Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

The younger, hotter, tighter a girl, the less grateful she is for male attention. She expects it, so when she gets it she’s not grateful, only slightly annoyed that yet again her expectations were met in the most dully predictable manner possible.

This is why it’s counterproductive to compliment girls when they are within the window of maximum nubility (age 15-25). Complimenting a hot babe is an automatic admission against interest; you soil your SMV relative to hers and to the men who don’t compliment her. At her hottest, her ego will never be bigger. A lifetime of poz-facilitated ego stroking will never match the natural ego tumescence she has at her fertile juiciest, when her Bartholin’s sniffy lube engorges not just labial folds but limbic folds.

Telling her in so many words or betrayals of body language that she is a scarce commodity is a tingle killer because you’re not telling her anything she doesn’t already know. She may not be averse to hearing it — if only because a tiny dopamine hit is worth suffering the clumsy proximity of the source — but she won’t be intrigued by the man plying her with compliments. Given enough thirsty betas lavishing her with happy feelz and she’ll come to resent her flatterers; compliments will seem to her assumptions of mutual love she doesn’t share.

Girls are attracted to men who defy their expectations without remorse or apology. The lack of fervid flattery by these men is assumed by a girl to be evidence of confidence in their station and acclimation to endless glowing receptions from women. Non-neediness and disinterest in courting approval is the attitude that drives women crazy with curiosity.

The time in a woman’s life to compliment her is when she has gracefully aged into gratitude (or long before she has matured into ingratitude — little girls need a father’s protective love). A woman who has shed her insta-sex appeal receives fewer genuine compliments from fewer HSMV men. That’s why when bootlicking white knights assert that women are “nice to men who are nice to them”, they are really talking about women past their Peak Allure. (In my observation, suck-up white knights are rarely with hot girls; their treacle can thus be summarized as a long-form exclamation of sour grapes and ego assuaging misattribution).

Can we extrapolate the attraction triggers and dampeners in a 20 year old hottie as operative over the course of her lifetime? Yes, with a caveat. Women never really lose their taste for jerkboys, but they do gain a seasoned (heh) appreciation for the complimenting niceguys they looked past when the looking was good. When women age and their mate choice options dwindle, their willingness to settle for a boring non-asshole beta increases. This is why compliments that once landed with a thud on an HB land like manna from heaven on an FHB (former hot babe).

Lesson: If you want gratitude from women, choose your targets wisely. And tailor your message. Seducing a young hottie? She’ll be grateful if you make her desire you. Chatting asexually with a former hottie? She’ll be grateful if you make her feel desirable again.

Read Full Post »

Never often enough, the YASS QUEEN gaypedoface brigade and catlady consortium need a reminder that thecunt (aka hillary clinton) achieved power and a near-miss at the Trump House solely by using her husband as a stepping stone. From Harry Dexter White,

Eternal reminder that the only reason Hillary Clinton has a political career at all is because she is a woman. She married a man who was a much more charismatic and adept politician, a natural leader, and used his popularity to gain national prominence. She admitted this to the entire world when she was cuckqueened by Bill and remained – remains – in the marriage because she needed him to win her Senate seat.

All the posturing about “she overcame”, and glass ceilings, and yass slay independent and strong queen must be seen in this light. She did what women who managed to gain any degree of prominence in human history typically did – married the right man. And there’s nothing wrong with this, it’s just how woman navigate their way into the corridors of power. But don’t for one f**king second pretend she’s some exception, some revolutionary, the first of her kind.

She was handed her fame and fortune on a silver platter, but her incompetence, narcissism, and general inhumanity led her to fail where many other women would and already have succeeded.

thecunt literally got to where she is used to be by leaning on a man — her charismatic and much more successful husband — to empower herself. Without Bill, thecunt is nothing more than a corrupt, two bit trial lawyer in Little Rock. And yet she is a feminist icon. The lack of self-awareness among girth wave feminists never ceases to amaze, but thecunt’s life story is especially discrediting of the feminist elevation of her to goddess-like status, given that she was entirely dependent on a man to achieve sufficient notoriety to be able to claim the mantle of independent woman.

Or maybe this is what bitter middle-aged women think when they envision an empowered she-bitch: a woman willing to exploit the man in her life for personal gain and have the gall to assert she did it on her own.

Read Full Post »

Current Year ¡SCIENCE! is continually affirming CH maxims about the sexes, but even old timey trustworthy science, from before the SJW and femcunt infestation warped the scientific method, clairvoyantly strokes the Heartiste ego.

From a 1987 research paper, a finding that should crush the spirits of sex equalists and Game denialists (h/t Mr. Roboto):

Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general Usability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were ballsy and fearless exposers of ugly truths. These mid-20th Century studies are a gold mine for realtalk unpolluted by political cowardice and libshit sophistry. 1987 was probably near the last year these brutally shivtastic studies made it past the Narrative enforcers.

Descriptions of traditional female role expectations either omit dominance as a relevant dimension or suggest that low dominance is an aspect of the feminine role. For instance, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) found that clinical professionals viewed the healthy woman as submissive and not competitive. The empirical literature on normative behavior for males and females thus suggests that striving for dominance and success (ascending a social hierarchy) is typically demanded of males and is frequently proscribed for females.

Submissive wife, happy life.

Although females do compete for positions in status hierarchies, there is no available evidence to suggest that their achieved dominance or rank is positively related to their attractiveness to males.

This is borne out by personal observation. Mean Girls is orthogonal to female attractiveness to men. Women compete intrasexually primarily as a means of securing social favors from other women when they need them (for example, after childbirth). This is in stark contrast to men, who compete in dominance hierarchies to unlock a higher PUSSY POUNDER achievement level.

I read through the study to see if the authors properly defined what they meant by “dominance”. Luckily, they have: the term as they use it means PSYCHOSOCIAL DOMINANCE, aka GAME, and all that entails, including alpha and beta male body language and conversational nuances. Quote:

Dominance gestures in the performance were derived from criteria published by Mehrabian (1969). In the low-dominance condition, a constant male (CM) is shown seated at a desk in an office. An actor enters the room and chooses a chair near the door approximately 6 ft (2 m) from the desk of the CM. The actor, clutching a sheath of papers, aits in symmetrical posture, leans slightly forward with head partially bowed, and alternately looks down at the floor and up at the CM, During an ensuing discussion, the actor engages in repetitive head nodding and lets the CM engage in longer communications.

In the high-dominance condition, the actor enters, chooses a chair closer to the CM and sits in a relaxed, asymetrical posture. The actor’s hands and legs are relaxed and his body is leaning slightly backward in the chair. During the discussion, the actor produced higher rates of gesturing and lower rates of head nodding than in the low-dominance condition. Identical films were made with actresses playing all roles. Within each sex, the same actor or actress played both dominant and nondominant roles.

Does psychosocial dominance REDUCE female attractiveness to men? It would appear it does, a little at least (and it certainly doesn’t help women with men):

Female target persons in both Experiments 1 and 2 were in a context where dominance was displayed only toward other females. Perhaps a somewhat different picture might have emerged had subjects rated females who were dominant over males, indicating that it is in competition with males where females violate the normative expectations that they be submissive and noncompetitive (Broverman et al., 1970; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972), and it is only in this case that their attractiveness suffers. A third experiment was conducted to examine this possibility. […]

If the dominance manipulation had a differential effect on the female target’s attractiveness when she was in competition with men (as opposed to women), this would have shown up as a Sex of Target Person x Dominance x Sex of Opponent interaction. This interaction yielded F values of less than 1 for both variables. The higher order interaction, sex of target person by dominance by sex of opponent by sex of subject, likewise yielded an F of less than 1 for the sexual-attractiveness item and an f[l, 199)= 1.33 for the dating-desirability rating. [ed: see Table 3 at the link]

The fourth experiment in the research paper is the most interesting. It found that psychosocial dominance, but NOT aggressiveness or a domineering attitude (aka try-hard douchebaggery), was the key to increased male sexual attractiveness to women:

Manipulation of the level within the aggressive and domineering cells produced no differential effects on sexual attraction. These factors also did not differentially affect the sexual attractiveness of male and female targets (all F values for Sex x Aggression and Sex x Domineering simple interactions were less than 1).

A different pattern emerged for manipulations of dominance. The main effect of dominance on sexual attractiveness was significant, f{ 1,66) = 8.12, p< .01. This main effect was produced by differences in rated attractiveness of men in high- as opposed to low-dominance conditions. Consistent with the results of Experiments 1 through 3, there was a significant Sex x Dominance interaction, F(l, 66) = 9.79, p < .01, with men rated as more attractive in the high-dominance condition.

Ignoramuses and cunts arguing in bad faith love to assert that Game is about being a try-hard douchebag, but it’s nothing of the sort. Game is about amused mastery, subcommunicated through dominant body language and verbal confidence. Domineering men aren’t master seducers; they’re usually romantically insecure and their self-doubt impels them to try to ham-fistedly control women’s fluid flirtations and feral sexuality, instead of smoothly guide women to a heightened state of arousal.

This next finding should piss off another subset of Game denialists:

Results for the dimension of physical attractiveness were similar to the results for sexual attraction. Neither the aggression nor the domineering factor produced an effect on physical attraction. Level of dominance did, however, influence attributions of physical attraction, F( 1, 69) = 6.62, p< .01, and this main effect was again moderated by an interaction of sex and dominance level, F( 1,69) = 4.42, p< .01. Once again, a test of the simple main effects indicated an effect only for men, who were rated as more physically attractive in the high-dominance condition only, ^1,37)= 12.71,p<.01.

Resident Looks Piller wolfie wept.

So why aren’t all men dominant? Well, for one, status hierarchies only have so much room at the top. Two, there are trade-offs in the race for maximal reproductive fitness:

Manipulation of the level of dominance produced a constellation of personality attributions. In addition to its impact on variables related to sexual attraction, the level of dominance significantly influenced attributions concerning the target’s likability, stability, promiscuity, competence, and social class.

High dominance was found to lower the general likability of the target person, F(l, 64) = 38.7, p < .001. There was neither an effect of sex nor any interaction between dominance and sex on this variable. This result indicates that for men there is a potential trade-off between sexual attractiveness and likability, with high dominance increasing the former but reducing the latter. […]

High dominance led to perceptions of greater promiscuity in the target, /(I, 66) – 10.86, p < .002, with high dominance associated with increased promiscuity. A significant Sex X Level of Magnitude interaction, F{1,66) = 5,36,p < .02, indicated that men were perceived as more promiscuous in the high-dominance condition than were women. […]

To summarize, the following influence of dominance level was observed. High dominance increased the rated sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness of male targets but had no discernable influence on the sexual or physical attractiveness of female targets. High dominance substantially decreased the likability of both sexes and was associated with increases in the rated stability, competence, promiscuity, and social class of both sexes.

Women are sexually attracted to psychosocially dominant men, even as these men are perceived to be less likable and more promiscuous. So no, femcunts and manginas, promiscuous men do not suffer a sexual market penalty. In fact, the perception of promiscuousness and unlikability may help them score additional notches.

It all goes to the old CH saying, “Don’t listen to what a woman says, watch what she does.” Which includes whom she fucks. Women will tell you they want a likable, chaste man, but their pussies are aching for a dominant, unlikable, promiscuous man.

Wynne-Edwards (1962) and Pfeiffer (1969) have suggested that among humans the ability to impress and win deference from others depends on the sum of many qualities, including strength, skill, determination to achieve superiority, and intelligence.

This sentence is a wet kiss planted right on the Heartiste lips, evoking as it does the seminal CH pinned posts “Dating Market Value Test for men and women” and “The 16 Commandments of Poon”.

The results of our fourth experiment suggest that some of the behaviors that may lead to a high rank do not themselves promote an individual’s attractiveness. Aggressive and domineering tendencies did not increase the sexual attractiveness of either males or females. The covariance analysis suggests that the highest levels of sexual attractiveness should occur when males express dominance without the use of such behaviors.

This research is a veritable PSA for the efficacy of Game (learned charisma).

Furthermore, dominance increases the sexual attractiveness of males but does not produce a general halo effect. Individuals simply described as dominant were assumed to be also aggressive and domineering; they were regarded as less likable and were not desired as spouses.

The first unearthing of the famed “alpha fux, beta bux” principle?

Executive Summary: If you want to bed more women, stop trying to make them like you. Instead, make them desire you.

Denying and obfuscating and suppressing these truths about the nature of the sexes inevitably leads to tragic cases like the women on the following magazine cover. Maybe someone should inform these aging beauties that men aren’t attracted to “sassy, sophisticated, solvent” women.

Where have all the good men gone? Back in their nubile 20s, where these sour grapes spinster cows left them. 54 and “looking for love”. jfc the delusion is unreal.

Psychological projection seems to be a feature of the female brain gone insane. What women desire — male dominance — is mistaken by women for what men desire in them. But men don’t love dominance, or sass, or careerism, or ambition in women. What men love is younger, hotter, tighter. Something which these has-beens lost as a bargaining chip a long time ago. And now they claim the chaps they can get just don’t measure up, which translated from the female hamsterese means the only men willing to fuck them are naggers and LSMV dregs with no standards and no other choice but internet porn. In fact, many dregs would choose the Fap Life before laying with one of these sassy harridans.

Sass is tolerable on a 21 year old vixen. It’s boner death on a 54 year old matron.

Likewise, chasteness and likability are tolerable on a dominant man. But they’re tingle killers on a submissive man.

Dominance is Game and Game is pussy.

And pussy is life everlasting. Amen.

Read Full Post »

Reader Jim gives a short field report testifying to the Power of Jerkboy.

Off-topic: A girl I’m seeing on the side just texted me “You have me so wet right now. How is that possible when you’re making fun of me?”

I keep waiting for CH to be proven wrong about something… but it hasn’t happened yet. Girls love jerks.

They sure do. Smartasses. Jerks. Even assholes. Girls love ’em, and the niceguys can only watch in despair from the sidelines (or until said girls reach post-nubility age and suddenly become available to them. heh).

In all the time this ‘umble abode has been running there hasn’t been a single field report come in over the wire that delivered news of Boring Beta Politeness lubing the limbic of a sassy lassie. I’m sure it happens…somewhere…sometime…but it’s a rare event, like an eclipse. You perk up and take notice when you hear of it.

Everything you need to know about women is revealed in their romantic fantasies. Ol’ Reliable and Ol’ Dependable are always MIA from women’s erotic steamscapes. When was the last time you heard of a girl fantasizing about a proper beta pulling a chair out for her? Or paying for her drinks? The absence is telling.

Read Full Post »

Every race of woman, no matter how ugly on average, has its redeeming exceptions of universally admired beauty.

Except the abos. Not even one.

Abos and the assorted subpopulation primitive groups like pygmies and Amazonian tribes have literally zero attractive women. You could Find, Meet, and Attract ten thousand of their women, but you wouldn’t want to Close any one of them.

Would abo men bang their women? Apparently, enough to still exist as a race. Actually, research of that nature would be very illuminating. Do abo men — literal proto-human throwbacks with an average IQ lower than that of deepest Africa — prefer their own women or would they be enticed by the standard White Euro beauty norm? This would reveal the nature of the tussle at the intersection between evolution and a platonic universal beauty standard.

Most likely, abo men would prefer non-abo to abo women, were they given a side by side comparison and a realistic shot at bedding a non-abo. Can we get some funding over here for this critical research proposal?

Aesthetically, the beautiful women of every race have more in common with each other than they do with the ugly women of their own race.

Aesthetically. Not temperamentally, intellectually, or morally.

A universal ideal of beauty is real. The beholders’ judgment is a borg.

Read Full Post »

It’s ¡SCIENCE! day at the Chateau, and that means another 100% LOVEFACT to trigger a cascade of yeasty femlib tears.

If you want a slender wife, and hence a happy life, it helps to be adored by her.

The attractiveness of one’s partner may play a role in their decision to improve their body image, particularly when it comes to women, a new study finds.

With previous studies having shown that a marriage is more likely to be successful when the wife is more attractive than her husband, the phenomenon of a more-attractive husband particularly piqued the researchers’ interest. […]

Based on their findings, their hypothesis — that less-attractive wives felt compelled to appease more-attractive husbands — seemed to have merit.

Women, for example, were found to be more likely to diet and seek a slim figure when they had attractive husbands.

The God of Biomechanics works in not-so-mysterious ways if you aren’t brainwashed by feminist poopytalk and PC platitudes.

Men, on the other hand, did not diet based on their partner’s attractiveness — or lack thereof.

Haha this is really the killer finding in the research. Men don’t diet to appease their wives, however attractive the wives may be, because men subconsciously, and rightly, know that their physiques aren’t the primary reason their wives are attracted to them. The strongest marriages are a physically attractive wife paired with a psychologically attractive husband. The sexual polarity is required.

Naturally, the study authors are aghast, rubbing their chafed id-ass, as they scurry to appease nasty women who might tumblr along to be offended by this latest iteration of science reconfirming the existence of reality.

“The results reveal that having a physically attractive husband may have negative consequences for wives, especially if those wives are not particularly attractive,” says researcher Tania Reynolds in a university news release.

Why is it assumed that wives who feel a pressing urge to lose weight to appease their HSMV husbands are experiencing negative consequences? Do women secretly desire to be fat and unloved by their men? Because that’s the presumption behind this stupidly femcunt value judgment. The truth is that women love being thin and sexy and especially love being desired by the men they love. So HSMV husbands are VERY GOOD for women. Nothing but positive consequences all the way up.

These findings are critical in that they offer insight into the causes of more grave conditions caused by a desire to become or stay svelte, such as eating disorders.

My theory is that anorexia is an acute metastasizing form of a normal female desire, honed by millennia of evolved male mate choice preference, to be slender and able to entice alpha men to love them. The way to defeat anorexia is not to convince sufferers that being thin is wrong and being fat is OK, but to sympathize with their natural desire to be thin and then help them moderate their self-destructive behaviors rather than eliminate them.

Read Full Post »

Chicks dig jerks, the evidence mounts and mounts (heh).

The latest (via r/TheRedPill) (here’s a link to the original 2007 pdf)

Cuing the inimitable gbfm: alpha fux, beta bux. Same as it ever was.

This accompanying chart deftly summarizes the study’s conclusions:

Male looks is not the sole, nor even the most important, factor in women’s preferences in a short-term mate. (sorry, wolfiecub) While being handsome and muscular helps, it helps more to be confrontative and arrogant. A prick. A jerk. An asshole. A self-righteous peacocking glibly-preening ego-teeming smug sonofabitch.

Confrontational? Arrogant? Influential? Hey, sounds like Poon Comandment XIII:

XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little

Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.

The most interesting finding is the category termed “Influential”, which is also described as “social respect” by the study authors. It is, essentially, male personality. Charisma. Force of personality is what wins men the respect of their social peers, men and women alike. As it so happens, social respect aka personality is the only trait of male attractiveness that is equally valued in a long-term and short-term mate prospect by women. Game is the full spectrum enhancement of male personality, utilizing and amplifying the mind-body feedback loop, to increase a man’s attractiveness to women, and it is the only enhancement that will work equally well on ovulating and non-ovulating women.

Therefore, BANG for buck, Game is the most efficient SMV boosting protocol a man can undertake.

Charisma is technically asshole-independent, but it’s undeniable that charismatic men are more often than not willing to tinker around the edges of assholery. Being an asshole is itself something of a charismatic trait, and one which women respond to very strongly, in their vagina areas. So while you don’t HAVE to be a huge asshole, if the choice is between HUGE ASSHOLERY and niceguy respectfulness….choose wiseguy-ly.

The following quoted from the study is funny in a tragic sort of way: Men perceived as less faithful were rated as particularly attractive as short-term mates by fertile women. So if you’re hittin da club and da egg-releasing estrogen fumes are blowin your way, it pays to come across like a shiftless cad who will spin a plate, dump a fuck, show up late, and run amok. These are the men women LOVE LOVE LOVE to FUCK FUCK FUCK.

Related: Poon Commandment VII.

VII. Always keep two in the kitty

Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.

More Crimson Pill excerpts:

…when women are fertile they report greater attraction to men other than their partners, but not greater attraction to their partners.

As most of these studies do not find changes in [female] sexual desire across the cycle, sexual desire per se is probably not responsible for these effects.

Based on good genes hypothesis, then, this theory should anticipate that women would find men perceived to be intelligent especially more attractive when [women] are fertile. We found no such pattern.

Male feminist white knighting MENSA nerdos cast to the icy faplands by women of waspy waist and sultry grace. What else is new?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: