differences in the psychology of the sexes. Women are built by evolution to fool themselves as much as fool men to their true natures, because complete enlightenment and the pained introspection that would follow could sabotage the Darwinian prime directive to attract and monopolize the top alpha sperm and resources.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,298 other followers

%d bloggers like this: