Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.

masojism

That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

Read Full Post »

Men love women who look happy. Women love men who look…. take a guess.

Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of “bad boys” and other iconic gender types.

Of course, if you were to ASK the typical woman in a public setting surrounded by her family and peers which kind of man she would rather date, she’ll say the smiling happy man. Women are loath to publicly admit romantic preferences that would expose the disturbing nature of their sexuality. But any man who’s lived a day in his life knows the special appeal that swaggering douchebags or mysterious brooding artists have to women.

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult

Nice N.

participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

Careerist, manjawed feminists extolling the lean-in philosophy wept. Men prefer deferential, submissive, vulnerable women. I.e., feminine women.

“It is important to remember that this study explored first-impressions of sexual attraction to images of the opposite sex,” says Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author. “We were not asking participants if they thought these targets would make a good boyfriend or wife — we wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction.”

The sexual market is the prime market because (among other reasons) it operates on the level of the human subconscious, where instinct and “gut” forge behavior before the frontal lobe pitches in to rationalize that based behavior as freely chosen and socially appropriate.

Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men.

Fashy coda! Affirms the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” maxim. For those cucklets who insist that women only value men’s looks, remember that women are predisposed to valuing VERY LITTLE of men, even decent-looking men, BEFORE those men have approached and displayed their masculine boldness.

It’s been covered here at the Chateau many times…women are the more discriminating sex, and that extends to women’s perceptions of men’s looks. Which is implicitly good news for less Hollywoodian men, because if women only consciously value the top 5% in male looks then the reality that far more than 5% of men are dating cute girls proves that women must subconsciously value other traits in men. This study indirectly highlights a selection of those other attractive male traits: confidence, cockiness, inscrutability, danger, and dominance.

***

Nikolai adds an insightful comment about women’s seemingly weird attraction to shame-faced men.

This is the second study I’ve seen where ‘ashamed’ or ‘guilty’ was the second most popular look for men. I think I know why this is.
When I first started seeing multiple women, dates would ask me about it and I would look shamefaced. This would prove what I was up to and I was surprised to find that they reacted positively, like those female teachers who can’t help adoring the naughty boy.
Of course, haughty and nonchalant would have been even better. That’s why ashamed only comes in second.

Anything that communicates “I’ve been a bad bad boy” will fire up a woman’s libido.

Read Full Post »

Pman sells the science of physiognomy short. There’s evidence (re)emerging from the labcoats’ mental masturbatoriums that a person’s looks do say something about his politics, smarts, personality, and even his propensity to crime. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air, and the historical wisdom that one can divine the measure of a man (or a woman) by the cut of his face has empirical support.

For instance, facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is a reliable cue to dominant social behavior in men. Another study found that wide-faced men are untrustworthy. You CAN judge a book by its cover: ugly people are more crime-prone.

Shitlibs have a look. Shitlords have a look. And you can predict with better than 50/50 chance which 2016 presidential candidate a person supports based on nothing more than their photograph.

Physiognomy is real. It needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and the snarling equalists who lied and slandered good men to suppress the investigation of physiognomy should have their faces rubbed in the realtalk. Physiognomy isn’t just an illusion of confirmation bias, or of backwards rationalization of evoked emotions. The connection between facial appearance and character is observable and measurable, not a figment of cognitive self-bias. There are exceptions, of course, but the existence of exceptions should not be used as an excuse to sweep the reality of the rule under the rug.

Read Full Post »

In a CH post about older men’s advantages in the sexual market, frequent sex difference and Game denialist wolfie65 avers,

There are VERY few things in this world that actually do get better with age.
High quality wine (if you like that sort of thing), high quality cheese (to a point), things made very well from high quality wood, like musical instruments or furniture.
People are not one of those things.

Generally true, past a certain age. But that threshold age from youthful to old is different for men and women. Most men aesthetically peak around 29-30 and stay there well into their late 30s. For women, their physical peak happens somewhere between the late teens and early 20s, and doesn’t stay there long.

Men who lift weights and don’t bloat up can look quite dashing to the majority of women well past their 30s. Women who lift and stay slender will keep their sexual worth longer as well, but not nearly as long as in-shape men keep theirs. So the adage that one should strike while the iron is hot is more germane to a woman’s romantic fortunes.

If men over 30 have any advantages in the dating market, they are:
1) MONEY – Very few younger men have any money worth bragging about and da wimminz do LOVELOVELOVE da moolah, all polls to the contrary.

Sure, women love da moolah, but it takes a LOT of moolah to activate a woman’s love programming. Merely being in the top quintile of SES won’t cut it. The entrance fee for unlimited access to poonworld rides is seven figures in the expensive shitlib cities. Given that most men boffing cute girls have nowhere near seven figures, it stands to reason that, although money may be a powerful attractant once accumulated over a very high amount, it’s a rather weak attractant below that number. Other, more important, factors contribute to a man’s success with women.

2) Social status – Very few younger men (athletes, rock stars) have the kind of ss women are looking for, their mostest favoritest sport being social climbing.

Younger men who aren’t musicians or athletes can accrue social status through sheer force of personality. If you make yourself the life of the party, women will notice. And, always worth reminding recalcitrant readers, BOLDNESS is itself a sign of a man’s social status. If you approach girls uncompromisingly, they will adorn you with a higher status than you would otherwise have had if you stayed in your little corner staring at them lustily.

The ZFG part is more something that benefits you, the guy, internally, as it makes failure easier to deal with.

ZFG does more, far more, than simply make courtship failure easier for a man to deal with, (specifically which in Game terminology is called “outcome independence”). Zero Fucks Given is an ATTITUDE, expressed manifold ways through a man’s words, behavior, and body language, that women have FINELY TUNED VAJDAR for recognizing, because it is in women’s DARWINIAN INTERESTS to hook up with and fall hard for men whose attitude suggests they could TAKE OR LEAVE those women. This kind of man is desirable BECAUSE he acts like he’s desirable. And desirable men have OPTIONS, which they show by never bending over backwards to appease or impress any one woman.

It’s not something she’s going to pick up on at da club, not even with her magical powers of ‘female intuition’ ESP………

Yes, she is. This is the gripe of someone who hasn’t been in a heated sex market arena in a long time. No ESP required. Women have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and tingling pussies for which men are high value, just like men have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and boners for which women are high value. Men react instinctively to the sight of a beautiful, height-weight proportionate young woman. Women react equally instinctively to the company of a masculine, devilishly charming, self-confident, ZFG man.

The sexual market is the prime market exactly because its machinations are governed by instinct instead of by considered forethought. It’s hard to undermine human instinct, though our Equalist Overlords are doing their level best to do just that.

Read Full Post »

Commenter maldek regurgitates a shopworn belief among a certain set of manospherians concerning the ability of LSMV women to get sex.

Women at 58 – even much worse looking and overweight women – CAN get dates easily.

No they can’t. More on this below.

They can get as much sex as they want easily. Quantity is not a problem.

Yes it is. More on this below.

The problem is, the quality of mate. Dates are from younger guys who can get laid in their own age group or younger so they date older. Or from guys their own age or older who are in one way or the other SMV rejects and have no other options.

Man with options with an SMV of 7 or higher can and prefer to date younger pussy. This hurts the old hotty even more than it hurts the overweight ex-housewife, because she is used to male attention of the 8+ area and now has to decide between low quality flesh and high quality plastic inside of her lady parts. More often than not, its the later.

Look, you don’t need SCIENCE! to tell you that fat, ugly, and old chicks have trouble getting laid. If you enjoy a halfway-respectable social life, you’ll notice time and again that the unattractive girls show up to parties and events alone, and leave alone, no man to escort them home for post-party boffing. It happens so often no one really blinks an eye, because it’s expected. If you DO need SCIENCE!, please consult the CH archives for studies clearly finding that fat chicks have sex less often than slender babes.

In the real world, fatties, fuglies, oldies and, less frequently, super hot sexpot ingenues with a case of BPD, are the ones who never seem to have a boyfriend when they meet up with their social groups. The sexpots are BF-less for a different reason: they play the field so much they’ve forgotten how to identify a quality man worth slowing down for and stashing the crazy in the crawl space.

The SMV hierarchy of “ease of getting laid” looks like this (note that ease of getting laid does not necessarily imply fulfillment of sex opportunities), in descending order of ease:

Alpha females (HB 8s, 9s and 10s)
Super Alpha males
Beta females
Alpha males
Beta males
Omega females
Omega males

Fat, ugly and old women are essentially omega females in the sexual market, and that’s reflected in the fact they have as much, perhaps more, trouble getting laid as do garden variety beta males. In line with what we know about biomechanics and sex differences in reproductive goals, Omega Females are the instant sexual access equivalent of Beta Males. They don’t get sex offers, direct or indirect, as often as prettier girls, and when they do get laid it’s usually with flings who aren’t their first choice and who don’t even feign a promise of commitment to a longer term agreement.

Omega males have it the worst, and can often go years without so much as a whiff of womb flower.

(Note the curiosity that beta females — 4s, 5s, and 6s — have an easier time getting laid than regular alpha males. The cheapness of sperm guarantees that even alpha males have to put a little legwork in to find a willing buyer.)

So while it is true that in general women can get sex easier than can men, in the particulars we see that this truth varies by the sexual marketability of the woman in question, just as it does for men. What we can say with certainty that applies to all men and women is that the curve for women’s “ease of getting laid” is shifted to the rawdog right of the same curve for men. But there are still plenty of women on the left side of their sex-getting curve who languish as insols for uncomfortable lengths of time.

There’s another psychological dynamic that puts the lie to the “ugly girls can get laid whenever they want” mantra. Women simply don’t emotionally or mentally process their ability to get laid the same way men do for themselves. If a fat chick can slum it with a piss-stained bum, that’s no comfort to her ego. Even if she has an easier time getting hobo dick than a similarly LSMV man has getting fatty furrow, that reality won’t resonate with a positive assessment of her self-conception.

Succinctly, women don’t count loser men as validation of their sexual desirability, (just as they don’t count vacation sex or anal sex as points toward their lifetime partner count). A bum willing to fuck a fat chick just won’t register in her brain as evidence that she can get laid whenever she wants. For women, the only men that register as proof positive of their feminine allure are quality men with options who have willingly chosen them over others, instead of having been chosen because the woman was desperate.

Some manosphere types (and a lot of bitterbitch feminists) forget this because, just like feminists, they frequently dupe themselves into projecting their male sensibilities onto women. That never works. Notch count, and the ability to inflate it, has a different meaning for men and women. However, their wrongness on this subject does spring from a premise with a small kernel of truth: ultimately, sex-getting comparisons between men and women are inherently flawed, because women are, barring exceptions, the receiving sex, and men are the achieving sex. Women wait to receive the sex of a bold sex-getting man emotionally judged worthy of their reception, while men are moved to action to achieve the sex of a beautiful sex-receiving woman penilely judged worthy of their injection.

Because of this intractable psychological and behavioral difference between the sexes, it’s difficult to say with precision that this man and that woman have equal capabilities to easily get laid. The man may have a shy personality or religious feeling that limits his easy sex opportunities, and the woman may be surrounded by timid men who incidentally limit her easy sex opportunities. For this reason, the evidence that fat chicks can’t get laid easily is even more damning than at first blush, given that they have to betray their native womanhood and allow emotional distress into their lives when they chase after men to get the sex they aren’t getting by waiting around passively for a man to approach them unsolicited.

In the big picture, though, the Thirsty Beta Male = Thirsty Omega Female formulation is a useful shorthand. Refer to this post the next time some butthurt blowhard goes on at length about how women have it so great because even the ugly ones can get sex on demand.

Read Full Post »

PA (his blog here) delivers a swift uppercut to the triple chin of America’s gender blender equalists.

The difference between man and woman: the lion fights to the death for his cubs. The lioness goes into heat when an interloper kills her cubs.

The analogy that PA draws explains why women are more amenable than men to voting for politicians who will open the borders to mass quantities of alien races. It’s just a simple fact of sex differences that women come pre-installed with a submission algorithm that executes with a supine ferocity at the exact moment a stronger, more self-confident tribe of men overruns their own men wracked with doubt and enfeeblement.

Islam (president Gay Mulatto’s preferred religion of affinity) is the ultraviolent tribe currently laying waste to the West’s shibboleths, if not the West’s lands, but give it time…if enough shibboleths fall, the spiritually impoverished people of the West will cede their lands with barely a fight (and more likely than not with an excuse for why ceding territory is a moral imperative). And if the estrogenized transom is any indication, too many women are rushing to defend Muslim interlopers from whitemalepatriarchychristianbigotsgunlovingredneckbiblebeltthumpers. Western women are figuratively, and in some cases literally, going into heat for the marauding morlocks.

Does this mean women are innately treacherous? As a political question, maybe. But I would say as a judgment on their character, no, women are who they are: by nature maximizers of their reproductive fitness, and that means to save their valuable eggs they’ll submit to the men with the most passion for conquest. They know not what they do, iow, except how to survive in a world only superficially moved beyond its primal energies.

The answer to the Woman Question, as PA alludes, is for the men of the West to deny the interloper lions access to their lionesses. Accomplish that, and their women won’t feel compulsions to shift allegiance.

Read Full Post »

On my travels to the four corners of the globe, I’ve noticed something very telling about the casual fashion choices White women make within different contexts. Yoga pants, as most of you know, have been staples of the White woman wardrobe for years. Basically, yoga pants are underwear, worn in public. Most styles are extremely tight, some have thigh cuts that are see-through, and all display the camel toe in its full glory, leaving little to the imagination. A few styles cut a crevice so deep in the ass cheeks you can just make out the rusty starfish.

So yoga pants are the striver class-approved slut outfit for SWPL women who want to flaunt their sexy bodies and then bitch about beta males, who have the gall to possess functioning libidos, ogling them. See, proles and SWPL ladies are more alike than not; their goals are the same, but they choose to achieve those goals via different pathways of expression.

Anyhow, to the chewy center bursting with Bartholin’s flavor. In the blacker neighborhoods — the ones gentrifying but still menacing enough to put a pep in the step of Whites who venture out after 7pm or have to walk past throngs of friendly “teens” — you will rarely see White women in yoga pants. They are more conservatively dressed. Jeans are common. Leggings with a long-ish dress or skirt over them are also common. In the heat, shorts are tasteful; no underbutt. I’m talking about SWPL White women here; the ones with mid-paying jobs, sterling Women’s Studies credentials, and big brains they drown in mimosa juice. I’m not talking about the mudshark dregs with the tattoos and needle marks.

In contrast, in the Whitest huetopias, the skin-tight, labia-compressing yoga pants are everywhere. Where da sluttily-dressed White women at? In White neighborhoods. What’s going on here?

I have a thought. Striver White women soaked in a lifetime of feminist tankgrrl indoctrination dress to attract alpha males (while having to deal with the risk of sending the wrong advertising signal to beta males), and they dress to flaunt the power inherent in their number one asset (their figures, culminating to a point at the mons pubis). In White neighborhoods filled with hirsute hipster goons concealing weak jawlines, White women feel unrestricted freedom to flaunt their creases and cracks. This freedom makes them power-drunk, and they love the torment (or thought of it) that they can cause to erupt in the silent skullcases of fearful beta males ogling them from a safe distance.

In the blacker zones, this strategy doesn’t work. Way too risky. Black-on-White women rape is epidemic (leftie White women know this even though they’d never admit it). A darkpool of dindu nuffins loitering on a street corner, veins coursing with the liberating elixir of low impulse control, will not let a yoga pants sloot, with looks that shame the mammoth black beasts the brothers are used to boffing, walk by unmolested. One thing blacks don’t do: cast sidelong, shy glances from a distance while pretending not to notice the lingerie show strutting down the street. They will let a slutty White women know, in so many jungly hoots and howls, that her goods are the sheeeeiit, and they intend to sample them.

Naturally, there will be no White hipsters to white knight for her. And justifiably so. What noodle-arm would risk a five-on-one swarm because he stood up for the honor of some cunty careerist feminist White woman who thought it would be a good idea to display the contours of her vagina to the Congo line?

This, of course, scares feminist White women. Scares them enough that they shelve the yoga pants in favor of more modest attire when blacks are a significant part of the outdoors scenery. Then, in their spite and resentment and bitterness at having to concede the core reactor of their female power to a stronger force (naggers), they will go home and spew a river of Tumblrrhea about misogynist, racist White guys who oppress the POC.

One solution to this impasse: White beta males can start hitting on yoga panties and make them pay at least a small psychic cost for their skanky exhibitionism. The results of shifting White women’s expectation bias are a positive development for White men: Either a more chaste White womanhood emerges that defers as obsequiously to White men as to Machete-Americans, or White betas start scoring more poon which boosts their confidence and swagger and thereby coaxes some respect from the SWPL White women who for now can only spare their respect for the urban orcs that forcefully extract it from them.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,569 other followers

%d bloggers like this: