Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

If ¡SCIENCE! was a woman, she’d beg me to fill her belly with my champions.

Thanks to the id-exposing carnal house of online dating, a treasure trove of social science data has dropped, and it confirms numerous pearls of wisdom and Game techniques tenderly curated in the Chateau Heartiste Library of Love.

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one’s chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Strategic behaviors — aka GAME — can help a man attract a higher quality girl. Modest? Depends on your definition of success. I’ve always said men shouldn’t expect Game to consistently land them hard 10s, but they can expect to land girls an SMV point or two higher than what they would otherwise manage to pull without Game.

Let’s explore what’s hiding in SCIENCE’s cleavage. First, mate selection studies agree that there is a universal ideal of high sexual market value (SMV, measured as youth and beauty in women and as a combination of traits in men):

It is a common observation that marriage or dating partners strongly resemble one another in terms of age, education, physical attractiveness, attitudes, and a host of other characteristics. One possible explanation for this is the matching hypothesis, which suggests that men and women pursue partners who resemble themselves. This in turn implies that people differ in their opinions about what constitutes a desirable partner or at least about who is worth pursuing. At the other extreme, and more in line with biological studies of mate selection, lies the competition hypothesis, which assumes that there is consensus about what constitutes a desirable partner and that mate seekers, regardless of their own qualifications, pursue those partners who are universally recognized as most desirable. Paradoxically, this can also produce couples who resemble one another in terms of desirability, as the most desirable partners pair off with one another, followed by the next most desirable, and so on. To the extent that desirability correlates with individual attributes, the matching and competition hypotheses can, as a result, produce similar equilibrium patterns of mixing.

The ripples of mate choice that disturb the observable surface of the sexual market indicate much more powerful waves underneath which guide people’s romantic choices.

However, while the two hypotheses may produce similar outcomes, they carry very different implications about the processes by which people identify and attract partners. If there is consensus about who is desirable, then it creates a hierarchy of desirability such that individuals can, at least in principle, be ranked from least to most desirable, and their ranking will predict how and to what extent they are pursued by others. Historically, however, these hierarchies have been difficult to quantify. Since they reflect which partners people pursue, and not just who people end up with, one would need a way to observe unrequited overtures and requited ones to determine who people find desirable. Online dating provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to observe both requited and unrequited overtures at the scale of entire populations.

This explains the category error made by feminists of either sex, by tradcons, and by suckup white knights when they incorrectly conclude that people’s first choice in mate is the mate they end up with. Nope. Bobbing in the wake of every successfully reciprocated choice is the lovelorn detritus of more attractive but unfulfilled choices.

“Aspirational” pursuit of mates completes the full sexual market picture, filling in those blank spaces normally left overlooked by a quantitative data focus on how men and women eventually match up.

We also explore the ways in which people tailor their messaging strategies and message content based on the desirability of potential partners, and how desirability and dating strategy vary across demographic groups.

Play to your audience. Don’t overgame a plain jane, don’t over-beta a hottie.

To study individual desirability, we focus on messages between users of the website in four cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Paper should really be titled, “Aspirational pursuit of shitlib mates”.

 Figure 1 shows the distribution of this quantity separately for men and women in each of the cities. The distribution is roughly consistent across cities, and although women receive more messages than men overall,

Women receive more messages than men. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs. Check.

the distributions for both display a classic “long-tailed” form—most people receive a handful of messages at most, but a small fraction of the population receive far more.

The bottom 10% of women receive fewer than five messages. The bottom 25% of men receive fewer than five messages. Female hypergamy is real. Check.

Corollary: a small fraction of online daters receives most of the messages. Online dating is low investment, low return. Check.

However, desirability is not only about how many people contact you but also about who those people are. If you are contacted by people who are themselves desirable, then you are presumptively more desirable yourself.

The Chateau’s definition of the alpha male co-signed by SCIENCE. Check.

As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older women are less desirable, while older men are more so (1819).

The existence of The Wall and men aging like wine, women like milk, vindicated by SCIENCE. Check.

For women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is 60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines.

Men are expendable, women perishable. Check.
SMV sex-based double standards are real and immutable. Check.
Barely legal sexpots and older charming billionaire werewolf fantasies reflect real romantic desires of each sex. Check.
May-December romances are normal and natural. Check.

In keeping with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on ethnicity (1520), with Asian women and white men being the most desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities.

Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an undergraduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is associated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

LMAO overeducated careerist shrikes BTFO. ps check.

We now turn to the central results of our study. First, we use our desirability scores to explore whether people engage in aspirational mate pursuit (that is, messaging potential partners who are more desirable than they are) and how the probability of receiving a reply varies with the difference in desirability between senders and receivers. […]

The most common (modal) behavior for both men and women is to contact members of the opposite sex who on average have roughly the same ranking as themselves, suggesting that people are relatively good judges of their own place in the desirability hierarchy. The distributions about this modal value, however, are noticeably skewed to the right, meaning that a majority of both sexes tend to contact partners who are more desirable than themselves on average—and hardly any users contact partners who are significantly less desirable.

Note that while both sexes aim out of their league, this has to be weighted against the number of each sex considered attractive enough for sex, and because more women than men get messaged (more men are considered no-gos by women) the result of contacting more desirable prospects is that more women get contacted in general.

…women are more likely than men to receive replies—but among both women and men, the probability of a reply is a decreasing function of desirability gap, more desirable partners replying at lower rates than less desirable ones. The differences are stark: Men are more than twice as likely to receive a reply from women less desirable than themselves than from more desirable ones, and for messages sent to more desirable women, the reply rate never rises above 21%. Yet, the vast majority of men send messages to women who are more desirable than themselves on average. Messaging potential partners who are more desirable than oneself is not just an occasional act of wishful thinking; it is the norm.

Men practice a dragnet strategy; drag the net over the ASCII sea and collect a number of tasty red snappers while keeping the nets open in the hopes of catching that prized sturgeon. Women employ a different strategy; spearfishing. Target only the alpha fish and take aim.

Conditioned on the number of messages sent, men and especially women who reach higher up the desirability ladder tend to write to a less diverse set of potential matches, in terms of desirability gap. This behavior, consistent across all four cities, indicates that mate seekers, and particularly those setting their sights on the most desirable partners, do not adopt a diversified strategy to reduce the risk of being rejected, as one might, for instance, when applying to universities.

Maybe people think very desirable prospects will love them if they “share values” and outlook. Big mistake.

Women initiate far fewer contacts than men, but both sets of curves fall off with increasing desirability gap in all four cities. One might imagine that individuals who make a habit of contacting potential partners significantly more desirable than themselves (large positive desirability gap) would also initiate more contacts overall to increase their chances of getting a reply, but they do the opposite: The number of initial contacts an individual makes falls off rapidly with increasing gap, and it is the people approaching the least desirable partners who send the largest number of messages. A possible explanation is that those who approach more desirable partners are adopting a “quality over quantity” approach, more precisely identifying people they see as an attractive match or spending more time writing personalized messages, at the expense of a smaller number of messages sent.

This seems to be a bad strategy that exists only because online dating is an evolutionarily novel environment that hasn’t yet weeded out people who practice it. I mean, the definition of anti-Game is trying too hard to impress a more desirable prospect. (Wait for it, because the study addresses my skepticism.)

Both men and women tend to write substantially longer messages to more desirable partners, up to twice as long in some cases. The effect is larger for messages sent by women than by men, although there are exceptions.

Women can be exceptionally cold toward beta males while effusing with egregious feminine ardor for alpha males. Lesson: whether you’re a beta or alpha male, don’t mistake the treatment you get from women for how women treat all men.

Among the groups we study, for instance, it is men in Seattle who have the most pronounced increase in message length.

Seattle is soyboy central. Too much estrogen. Very sad!

[Of the cities studied, Seattle presents the most unfavorable dating climate for men, with as many as two men for every woman in some segments of the user population (fig. S1)].

Isn’t pantifa headquartered in Seattle? No wonder they’re so worked up.

Here, we see an interesting difference between women and men: The women show an increase in their use of positive words when communicating with more desirable partners, while the men show a decrease. The effect size is modest but is consistent across all four cities and statistically significant (P < 0.001; table S4).

Subconsciously, men perceive their upbeat motivational emoting to be a value lowering trait in the company of cute babes. Evidence for the evolved neg?

Buckle up, because here comes the big payoff in term of implications for effective Game tactics used in the seduction of women:

in all four cities, men experience slightly lower reply rates when they write more positively worded messages. Although our analysis cannot reveal the underlying process that gives rise to these behaviors (for example, reinforcement learning), this result may offer a hint about why men tend to write somewhat less positive messages to more desirable partners.

Men have more success at getting responses from more desirable women if the men send less enthusiastic messages. Be A Challenge, Flip The Script, Skittles Man and Bring Da Movies strategies vindicated.

On average, people pursue partners who are roughly 25% more desirable than they themselves are. In the language of matching and competition introduced at the start of this article, it appears that people are pursuing a hybrid strategy with elements of both—they are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their behavior accordingly while, at the same time, competing modestly for more desirable mates.

If you really want to bang and date an HB8, you’ve got to compete immodestly for the hotties and modestly for less desirable girls. Turn that message rate pyramid upside down; more messages to the hotties, fewer messages to the wannabe thotties.

Our results on aspirational mate pursuit are consistent with the popular concept of dating “leagues,” as reflected in the idea that someone can be “out of your league,” meaning that attractive matches are desirable for but unavailable to less attractive others. Provided that leagues are envisaged as a single continuous hierarchy rather than as distinct strata, our results suggest that, contrary to popular belief, attracting the attention of someone out of one’s league is entirely possible.

Related, I’ve long had to correct misinterpretations of my Dating Market Value categorization system in which ignorant or bad faith readers assume concepts like alpha male and beta male are discrete entities rather than (as this study’s authors state about “dating leagues”) continuous SMV hierarchies.

One might wonder how the patterns we observe online might inform our understanding of offline mate pursuit and dating markets. Online dating differs from offline dating in several important ways (25). Because of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely fiercer online than offline. This may increase the extent to which a hierarchy of desirability exists online and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of fish in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back. It has also been suggested that consensus about what makes an attractive partner is strongest in the early stages of courtship, when partners do not know as much about one another (2627). While it is difficult to study early courtship offline—our method requires unrequited overtures, which are hard to observe in offline interactions—these differences suggest that hierarchies of desirability may be more pronounced online than off.

Now where have we all read this before? Oh yeah. And oh yeah.

Bloody hell, will SCIENCE ever stop slurping my knob?

Read Full Post »

File under: common sense confirmed by the labcoats. Height of a partner matters more to women than it does to men.

The study, “Does Height Matter? An Examination of Height Preferences in Romantic Coupling,” was conducted in two parts. Part one, which used data from the Yahoo! personal dating advertisements of 455 males (average height of 5 feet 8 inches and average age of 36 years) and 470 females (average height of 5 feet 4 inches and average age of 35 years) from throughout the U.S., found that 13.5 percent of the men wanted to date only women shorter than they are. In contrast, nearly half of the women – 48.9 percent – wanted to date only men taller than they are.

Men are more open to dating women of any height, while women are more likely to objectify men based on their height. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs, as seen through the prism of sex-based average height differences.

I wonder if shorter men have a stronger preference than do taller men for women shorter than themselves, partly because most men like looking down at a woman (it feeds the male need to feel like he is protective and dominant) and partly because shorter men especially intuit that relationships are stabler (and the paternity more assured) if the woman is shorter than the man.

The really interesting discovery from this study is that it answers why women prefer taller men than themselves. Short version (heh): women want to feel dominated by a man.

According to the study data, the dominant reasons females cited for preferring a tall partner are matters of protection and femininity.

“As the girl, I like to feel delicate and secure at the same time,” said a woman in the study who is 5 feet 3 inches tall. “Something just feels weird in thinking about looking ‘down’ into my man’s eyes.”

Women feel protected and more feminine when they are with a masculine, physically imposing man. Likewise, men feel protective and more masculine when they are with a feminine, physically vulnerable woman. Sexual polarity ftw. (The Leftoid Fuggernaut wept)

Men, for their part, are much more practical about the considerations of a woman’s height,

Men were much less likely to say that height mattered, and for those that did, they preferred shorter women, but not so short that it would cause problems with physical intimacy.

“I like it when the body of your partner fits yours,” said another study participant, a male who is 5 feet 11 inches tall. “It also makes it easier to kiss, hold hands and do other activities with your partner.”

The wheelbarrow.

From the study’s lead poopytalk squid inker,

George Yancey, a professor of sociology at the University of North Texas and the study’s lead author, believes that the height preferences of men and women can be explained by traditional societal expectations and gender stereotypes.

Nope. Societal expectations got nothin’ to do with it. It’s biologically evolved predispositions all the way down.

Decades of radical feminism and cultural conditioning at odds with the notion of a functioning patriarchy have done nothing to diminish women’s preference for taller men. Atavator writes,

It’s common sense until they lapse into the usual social-constructivist genuflection at the end. Do social scientists realize how they undermine their own credibility with this crap?

Most do, but they’re cowards who’d rather keep their sinecures than their integrity.

Another thing they didn’t think through: how are such perceptions and preferences affected by species-constant (or at least race-constant) proportions and emotions? By that I mean this: *I* never wanted to be with a woman taller than myself, but then, I’m 6’1″.

How many women over 6’1″ fit within biologically-conditioned boundaries of “attractive”? A much smaller proportion than those who are 5’4″, I’d venture to guess!

Shorter/smaller people across the world live longer than taller/bigger people, which may explain why there hasn’t been an evolutionary arms race toward ever-taller humans. That aside, it is a little bit of a mystery why very short men still exist in Western populations when they take a big hit to their reproductive fitness. It could be that there are enough even shorter women to satisfy the short men.

Heather adds,

I don’t like a guy who is too skinny either. I don’t like feeling like I could knock him over accidentally.

Women are averse to being with men who are mentally, physically, emotionally, or psychologically feebler than themselves. While there are exceptions, generally I’ve found that slightly overweight men do better than underweight men do with women. Gross obesity is another story, so don’t think you can grow out a dick-concealing gut and expect the ladies to swoon. (OTOH, if your dick is big enough to be seen jutting out from a giant beer gut, then the ladies might come up with some creative euphemisms to describe the appeal of your belly.)

PS Shorter men shouldn’t despair. The best PUA I’ve known was in the ballpark of 5’5″. But he was confident, smooth, and fearless, and those traits were enough to compensate for his shortness. He often went home with women taller than himself. Shortness is a strike against a man, but it’s not an SMV-killing death blow. Even if a short man has no Game, he can substantially improve his odds simply by targeting shorter women (or, not uncommonly, taller women who would be more impressed by a show of self-entitled confidence from a short man than from a tall man (from whom it would be expected)).

Read Full Post »

williamk’s signal-to-noise ratio is off the charts. Nearly every comment is COTW-worthy. Here he explains how the sexual market gatekeeper role of women and the marriage market gatekeeper role of men influences the politics of each sex.

An interesting interpretation of the data is that among college eds, White Men are watching the women for signals, that is they are only as conservative as they can be and still get laid. While among non-college eds it more likely the opposite, the women will be only as liberal as they can be and still get married.

In both cohorts, the gatekeepers (sex for college eds, marriage for non college eds) set the political trends. Of course, being a liberal doesn’t actually help you get laid, but this is a good take on the general pulse of what’s happening: When men are in control (marriage), women follow the men. When women are in control (sexual access), men follow the women.

This is a parsimonious theory for the ideological split we see between non-college White women and over-credentialed White women. Female college students are on the cock carousel life strategy (whether they actually ride or not is immaterial — the trajectory of their lives will follow a similar path to that of the sex and the city slut who rides all day and night). For these college girls — and note that college girls are dumber today than they were in the past, owing to the lowered admissions standards of McUniversities  — they are staring down the barrel of a decade’s worth of premarital sex. So their roles as sexual gatekeepers colors their interactions with men and their relationship to the State. College men, aka soyboys, will dance to the girls’ “welcome rapefugees” tune as long as they believe it gets them within the orbit of their nearest sex dispensary.

Non-college women, in contrast, have their eyes more strongly focused on marriage, because they can’t afford to blow a decade on cock hopping and mimosa brunches. They need a provider (a lot of the immiseration of the working class is a consequence of the lack of suitable provider males). Non-college women will therefore reflect the political views of their men to better sell themselves as marriage-worthy prospects.

A confounding factor to willamk’s theory is that ideology is partly heritable. It may be the case that women more interested in marriage and repulsed by the cock carousel lifestyle tend also to be more conservative in outlook. So college is filling up with the opposite — girls who aren’t as singularly focused on getting married and would prefer to monkey swing from soyboy to soyboy until latching onto a supergoy. Nevertheless, this gatekeeper theory of political affiliation is better than most I’ve read.

Executive summary:

Thirsty betas => shitliberalism
Desperate bachelorettes => shitlordism

I swear you’ll read more perceptive social analysis in one day on this blog than you’ll read in ten years at National Rejew.

FYI, williamk is the man who also introduced to this esteemed Chateau the concept of post-America liberalism as a “status cheating” strategy. Namely, as the nation has become more economically unequal, there are fewer avenues for striver SWPLs to gain real world, objective material and social status, so these locked out SWPLs turn to the raving lunacy of shitlibbery to gain unearned status by parroting anti-White pabulum. The solution to our shitlib problem may in part be returning to a more egalitarian (not “equal”) society marked by rising wages and less status whoring. Think anti-trust, tariffs, closed borders. So far, Trump is hitting two of three. I’m confident he’ll get around to the other one once all the GOPe cucks are jettisoned this November.

PS Do married White women continue voting like their husbands after years of marriage? If so, that would indicate a real shift in power dynamics in which married women mature into strongly identifying with their husband’s worldviews. If not, it would indicate there are social pressures pushing women to abdicate their marital duties.

Read Full Post »

One of my realest of realtalk posts — women are LESS cooperative than are men — contributed a new aphorism to the national discourse:

Men compete, then cooperate.
Women compete, then cast out.

The post inspired this perceptive comment from a Gabber,

Vertical male hierarchy ensures a place for everyone. Order is kept via rules-based discipline and the threat of demotion. Allows for graceful losing and peaceful surrender. Stable.

Horizontal female hierarchy causes massive churn, clique formation, uncertain and shifting status and frequent change of allegiance. Zero sum. Highly unstable.

There’s a good reason why ascending civilizations and female disempowerment are mutually inclusive and why declining civilizations are associated with female empowerment. The system becomes unstable under female deference and rule (hence the term I coined: gynarcho-tyranny).

***

In related news

A Swedish student activist stopped the deportation of an Afghan man this week by refusing to take her seat on a packed Turkish Airlines flight, and her dramatic video of the tense standoff has gone viral.

The student, Elin Ersson, initially bought a ticket because she believed that a 26-year-old man from Afghanistan was being deported to Kabul from Landvetter Airport in Gothenburg via Istanbul. When she got on the plane, the 26-year-old was not there, but an Afghan deportee in his 50s was with the Swedish authorities.

Ms. Ersson, 21, live-streamed the standoff on the flight late Monday on Facebook, and footage of the 14-minute video shows her in tears, at times being confronted by crew members and angry passengers. But she also garnered some support. […]

“I’m trying to change my country’s rules,” she tells a seated passenger. “He is going to die — because it’s Afghanistan.”

Globalizing the empathobesic White female nurturing instinct has been a disaster for the West. (And the invidious YKW with their lackey status anxious goyium have exploited this instinct masterfully.)

Let’s have a look at Mz Ersson’s phyzz:

Swedish problem glasses. You can practically smell the cat piss through the photo. How many White women are suffering from undiagnosed Williams Syndrome like this hysterical broad? Millions? (apparently)

White women really need to be brought under the White man’s whip hand again. It’s obvious they’re craving the whip hand, and they’ll take it from swarthy invaders if they can’t find it among their own men. It used to be the sensible cure for female hysteria was…

***

In slightly less related news, with a name like Rod Rosenstein he was born to subvert Heritage America:

Jeff Sessions, FIRE THIS SKYPE ALREADY!

***

UPDATE:

Elin Errson, the proto-spinster in the news story above, “rescued” an Afghan man who turned out to be a wife beater and child abuser. LOL.

Repeat after me: WHITE WOMEN CRAVE THE WHITE MAN’S WHIP HAND.

Refuse White women their desire and they will make you pay for it forever.

Read Full Post »

Welcome to the CH patented, leather-bound B.O.B. seduction system.

Birth order has an impact on a girl’s character. How much of an impact is debatable, but the zero sum sexual market is all about exploiting pattern perturbations at the margins. In my travels through the Valley of the Thots, I’ve noticed that only-children, first-borns, middle chicks, and “woopsie” last-borns share personality, and hence sexuality, traits.

Only-children girls:

The stereotypes are true. Only-daughters have been coddled their whole lives. They have never had to compete for love and attention with siblings, and their parents (probably sad they didn’t have a son, given they stopped at one kid) treat them with kid gloves because they don’t want the onlies to be upset with them. Sometimes the fathers will resent their only-girls, or push them to be tomboys against their natures, and this will later fuel a slutty rebelliousness in the only-girl that materializes as Dad’s worst nightmare. These girls grow up to be your typical “precious princesses”; selfish, egotistic, demanding, irrationally confident…and DTF. Yes, onlies love to jump in the sack with men who can overpower their solipsism and associated shit tests. The catch is that onlies make such an overpowering first impression that most men are intimidated by their lookatme antics.

First-born girls:

The weight of expectation is placed on these girls. They have carried the burden of pleasing their parents and undertaking some responsibility for their younger siblings. These are your straight-arrow, apple polisher chicks with a good head on their shoulders. They know what they want in a man, and it’s usually a long-term commitment. First-borns respond well to “shared values” and “life dreams (or lost dreams)” Game routines, because they have spent their lives trying to please others often at the expense of pleasing themselves. You want to be the man who can connect with the first-born on the level of someone who gets what she’s had to sacrifice, and who can give her what she’s allowed herself to miss out on before she met you.

Middle chicks:

Keep in mind that White American family size is decreasing, so middle- and last-born chicks are a vanishing breed. Still, I’ve known a few, and they have their own way of seeing the world. Middles are usually artsy, free spirits, and this predilection extends to their poon. They have big, soft hearts, easily broken, that soar and sway and get carried away on bouts of self-induced drama. These were the girls largely ignored by their parents, left to explore on their own. And explore they do, every nook and cocka. Be the man who notices her “special talents” and she’ll be yours forever.

Woopsies (last-borns):

“Mistakes” are pampered even more than are only-children, especially if they’re girls. These are the “rare jewel” daughters of fathers who shower them with baubles, credit cards, BMWs for their Sweet Sixteen birthdays, and a hands-off approach to disciplining them. Part of the reason is that parents get lazy by the third kid, opting to let nature take its course. Another reason is that parents, feeling guilty about neglecting to properly raise the Woopsie, alleviate their guilt by giving the Woopsie lots of gifts and leeway to do as she pleases. The woopsie girl can do no wrong, and because she has never had boundaries on her behavior, she grows up into a thrill-seeker who will push men’s boundaries just to see how much she can get away with before the hammer comes down (it rarely does…most men are pussies). The Woopsie is liable to shack up with a jerkboy grifter before she ever has a serious relationship with a serious man. She’s prone to cheating, carousing, gallivanting, acting out, and then regretting her decisions when the Wall looms. Men looking for the Woopsie Bang should stress script-flipping; the Woopsie can’t resist a hard-to-get man after a lifetime having her feelings validated and her every want fulfilled by her Pedestal Polishing Dad.

***

“traitors first” connects the dots,

So essentially go for onlies and woopsies for the easy lay and first and middles for LTR or waifu.
Wow that really does explain why the female market is so screwed up, you’re picking from 70% + onlies and woopsies (probably closer to 90% now a days) leaving less than 30% (way less) as potential wife material and probably half of that left over is probably a lost cause.

There is much truth in this.

Small family size = More dirty sluts?

mmmmmm….could be!

Read Full Post »

#RepealThe19th

This is what runaway credentialism does to our naturally suck-up White women: turns them into Gay Mulatto adoring, poz-pushing, miscegenating White man-haters willing to trash their nation and turn it into a gibs depot for the world’s filth just to get a virtue sniveling tingle in their cooches.

Thankfully, this mental illness is largely confined to over-credentialed White women (I wish this data had been further broken down by marital status). If Trump is to keep winning, he needs a message that appeals to working class women as well as to men. The credentialed battlecunt vote is lost to him; best we can do on Trumperica’s behalf is mock these cat ladies in waiting, shame them for their vapid beliefs, and ridicule their sanctimony. Women do feel the hot burn of shame far more powerfully than do men; a shaming campaign can pay big dividends.

Why do credentialed White broads hate Trump? An MPCer thinks media capture is primarily to blame.

This is the media capture effect.  100% of mainstream political media is anti-Trump, and it hits women hardest.

College educated women listen to NPR and read the NYT.  If they’re Republican-leaning they may possibly watch Fox News instead of CNN, but more likely neither.  Even the Republican-leaning women still listen to NPR.  The Anti-Trump message on all of this media is that supporting Trump is not even something that needs to be rationally considered.  Only damaged people like Trump.

This tells on normal women.  Plenty of these women would like to support Trump and not vote to sell out their country, but they need social cover for it.  There need to be more normal women on TV and the media talking about the bread and butter reasons to support Trump.  Jobs, the economy, and protecting what we’ve got from foreign competition are all things to emphasize.  Some way, some how, we have to get images of normal women supporting Trump onto the television.

Also, while banging hot women on the side may have helped JFK/Clinton with the average single unmarried Democrat woman, it doesn’t help Trump so much with the average married Republican woman.

Credentialed White Women (CWW) need to be weaned off the Talmudvision. Ripples in their comfortable conformism can eventually effect sea changes in attitude. For instance, ask a CWW at your local airport to remove CNN from the TVs; tell her you don’t want to hear “Fake News”. If she objects, laugh in her face and snort “typical”.

Media capture includes social expectation bias. Some, maybe 5 or 10%, of these CWWs telling survey takers they are voting Democreep are lying to avoid social ostracism from the spinsterhood. I doubt that explains all of the trend, though.

A more potent explanation is that CWWs have come to despise their available White men. These cunts are surrounded on their college campuses by squadrons of soyboys. They resent these un-men and transfer their resentment onto Trump and the shitlord men who support him.

Some of (((their))) resentment is aimed at married White women and popular “Beckys” (a generic term for a psychologically and physically attractive White woman who supports Trump and loves masculine men).

Adding fuel to the CWW rush to anti-Trump and anti-White conformism is the fact that US colleges have become far less discriminatory over the last two decades. Admissions standards have been lowered to accommodate Diversity™ and incoming hordes of White women who want to major in Gender Fluidity and Whorenalism. Colleges are 60+% female, and the sex skew is getting worse, stoking a bitterness in female students who want to nuptially land an educated Chad but find they have to compete with prettier girls just to get a one night stand. Romantic frustration is another culprit pushing CWWs away from sanity and toward Globohomoism.

Which leads to a point I’ve made many times on this blog: when women remain unmarried but economically self-sufficient, they vote for anyone who will strengthen the power of Sugar Daddy Government at the expense of White beta male providers. Government becomes not only a beta provider substitute, but also an outlet for CWWs to vent their spite and signal their loyalty to the gynarcho-tyranny.

The loss of the early-wedded homemaker, in both numbers and status, has created a perverse economic incentive for the CWW who wants cheap consumer products and indentured servants to release her from labor-intensive routine household chores and child-rearing that used to fill a big part of the day of un-credentialed White women, before the DEGREE UP AND LEAN IN, YASS QUEENS ideology took a hold of their imaginations. Throwing more government money at these CWWs isn’t going to solve the problem of them aligning with Globohomo; in the long term it will only intensify their disloyalty to their White men.

The CWW problem isn’t fixed until women have “skin in the game” again. Women have to feel like they are in this together with their men, and that any President and any policies which benefit their men also benefits the women. This means a return to the benevolent patriarchy of America at her height, when sex roles and sex differences were celebrated instead of bitterly cursed like they are today.

Read Full Post »

A Gabber prompts the title of this post with the following thought experiment,

It is also more important to control women’s sexuality than men’s sexuality.

Hypothetical;
A tribe of 100 men and 100 women.
You control the sexuality of 99 men and 1 woman? You get 99 single mothers.
You control the sexuality of 1 man and and 99 women? You get 1 single mother.

A perfectly illustrative hypothetical. About the only edit I would make is to account for female hypergamy: in the second scenario, the one unconstrained woman would choose the apex alpha (if her appearance was sufficiently arousing to allow her the choice) and ignore the remaining 98 men granted freedom of sexuality. You’d still get a single mom, though, because that apex alpha would be set upon by the 98 blue-balled betas who would kill him (if they didn’t also kill her infant in the way usurping lions are wont to do).

This is why White Knights are so fucking stupid to attempt their pedestal polishing within the context of a society that has removed all constraints on female sexuality (while retaining shame-based restrictions on male sexuality). These goobers practiced in the brute art of thot enabling are unwittingly abetting and exacerbating social dysfunction and atomized sexual market transactionalism.

It’s not a coincidence that the single mommery rate rose to heights previously unimagined in America at the same time the abolishment of social controls on women released free ranging vagina on the land.

It’s unturtling gashes all the way down.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: