Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

In news that, if you think about it, makes perfect sense, it turns out faggy boys who think they’re girls more often have crazy, BPD, depressive mothers. Link.

This pilot study compared mothers of boys with gender identity disorder (GID) with mothers of normal boys to determine whether differences in psychopathology and child-rearing attitudes and practices could be identified. Results of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines and the Beck Depression Inventory revealed that mothers of boys with GID had more symptoms of depression and more often met the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder than the controls. Fifty-three percent of the mothers of boys with GID compared with only 6% of controls met the diagnosis for Borderline Personality Disorder on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines or had symptoms of depression on the Beck Depression Inventory. Results of the Summers and Walsh Symbiosis Scale suggested that mothers of probands had child-rearing attitudes and practices that encouraged symbiosis and discouraged the development of autonomy.

Mentally and emotionally rekt moms promote sex identity complexes in their sons, and leach off their sons to feel better about themselves. COLOR ME SHOCKED.

How many feminists do you know who *aren’t* depressive, crazy, BPD headcases? Now imagine how many gender bender fruitcup sons those feminists will produce. IT’S A BALLOCAUST!

Don’t stick your dick in crazy, confirmed by SCIENCE.

***

In more soul-crushing SCIENCE news for feminists, a congenital defect that alters the balance of sex steroids in developing fetuses affects sex-specific behavior later as children.

Prenatal Hormones and Postnatal Socialization by Parents as Determinants of Male-Typical Toy Play in Girls With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Toy choices of 3- to 10-year-old children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and of their unaffected siblings were assessed. Also assessed was parental encouragement of sex-typed toy play. Girls with CAH displayed more male-typical toy choices than did their unaffected sisters, whereas boys with and without CAH did not differ. Mothers and fathers encouraged sex-typical toy play in children with and without CAH. However, girls with CAH received more positive feedback for play with girls’ toys than did unaffected girls. Data show that increased male-typical toy play by girls with CAH cannot be explained by parental encouragement of male-typical toy play. Although parents encourage sex-appropriate behavior, their encouragement appears to be insufficient to override the interest of girls with CAH in cross-sexed toys.

God of Biomechanics: 1
The Patriarchy: 0

Contrary to feminist claims (what else is new?), social conditioning is a phantom that has no bearing whatsoever on how girls and boys turn out. Sex-based behaviors are hardwired; baked into the cortical cake the moment sperm spears egg.

A tragic footnote to that study is the description of parents sensing their little girl is a bit too “boyish” and feebly attempting corrective measures to get her to behave more girl-like. This must be the life story of every manjawed femcunt who currently functions as a Narrative Reinforcer for the leftoid media machine.

Read Full Post »

Truth serum time. I made a post of this article mostly because I wanted to float that flavortown post title over the center field warning track. It tickles me.

I accidentally slept with a Donald Trump supporter

My name is Diana. I’m a 27 year-old bartender. I met this guy on Tinder about two months ago, a few days after I’d moved from Toronto to San Diego.

On a not-unrelated note, Texas is turning blue in our lifetimes, bank on it if these immigration patterns hold. (toronto is not much better than somalia) The only escape will be TEXIT.

We’d been chatting for all of a day, and we agreed to meet at a bar in downtown San Diego. We were just going to play Big Buck Hunter and have some drinks. It was very short notice. We didn’t even exchange phone numbers.

He showed up at the bar, and he was super handsome. Like, really tall—six-foot-four or something absurd. We were wearing matching leather jackets. His Triumph Bonneville was parked outside. This guy looked badass.

Trumpiognomy.

It turned out he was pro-choice and an atheist, which was good.

A savvy womanizer knows to avoid God and abortion conversational pitfalls that could deep-six pre-sex scheming.

But the night progressed. We went out to some other bars, had some more drinks, and he invited me back to his place. I was super excited, because I was really into this guy.

It’s always dankest before the dong.

We hooked up, and it was incredible. There was a lot face-touching and intense eye contact. He was cool as hell. I was completely smitten.

BEST SEX I EVER HAD – Canadian Maples

At some point I got up and sauntered over to his bookcase, because I wanted to see what he was into. I saw a few photos, and then a David Sedaris book that I love. I asked him about the Sedaris book and he said he hadn’t read it yet. But then, right beside it, I saw a book about Donald Trump. It wasn’t The Art of the Deal or one of his how-to-succeed-in-business books. It was In Trump We Trust, by Ann Coulter. So I asked him about it. I was like, “Ha ha, this is funny.”

How sweet it is to step out with that shitlord strut *after* splitting a slut’s moistened rut.

Meanwhile I’m a Canadian expat who just moved to America. I pointed that out and he went, “No, no. It’s different.” Why? Because I’m white and in my twenties?

Well, yes. But you still have to go back.

He started talking disparagingly about Black Lives Matter. This entire conversation happened in five minutes, while I was frantically getting dressed to leave. I wasn’t there to argue, and I felt deeply uncomfortable.

Amygdala overload.

I got a Lyft home and I thought I was done with him. The next day he messaged me on Tinder. He said, “Hope you’re still not upset over politics LOL.” I explained that it’s hard for me to remain attracted to someone whose views are so different from mine, and who believes in bigotry and xenophobia—which sucked, because the sex was amazing.

Five minutes of shitlord….

Then he said, “Not accepting other people’s beliefs is the definition of bigotry.”

*tips maga hat at her, grabs pussy* “One more to remember me by.”

So apparently it was my fault.

This is womanspeak for “It was my fault”.

He sent me a “hey” message a week later, which I never replied to.

FaceSavingThatNeverHappened.txt

I couldn’t do it again. It feels taboo to sleep with a Trump supporter.

“If this is taboo, I don’t want to be virtuous.”

But here’s the thing: I’ve slept with a lot of people in my life.

#SlutsWithHer

This guy ranked in the top five.

The other four were Putin fans.

Btw, if she’s mounted enough cock to assemble a “top five”, it’s a good bet her total cock count numbers in the hundreds. Marriage material!…….for a beta.

I thought maybe I’d try him again one night at 3 a.m., when I was drunk enough to overlook his political views. But I couldn’t bring myself to do it.

This is womanspeak for “I did it”.

I don’t want to wake up next to a guy who blames Mexicans for his woes and thinks “bigly” is a word, no matter how handsome he is.

And yet she wrote about that “uncomfortable” evening from two months ago. She can’t stop thinking about him.

Everything she wrote is typical female hamster rationalization for loving a charming Trumpboy. She wearily and half-heartedly hunts for his flaws to absolve herself of personal responsibility while simultaneously craving the invading force of his Trumpenrod. Betabitch BernieBros and mangina Hill shills wept.

This man’s MAGA Game is tight. He wins a green Pepe condom. Feels good man.

Read Full Post »

Politics is downstream of the sexual market (which is why electoral puzzles like women voting in greater numbers for the gibs and virtue signaling party is best explained as a biological repercussion of human sexuality).

All politics is gonadal. Given this reality, the most effective political persuasion techniques are those that evoke the ancient rhythms of the sexual market. Converting deeply gay, male Hillary partisans to The Trumpening is not likely in the cards but, if sufficiently shamed and ostracized by effective COPROP that leverages the power of anxiety over one’s sexual market status, many nominal males who plan to vote for Inmate Hillary can be dissuaded from exercising their right to notarize the featherweight class of their shrunken scrotes.

Exhibit A:

voterscontrast

Even faggy Millennial manlets with incipient bitch tits will feel a cringe of shame if they are forced to identify with the beta lapdog in the bottom pic.

Just as a healthy and strong society with rock-ribbed shitlord norms can keep gays far enough in the closet that their petri dish flamboyance doesn’t creep out the kids, so can a fearless embrace of immutable and omnipotent sexual market law — and the exploitation thereof — cow mincing betaboys from pulling the lever for thecunt.

One sackless wonder at a time. Eventually, if enough manginas fear shitlord ridicule more than SJW shrieking, their self-respect will do the swelling their ovaries can’t do.

Read Full Post »

“The sexual market is the one market to rule them all” — CH

Whenever proposing big picture theories for ideological beliefs, I always refer to the sexual market and how the dynamics of reproductive fitness operating at the level of the hindbrain primarily influence higher order human interactions like social or political organization.

This came to mind while reading about (((Josh Marshall’s))) attack on the most un-hateful man on the internet, Steve Sailer.

(of course you’ll notice marshall never answered steve’s pinpoint charge against him, preferring instead to cry out in pain while flinging shit at steve, which is the wont of his evasive reptilian subspecies)

Anyhow, an astute Sailer commenter noted something about Josh Marshall that goes a long way to explaining his anti-Gentile bitterness.

Marshall’s bride looks like the result of some Semitic inbreeding program.

marshallwife
Lefties are always unhappy because of the women, by dint of they’re [sic] inherent dweebieness, they’re forced to be with.

All politics isn’t local. All politics is gonadal.

Male shitlibs generally are an effete bunch, and their masculine, ugly girlfriends and groace wives testify to that. A manlet stuck with an ugly woman will over the years build up a reservoir of caustic spite against masculine high T men and the feminine women who love them. Josh Marshall fits the stereotype perfectly. Many of his extended kin fit the stereotype perfectly.

In fact, the exceptions are so glaringly obvious that they prove the rule. The skype men who more closely resemble in face and physique the male Gentile aesthetic tend also to be less antagonistic toward Gentile culture and politics.

Executioner’s Summary: Physiognomy is creed.

***

plumpjack has a novel theory that connects vision quality with shitliberalism.

does poor vision predispose someone to liberal, immediate gratification-leaning politics? IOW, is there a link between actual vision acuity and future time-orientation?

where I grew up, very red area, and lots of hawk-eyed, self-sufficient folks. the coke-bottle lens-sporting folks were always in white collar-ish jobs, or on food stamps. now I live in one of the most shitlibby towns on the planet and I swear, I can barely find a single person who doesn’t wear glasses. I can glimpse through the side of their reality warping lenses and see just how totally fkd up their eyesight is. it’s scary.

it could also be that a person with poor vision feels more vulnerable and therefore favors gibs policies. or it could be that they literally and figuratively cannot see into the future.

this should be studied. (note: i apologize to any commenters here who wear coke bottle type glasses. no offense. I’m just raising the question.)

It’s absolutely true that liberals, especially the male of the species, are physically unimpressive in one or more ways compared to their shitlord brethren, and poor eyesight is a big tell of shitlibbery. A powerful correlation, but is it more than that, as plumpjack suggests? Adjusted for the White race, does poor vision directly alter feedback loops in the brain that dispose the liberal to prefer insta-feelz over grappling with the long-term consequences of their policies and governance?

Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: