Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

There’s no point defying the God of Biomechanics with your paltry platitudes and social justice shibboleths, for His rule is longer than time and His kingdom vaster than the universe.

The little revelations of the God of Biomechanics intruding meatily into human affairs include the results from this analysis of anonymous, aggregate online search data.

…contemporary American parents are far more likely to want their boys smart and their girls skinny. […]

But this question is not asked equally about young boys and young girls. Parents are two and a half times more likely to ask “Is my son gifted?” than “Is my daughter gifted?” Parents show a similar bias when using other phrases related to intelligence that they may shy away from saying aloud, like, “Is my son a genius?”


What concerns do parents disproportionately have for their daughters? Primarily, anything related to appearance. Consider questions about a child’s weight. Parents Google “Is my daughter overweight?” roughly twice as frequently as they Google “Is my son overweight?” […]

Google search data also tell us that mothers and fathers are more likely to wonder whether their daughter is “beautiful” or “ugly.”

Parents are one and a half times more likely to ask whether their daughter is beautiful than whether their son is, but they are nearly three times more likely to ask whether their daughter is ugly than whether their son is ugly.


There is a larger bias toward asking whether sons are “tall” than “short.” Parents are more likely to ask whether a son is “happy” and slightly more likely to ask whether a daughter is “depressed.”

Chicks dig power.
Men dig beauty.
The rest is commentary designed to mollify the butthurt ego.

The details:

Women prefer taller men to shorter men.

Men prefer slender women (women’s preference for thin men is relatively weaker).

Smart boys usually go on to become successful men, whom women love.

Pretty girls grow into beautiful women, whom men love.

And these are the iddies and undercurrents of our hindbrains that explain why parents’ search terms are sex-differentiated.

The Trumpening is both a return to an acknowledgement of the eternal and irreconcilable rule of the God of Biomechanics, and the repercussion of foolish revolt against Him.

Read Full Post »

Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)

Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.

I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.

The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.

Recall the infamous CH maxim:

Options = Instability.

A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.

Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.

Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.

Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.

Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).

So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.

In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.

The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.

Vox adds to the debate an idea with which I have a rare disagreement,

It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.

Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.

Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.

*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.

If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.

Read Full Post »

Peacemaker Putin notes the importance of the same sex parent-child relationship.

The impact a Father has on his son cannot be overstated. Same goes for the Mother on the daughters. Modeling is powerful.

Behavioral modeling by children of parents is a bit of a sketchy proposition given what we now know about the large contribution of genetic inheritance and the relative paucity of shared environment (i.e. parental) effects on kids’ outcomes.

But in my opinion there is something to the notion that parents have different, and unequal, impacts on their same-sex versus opposite-sex kids’ development. Parents exert their influence (however little it can be quantified by current measurement systems) through two ways: presence and modeling (or what could be called “character appropriation”). The former is predominant in the development of opposite sex children and the latter on same sex children.

For example, a father’s presence shields daughters from becoming cock carousel femcunt mudskanks, and a mother’s presence guides sons towards social engagement. The parent-child interaction gets much more interesting and subject to vulnerabilities from disruption when the sexes are the same.

In the realm of modeling, fathers are a crucial decanter from which sons imbibe so many valuable lessons: toughness, grit, confidence, spirit, and the fulfillment of the all-important need of a son to look up to an older man. Mothers likewise impart their daughters with the wisdom of chastity and faithfulness, and the power of femininity and sexual guardianship.

The above formula requires unpolluted input variables. A slutty single mom isn’t going to impart anything good to her daughter, and a violent, disparaging, AWOL father will activate all sorts of negative gene-environment feedback loops in a young son’s spongiform brain.

Perhaps this presence-modeling theory of sex-differential parenting explains the social phenomenon of the association between longer-lasting marriages and birth of sons. Fathers instinctively and subconsciously know that their steady and reliable guidance will be a lot more critical to their sons’ positive development than to their daughters’.

Btw if CH is the first Shivmaester to come up with this theory, please feel free to lavish me with oodles of ego canoodles.


Commenter tteclod adds something with which I can find no fault,

CH: You may not have considered the interaction between heritable traits and learned adaptation of heritable traits, or at least didn’t say anything about it.

Let’s put it this way: the difference between the 90% heritable success and the extra 10% parental contribution is the difference between an A student and a B student, or a star athlete and an also-ran teammate. In a competitive environment (all of planet earth), these differences define social strata.

My son is smart. That’s genetics. My daughter is also smart, but not as smart as my son. Also genetics. However, the success of both my son and my daughter is augmented by my participation in the education of each, most especially because they are very much like me (nature) and I know how to be like me successfully (nurture). Without me, each child fumbles through life not knowing how to succeed except through learning from experience. That’s stupid. Every man knows it is best to learn from the mistakes of others, not his own.

Throw in incremental generational improvement in nature (slow) and nurture (fast), and you have the difference between r-selection and K-selection. K-selection assumes the opportunity to build incrementally upon civilizational augmentation of progeny, whereas r-selection hopes for some success among much failure. I prefer the putting my finger on the scale in favor of my children.

Read Full Post »

If we artificially constrict the sexual market to include only money and looks as variables, we can get a pretty good idea of the emphasis that women (and men) place on both as criteria in opposite sex mates by using heavily filtered dating website data. (h/t chris)

Really what we want to do is observe people’s choices directly which is why dating websites are so useful to us. Here’s an example. What if I have a hypothesis that when choosing a mate, men care more about their potential partner’s appearance than her income and women care more about her potential partner’s income than his appearance. Imagine the following experiment. A woman/man can choose between communicating with two people. One earns $60,000 a year and is more attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. The other earns X dollars per year and is less attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. Every other observable characteristic about these two people is identical. We can use the information that tells us who individuals choose to communicate with to determine what X would have to be in order to make a woman/man prefer the less attractive person.

Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all—$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.

Men are the reproductively expendable sex (sperm is cheap and plentiful and has no expiration date) so it is no surprise that men’s attractiveness qualifications for a woman are so much less complex than the attractiveness criteria that women have for a man. What men want is a hot bod, a cute face, and a lot of residual reproduction value (aka youth). Anything more than that is gravy.

What women want is a far more extensive list of attractive male traits, because a woman can less afford to submit her rare and depleting resource of eggs to the inquisitive probings of subpar sperm.

The results of this study align with the real world observations of anyone who’s spent a day in his life outside the home interacting with women in human settings:

Women value money *and* looks.

Men value looks.

On paper, this means a very ugly man’s ugliness carries a $186,000 per year premium to access the same hotties that a good-looking man can get. Which also means that it is possible for an ugly man to buy his way into prime pussy. In practice, an ugly man can fake the appearance of wealth to cheat his way into prime pussy (while a good-looking man who is poor will have trouble getting past the first date if his Game is weak).

On paper and in practice, no amount of money will make an ugly woman attractive to men. So ladies it’s time to ditch those PhD in patriarchal deconstruction degrees for a gym membership and an MRS.

This is yet another study (as if one was needed) that repudiates the ONLY LOOKS MATTER queefiing chorus of quisling cuntboys. The bigger picture is even more unfriendly to the looks crü. When we examine the sexual market as it functions in reality — that is when all metrics and multivariate attractiveness traits are thrown together in the search for a lover — we discover (and science confirms) that men’s attractiveness to women is greatly influenced by nonphysical factors.

Men are visual.
Women are holistic.
The rest is commentary.

Read Full Post »

Chateau Heartiste has featured snapshots of men executing flawless alpha male poses because these men are lessons to learn from if your goal is capturing the love of women (and the admiration of men). You should, as often as humanly possible, aspire to the alpha male body language aesthetic. Supplicating beta males and bitter feminists may not like it, but the following photos are what peak male performance looks like.

The curious reader wonders what qualifies as the best alpha male body language pose? I’ve culled some pics from the archives and consolidated them here in this post for you, Chateaulords, to determine which iconic alpha male pose is the one the God Emperor would assume, even when taking a dump.

First, a new addition: Michael Caine claiming ownership of a meat-stiffening minx. Note the direction of his gaze, the lean of his upper torso, the delightful choke-hold, and the nascent smirk.



Next up: Prince Harry.

begone, peasant girl!


Here’s Jason Stratham (in the ideal location for a man to be when he’s got a woman wrapped in his arms…back to a mirrored wall, surveying his kingdom).



The Brazilian Shitlord (photo cropped by press agents because he had his penis out to taunt the smelly participants at a feminism rally).

wait your turn, ladies


Donald Trump, whose year leading a new American Revolution has provided a master class in various victorious alpha male poses.


Steve McQueen, whom many women consider (as much as their hindbrains can take under consideration anything of a primal nature) the iconic coolasfuck jerkboy.



Birthday Cat, because no matter how hot or bitchy or manipulative the girl, this cat keeps his cool.

The voting:

Read Full Post »

The woman in this photo is a robot (aka sexbot, for that inevitably will be her primary utilization).


The uncanny valley — that stage in lifelike robot development when near-but-not-quite-there-yet-similarity to real humans provokes a creeped-out response — has always been an obstacle to nerds designing anime-tronic lovers. We like our cute Wall-E robots; we don’t like our cute fucktoy robots that look a little bit “off”.

But recent rapid advances in sexbot tech hint at a future that is not far off when the uncanny valley is ascended and sexbots are almost indistinguishable from real (Playboy Centerfold) women. When that future arrives — and it will, barring a cleansing patriarchal cataclysm — millions of romantically unsuccessful or unsatisfied men living in Obesitopia and Androgynopolis and Sheryl Sandberg-La will face a choice:


Their choices will be easy to understand, even if it is the final choice civilization makes before its disappearance from the earth.

Houellebecq chuckled.


Reminder that Le Chateau was the first alt-realist to bring you news and opinion of the impending sexbot revolution, and how its arrival would radically reconfigure the dating and marriage markets.

Read Full Post »

The “Calais Jungle“, a decrepit third world outpost established in Calais, France by their traitorous elite and housing disgusting “””refugees”””, has a secret to divulge. (It’s not much of a secret to enlightened Chateau guests.)

Volunteers in the Calais Jungle have been accused of sexually exploiting refugees and even child migrants.

The Independent has discovered a serious row has broken out among some unpaid charity workers at the camp in northern France, with some believing forging sexual relationships with adult refugees is natural in such circumstances, while others say it breaches all usual codes of conduct.

Wait for the twist ending.

One man who raised the alarm was later subjected to a barrage of online abuse.

Have you guessed it yet?

The man wrote: “I have heard of boys, believed to be under the age of consent, having sex with volunteers. I have heard stories of men using the prostitutes in the Jungle too.

“I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day. And I know also, that I’m only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse.”

Sex with underage boys? Multiple migrant partners? Maybe you’re thinking this is a homosexual meeting place.

The man added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male refugees – which he claimed risked the objectification of women volunteering in the camp.

Bleeding heart (and bleeding bush) Frenchwomen are lining up to fuck the rapefugee dregs of humanity….in a romantic setting that looks like this:


Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

PS LMFAO at this revealing betaboy blurt:

He wrote: “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex. This impression objectifies women in the camp and increases the risks.”

How cucked, craven, and pusillanimous do you have to be to reinterpret women’s freely choosing raw dog refugee sex as some nebulous patriarchal assault leaving an “impression” that “objectifies women”. NO DUH IT LEAVES AN IMPRESSION. Just not the impression that this micropeen of a male thinks it leaves.

His comments prompted accusations of sexism and misogyny from female members of the group. One commented on the post: “I find this attitude incredibly patronising and paternalistic with added sexism and racism.

“There is a serious point in here among all the moralistic bullshit but I find it very off-putting. I find the assertion that women choosing to have sex encourages rape quite frankly disturbing.”

She’s right, of course, but her rightness is self-damning.

Weak beta males have a studied aversion to placing any blame for women’s ill-conceived romantic choices on women themselves. To do so, in the beta male mind, would mean having their puritanical romantic idealism dashed against the rocks of the bitter reality of primal female desire. The weak beta male suffers his morbid prostration to the pussy pedestal gladly, and is loathe to have it detached from his pursed lips. For if the day comes that his precious pussy pedestal is gone from his life, he’ll have no celibate space to retreat to for self-pitying comfort, and will be forced to deal with women as they are, not as they materialize unsullied in the brainscape of his sentimental daydreams.

tl;dr it was a big mistake to give women the vote.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: