Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

CH answered this post title’s question already in the seminal “Dating Market Value for Women” at-home quiz, and in this post defining the qualifications of the “alpha female”, but feminists and male feminists continue to insist against the bleedingly obvious real world evidence that men desire smarts in women over and above all other mate value considerations. For instance, the latest garbage study purporting a strong male desire for female IQ is about as flawed as a self-report sex survey can get.

Instead of writing a draining exegesis on why smarts don’t matter much to women’s romantic fortunes —

executive summary: a woman’s IQ has little impact on her short- OR long-term desirability to men unless she’s beyond the comfort zone of intelligence compatibility with the man she’s dating; i.e. around 15 or more IQ points above or below the man’s IQ

— I’ll just reprint a Telegraph commenter’s witty response on the topic.

awesome research – it validates the view that porn has no future on the internet

So much feminist-friendly “””research””” has upon later inspection turned out to traffic in horribly flawed premises and methodology that it’s a good bet to prejudice any social science study issuing from an Anglo university with at least one Scandinavian- or Eskimo-sounding female name in the author list as worthless.

UPDATE

Commenter Arbiter does the hard work debunking this feminist study that I wasn’t willing to do.

All right, let’s take apart the Telegraph article:

1. Journalist Sarah Knapton has talked to a Professor David Bainbridge. So you would expect some strong scientific research to back up his claim, right? No. “Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for.” You don’t even get to see the surveys. Nor do you get any mention of the fact that what people say in a survey doesn’t mean it’s true, especially not in a leftist climate that pressures them to ignore nature.

2. Bainbridge sets up a strawman to attack: it’s “large breasts and long legs” vs. intelligence. This is even in the title. He knocks large knockers by saying it’s not big breasts men want but symmetrical breasts, and he knocks long legs by saying it is straight legs men want, not long ones.

Ergo, men value intelligence instead of looks! Right? If you ignore the little fact that he just mentioned physical traits that men desire: symmetrical breasts and legs that are not crooked.

Far down in the article we also get this: “However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips..” So the “men really look for intelligence, not beauty” theme that the article starts with is nonsense, even by the writer’s own admission. But this comes far down in the story.

3. The real “proof” to grab people’s attention is George Clooney. The article begins with a picture of him and Lebanese wifey Amal Alamuddin. Sarah Knapton writes under the picture: “Despite dating a string of attractive women George Clooney settled down with human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin”. They are mentioned again farther down in the article, and Alamuddin’s picture appears again.

No longer do you need to study thousands of people, you only need to look at one person’s choice. If you are the science editor at The Telegraph.

But not even this one example proves anything: Alamuddin doesn’t look bad for her age. She also no doubt shares Clooney’s socialist preferences, and his anti-White ideology served well by marrying a non-White. So looks, check, and compatible personalities, check. Furthermore, that she is a “human rights barrister” doesn’t mean she would be brimming with intelligence for Clooney to lust for. Probably she just has enough intelligence to be close to him on the scale.

Alamuddin is one of the worst exhibits the feminists could use to buttress their “men love SMRT women!” psychological projection. She’s hotter than 90% of women her age. And, lest the fact escape anyone, she’s also 17? years younger than Clooney.

Read Full Post »

The Thirst is a Red Pillian term for sex-starved beta and omega males who fawn, notably online, over LSMV (low sexual market value) women, artificially inflating the self-perceived price of those women.

The enfant realtalkers who decry The Thirst on grounds of making their romantic journeys more perilous consider themselves enlightened to the bitter realities of the sexual marketplace. As a working theory for how the sexes interact sociosexually, the notion of The Thirst is more right than wrong. Women are, reproductively, the more valuable sex (during their youthful primes), and this inherent, biologically grounded sex value skew translates into all sorts of organic, cognitively discordant social phenomena, such as the factual observation that the average early 20s girl receives a lot more unwarranted sexual attention than the average man receives warranted sexual attention of any age.

Upon closer inspection, though, The Thirst falls short of a truly 360º panoramic view of the sexual market. I’ll explain its shortcomings as a Guide For The Good Life, and why I’ve come to see loudmouthed publicists for the SMV-bending beaver magic of The Thirst as little different than their distaff doppelgängers, the “Dick is abundant and low value” feminist crank trolls.

Why a Theory of The Thirst is flawed

1. Low value women don’t get sex (or, especially, love) as easily as prettier women.

Aggro MGTOWs find this hard to believe, but it’s true. Real life, and studies, clearly show that the uglier, older, and/or fatter the woman, the more time she’s gonna spend in involuntary celibacy purgatory. Granted, a LSMV woman won’t serve quite as long an incel sentence as a LSMV man, but she will serve some time before a sufficiently LSMV dick falls in her lap pretending to love her. If she’s lucky.

Have you ever noticed that one girl in your social group who has a history of showing up to parties or happy hours alone? She’s often representative of one of two kinds of girls: The sexy slutty ingenue who plays the field (usually by free choice that she comes to regret later), and the homely girl everyone feels sorry for. Why do we feel sorry for the latter and not the former? Because we know, in our subconscious moral calculus, that the homely girl is sexually isolated through no fault of her own. Unless she’s fat. In which case, we feel pity, which is a form of contempt.

2. Women don’t value sexual attention as much as men value it.

What happens when you expect to receive a certain type of social reward? You value that social reward less when, predictably, you get it.

So it goes with women, even the less attractive ones. Spreading their legs for a horndog who won’t call them the next day is no accomplishment for most women with working ovaries. (Say it with me: Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.) Despite the phony crowing of pump&dumped bitterbitches, sex is simply not something that, by itself, pumps women full of pride and happiness like sexual conquest does men. Men who claim otherwise are projecting their own desire for sexual attention onto women. (Projection… it’s not just a woman thing!)

So The Thirst is not blowing up the egos of fat/ugly chicks as much as its resentful advocates fervently believe.

Yes, a constant barrage of online flattery, no matter the quality of the sources or the wit of the pitch, will, in time and for short duration bursts, play head games with fug girls who get zero likewise attention offline. Yes, some of these fugs may temporarily come to perceive themselves, unreasonably, as more attractive to high value avatars men than they are in fleshy reality. But they will quickly be disabused of their false pride the second they step out the door and once again notice all the men walking past them as if they were invisible. So whatever ego-boosting ASCII effect The Thirst exerts on a fug, it evaporates the moment she enters the field where the plunger splits the ho.

3. Women instinctively know online male flattery is a low investment, mass targeting strategy worth absolutely nothing.

When a fatty gets propositioned by the 200th random pussy solicitor channeling Lord Byron… you dtf?… you really think she takes that sexual come-on to the id bank as a deposit put toward her accumulating romantic worth account?

Yeah, sure, if cornered by a sadistic interlocutor, she’ll lie and brag about all the love thrown her way on Tinder, but in the quiet of her thoughts she’ll know the flattery is as empty as her ice cream bucket.

4. Sexual attention is worse than being ignored when it’s from depressingly low value men.

If The Thirst was such an all-powerful force for NB1 ego inflation, why do the unattractive girls who receive cat calls, on- or offline, from the dregs of malehood feel worse for the flattery?

As a man about town, you likely know the same feeling. Dressed to the nines, confidence sky high, charm dialed in, prêt-a-poon slay, a chubby plain girl approaches you and smiles, introducing herself as someone very interested in getting to know you. All at once, the air is let out of your scrotal balloon. The weaker sort of men who experience this unfortunate courtship stillbirth spend the rest of the night beating themselves up. “Are these the only kinds of girls I can ever get?? Fuck, here I am at my best and only the ugly girls come up to me!”

Well, that hideous feeling is the same feeling girls have when miserable wretches come onto them. So what if 1,000 omega males hit on a fatty in chat over the course of a month? It’s still 1,000 omega males, and that makes all the difference.

When you’re ignored by the opposite sex, you can at least mentally masturbate to the hope that you’re attractive to them in their thoughts.

5. Women value commitment, relationships and love, which are much harder to acquire from men than are men’s sexual favors.

The Thirst, as it’s understood by most of the bitterati, applies primarily to sexual desperation; that is, men heaping transparently shallow compliments and favors on women in hopes of sexual reciprocation.

(There is a variant of The Thirst that involves relationship mongering, but this is much rarer among men, the sex for whom getting into relationships is not nearly as difficult as it is for women, nor as desired as getting into panties.)

This is really the biggest flaw in the theory of The Thirst: Thirsty sexual come-ons from horny men are no substitute for the romantic fulfillment of long-term love to women. Women grow up dreaming of their wedding day; they don’t grow up dreaming of all the cock they can squeeze into their hymenically-unsealed snatches.

Women fear insol a lot more than they fear incel. Lesson: If you want to properly shiv a feminist, ask her how long it’s been since a man stayed with her for longer than three months.

6. Women lie.

Finally, one contributing factor for a widely held belief in The Thirst is simply that women lie about their attractiveness to men. In fact, women lie more than men do about all things related to sex and romance. Are you sitting next to that fat chick as she stares at her flickering phone screen? No? Then don’t take her assertion that she gets “tons of attention” from men as the gospel truth.

***

This balls-deep CH analysis proves that the Red Pill concept of The Thirst is an overblown interpretation of a sexual market reality that, nevertheless, contains some useful truth value as a general map of intersexual relations.

The part of The Thirst that is true:

Women generally do receive more sexual solicitations than do their peer group men.

The parts of The Thirst that are false:

Fat, ugly, or old women can get desirable sexual attention, and convert it into actual sex, any time they want. There is a scourge of desperate beta and omega males banging down the doors of fatties and fugs. Online flattery gives ugly women long-lasting ego boosts. Women appreciate sexual attention as much as men appreciate it. An epidemic of thirsty beta males is making pickup much more difficult for charming players.

Even the true part of The Thirst is subject to circumspection. There is a wild swing in sexual attention skew when we compare women and men at different points on the SMV scale. For instance, an HB9 and a male 9 won’t be as far apart in sexual attention received by the opposite sex as will an HB7 and a male 7. Nor, paradoxically, will a female 1 and a male 1. At the extremes of sexual repulsiveness and sexual attractiveness the male-female difference in ability to incite the opposite sex to romantic exclusion or abandon narrows a bit.

It’s in the middle of the SMV belle curve where we discover that the sex attention skew — The Thirst Ratio — dramatically widens among the mediocre masses. A female 5 will receive, and particularly online where face-to-face rejection isn’t a threat, a lot more manipulative flattery from low value men than a male 5 will receive from low value women. This sex difference could be on the order of 100-to-1, or worse.

The sexual market is intrinsically unfair, so much so that it makes mockery of equalist pretensions. Beta males who are new to the teachings of Game and struggling to find romantic success bemoan this unfairness, but it’s better to accept it as an immutable part of the natural order and do what it takes to leverage the blessings, and attenuate the curses, of that order.

tl;dr

“He’s just not *that* into you.”

Read Full Post »

Here’s a choice quote from Sheryl Sandberg (h/t commenter Derzu Uzala) on the occasion of her husband’s death:

Dave was my rock. When I got upset, he stayed calm. When I was worried, he said it would be ok. When I wasn’t sure what to do, he figured it out.

That doesn’t sound very feminist. It sounds, instead, a lot like she loved a man who adhered to Chateau Heartiste Poon Commandment XV:

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

Lean in? More like Sheryl “leaned on” her husband when she was having emotional swings, as is the wont of the female human.

Dirty leetle secret: Raging feminist soldierettes are often the women who fall hardest for men who have some game. It’s almost as if their caustic man-hating is a subconscious cry for an alpha male who isn’t a supplicating yes-beta.

Update

GBFM reveals the secret Sandberg tapes,

“While Dave was my rock, da GBFM was my cock. When I got upset, he stayed hard. When I was worried, he splooooooged in my facsccaeaz. When I wasn’t sure what to do, he figured it out in da gina hozlzlzolzozo.”

Read Full Post »

Recalling that feminist “””social experiment””” video which triggered millions of androgynous Millennials to ecstatic retweeting, commenter “anonymous” hit upon the primary design flaw which renders the feminist-friendly result absolutely worthless:

Experimenter bias

In social science, especially in an experiment like this, the experimenter interacting with subjects should be blind to the hypothesis being tested.

The 1989 Clark and Hatfield study mentioned in the page linked to had it right. Asking a random sample of unwitting subjects to proposition other random subjects of the opposite sex. 70 percent seems about right to me with that methodology.

With what was done in this video, the experimenter can give all kinds of subtle cues pushing the guys to give the answer they want. In addition they can exhibit selection bias- choosing guys that seem likely to give the answer they want. You should notice there were more yes answers in the beginning and more no answers later. She gradually got better at getting the answer she wanted later. (The video seemed to be in chronological order). I skipped around and didn’t watch the whole thing, but I also noticed a larger proportion of guys saying they were gay (or that came across as really obviously gay without saying it) than exist in the general population. To me that is a red flag as to the biases (either conscious or not) of those making the video. By the way the real proportion of gays is between 2 and 3 percent; the 10% number that gets repeated a lot is bullshit.

In a nutshell, if they wanted an answer of 0/100 or an answer of 100/100 she (and the people working with her) could “discover” whatever they wanted to discover. It’s not science with this methodology.

She looks good by the way. I would sleep with her. As a woman of course that’s the only thing she’s here on this planet for. Just a reminder

There were, in fact, multiple biases at work in that “girl asks men for sex” femcunt troll job, but experimenter bias is… as a mewling ankle-biter might say… the most “problematic”. Read the CH commenters to learn which other biases corrupted the 30% result.

(Another problem with the experiment design was what I call the “incredulity factor”. The girl gradually learned to deliberately hit on the kinds of men who are least likely to garner the attention of young attractive women, and these men probably surmised as a result that she was part of an underage solicitation sting operation, or she was taking the piss with them.)

Men and women are so completely different in the realm of sexual psychology that it’s not much of a surprise to discover that some men, when openly propositioned by a semi-cute stranger, will immediately doubt her motives. The real surprise is how many men are willing to cast aside their rational doubts and throw caution to the wind; that’s a powerful demonstration of a serious sex difference in predilection for the pleasures of casual sex; men are simply wired to want it, and to avail themselves of it, far more often and with more intensity than are women. But of course, your grandma would be able to tell you this without a stack of social science studies to back her up.

It won’t be long before we’ll have to amend that last clause to specify “great-grandma”, with the way this country is accelerating past timeless truths.

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

Her approach induces a mass raising of red flags, it’s sooooo fake. Her body language is not that of a horny chick, quite the contrary (look for crossed arms, backward leaning, etc): it oozes revulsion. Her voice tonality is also incongruent with the message. No sane woman proposes directly and that fast (compare how often did your fuckbuddy/girlfriend /wife do that?). A horny girl would compliment first, chit chat for a minute at least and then would propose to look for an intimate location with a BS pretext, the subject of sex would at best be alluded to.

Most of the men refusing her offer could tell she was insincere. The 30% figure is thus looking like an incredibly high number of positive responses given all the negative body language signals she was sending out.

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

Read Full Post »

In my years of living, dating, and loving across these United Plates, I’ve come to certain conclusions about women drawn from a wellspring of eagle-eyed observations and red raw experiences. One of my personal observations is that smarter women tend, for various reasons among which female hypergamy must surely loom prominent, to have more difficulty locking down a long-term boyfriend, and to stay single far longer in between relationship bouts, than do women of less Hollywood-sized prefrontal-pectorals. And this romantic failure is worse the smarter the woman.

But, I didn’t have the benefit of ¡scientifical! studies to confirm my observations, so I guess I should have washed my brain of any pattern recognition inputs and waited the requisite fifty years for the scientific consensus to come to a prevailing view.

As I’ve always said, if you keep your eyes open and live not by pretty lies, 80% of the patterns you observe about human nature will eventually be proven true by laboratory analysis (or at least recognized as a real phenomenon by cultural gatekeepers). (15% of the remaining 20% are too difficult to properly measure by social scientists, and the last 5% of your observations can be grouped under conventional wisdom that science manages to overturn, usually by data-twisting legerdemain.)

From the article relevant to this post, the quotes that make feminists choke:

A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic.

Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable. […]

Why don’t men want women with whom they can converse and who challenge them? [ed: spot the false premise] When did the aversion to strong and intelligent women become a code orange? When did everyone just want to go to the Bahamas and lie around?

In an article by “The Wire,” financial reporter, John Carney, gives one explanation for this phenomenon, deducing, “successful men date less successful women not because they want ‘women to be dumb’ but rather because they want ‘someone who prioritizes their life in a way that’s compatible with how you prioritize yours.’”

Basically, they want someone who isn’t ever going to let her career come before making dinner and pleasing them first.

My take is that men, especially smart men, instinctively recoil from very smart and/or educated women (in the same way women instinctively recoil from needy niceguys) because men know that a woman of equal or greater brainpower or academic achievement is a high risk for future relationship instability and a latent threat to paternity assurance. Men are aware, consciously perhaps, subconsciously definitely, that female hypergamy is real and therefore it’s personally advantageous to find women who aren’t too much more gifted in traits that double as male mate fitness cues.

In short, it pays men to date up in looks and date down in everything else.

The inverse is also true. It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.

Everyone’s happier all around if they abide the above two Heartistian precepts.

A reader contemptuously adds,

Nearly schizophrenic incoherence, self-loathing, generalized rage, sexual frustration, pride that she can’t admit that a life has been spent believing pretty, stupid lies and making irretrievable mistakes, contempt and hatred for men on one hand, yet demands and pangs of hopeless desire for their attention and affection and love on the other hand, unabashed hatred for women who are young and attractive and willing to make love and devotion to a man a priority in their lives.

This hamster wheel is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second. The axle is going red-hot from the friction.  The spinning wheel is making a sharp, high-pitched, painful screeching sound, which sets your teeth on edge. If you listen carefully millions just like it are audible all over America.

This can’t go on much longer.  10 years, maybe. But not 50. Probably not another entire generation.

Future generations will look back on the women of this era with disgusted amazement.

Before then they are going to spend the second 50 years of their medically extended lives alone and filled with a despair and a hatred for their own lives and for the lives of those around them who have managed to be happy which is going to poison our society for many years to come.

If they weren’t so vicious and destructive you could almost feel sorry for them.

I do think we Americans are living through a period (heh) when women are at their absolute worst. Porn addicted manlet men aren’t much better, but this dystopia is largely a female-centered implosion.

There’s a gene-culture co-evolution process that describes how groups have self-balancing mechanisms, so that when one type of organism within the group becomes too numerous, a competing type will start to have greater reproductive success to “bring balance to the force”. I forget the term for it, but the classic case is the “cheater-cooperator” evolutionary strategies, in which cheaters prosper (and hence reproductively prosper) in cooperative societies, but then lose ground to cooperators when cheaters become too numerous and start poaching each other.

Well, a similar thing could be happening with SMRT women. The more smart over-educated over-credentialed women a society has, the less reproductively fit they become at the same time women with average smarts become more reproductively fit. The group shifts its evolutionary strategy toward smarter or dumber women as each becomes prominent. Maybe this is why human IQ hasn’t continued upward into the stratosphere…. smart men get tired of the haranguing from smart women and smart women get locked out of the dating market because there aren’t very many men smarter than them who can satisfy their hypergamous urgings, and they resist settling for dumber men.

Related, the supply of beta males in a group could also fluctuate according to some cosmic balancing mechanism that favors or disfavors betas depending on their numbers. The rise of pathologically altruistic white beta males in the West is producing blowback as their ranks swell with self-abnegating ankle-biters. Ultra violent thugs or ultra charming cads are starting to increase in impression, if not yet in number, and women are turning to them for relief from the effete beta male masses.

It’s a spitball, I know, but maybe it’s high time for the patented CH BOSSS strategy to invigorate our culture to take center stage? Maybe it already has and we’re just now waking up to the fact?

PS Really smart women fuck like demonesses. They love their contraceptively-enabled fucking as much as any sub-mensa slut.

Read Full Post »

Recently, I saw a woman from behind who, when she turned in my direction, displayed a full beard. A real beard meticulously trimmed to glamour mag perfection. Not two minutes after that encounter, I saw a thing whose sexuality I could not for the life of me accurately discern. When it turned to face me, I saw that it had the faint countenance of a male face, and humongous swinging manboobs that slapped against its kegerator belly. The worst part? The thing’s nipples were huge. I could see the dark outline of islet areolae and jutting teat tips stretching the fabric of its silky t-shirt.

Now, normally, I don’t like giving these freaks the satisfaction of my gawking attention, but some of them are so outlandish that the eye can’t help but try to make sense of what it’s seeing. Normally, the best way to treat freaks is to look right through them, as if they make no more impression than the air around you. Deny them what they want, which is attention, good or bad.

(Ed: Correction: the best way to treat freaks is to cast them to the icy wastelands, alone with their degeneracy, but that is not an option anymore. Too bad.)

Anyhow, the crooked rise of these shambling mounds has got me to thinking about a potential upside. If you’re a well-groomed, healthy, trim, normal looking man with no obvious psychological or sexual identity issues manifested in any body “art” or strange fashion choices, the world of the Degenerate Freak Mafia is your oyster. Waltz into a job interview or client meeting with your head held high and your chest projecting an invincible aura of confidence, because everyone will breathe a sigh of welcome relief that they’re in the company of a genetically and psychologically superior human. In the land of the disfigured, the abnormally normal man is king.

Read Full Post »

Although CH prefers the more direct means of measuring a man’s degree of alphatude, there are proxy methods for coming up with a ballpark figure for the Alpha Within. One such proxy is the amount of shit a woman will put up with from her man. The more crap she happily tolerates, the higher her man’s alpha male rating.

As commenter WillBest explains,

Women are far and away more pragmatic about men’s affairs. I know of several couples that have survived a man’s affair and none that have survived a woman’s affair.

You could probably plot your relative alphaness against what your wife will tolerate.

brothel outside country < … < discrete mistress < rumored affair < open mistress < claiming bastards < having your wife assist in selection of your harem (as seen on Marco Polo).

It’s funny ’cause it’s cruel.

A marriage can survive a husband’s infidelity because the real risk, from the wife’s gene’s POV, is the redistribution of his resources (of which love is a proxy indicator) to the other woman. As long as the husband remains primarily devoted to his immediate family’s finances, his oat-sowing won’t much affect the future of his children or the guarantee of the mother’s “maternity assurance”.

But a wife’s infidelity is much more dangerous to her family’s cohesion. She could get pregnant on one of her slutcations, and saddle her husband with another man’s spawn. (And this would’ve been more likely in the contraception-free environment of evolutionary adaptation.) This is the worst thing that can befall a husband from his genes’ POV. And if he finds out, the whole family may be nuked from orbit.

Naturally, a man’s affair isn’t automatically forgivable. Women aren’t totally inhuman; they will feel the sting of romantic rejection. But it’s true that the more alpha the man, the more tractable his woman. Hell hath no fury like a scorned wife… if her husband is a beta male. Heaven hath no angelic forgiveness like a scorned wife of an alpha male.

This post cries out for a handy dandy chart.

There’s a reason for the exponential trajectory. Observe closely, and you’ll notice most married men are betas whose wives won’t even tolerate their wandering eye without stirring up a storm of martyrdom. But once a man begins taking on the penumbras and emanations of alphaness, his woman’s toleration curve skyrockets. Each increment of alphatude results in a drastic expansion of the scope of caddish misbehavior that a wife or girlfriend will tolerate. At the extremes of male alphatude, their women are complicit in helping their men achieve the limits of sexual and romantic pleasure that are particular to the male domain of desire.

I hope this post has been instructive. May it guide you to better days in your own relationships.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,246 other followers

%d bloggers like this: