Female Fertility, Like Female Beauty, Is Fleeting

Read this, and marvel at Nature’s mischief in blessing women with durable egos tragically misaligned with the reality of their ephemeral eggs.

A woman in her early 20s — 400,000 follicles.

Ten years later — 30,000 follicles.

7.5% of her original supply, or a drop of 92.5% in ten years.

In Darwinian terms, the romantic worth of a woman in her early 30s goes down by 93% from her worth in her early 20s.

Hm.

For comparison purposes, here are some choice excerpts pulled from the archived wisdom of Chateau Heartiste, on the subject of women’s age and SMV:

A 40-year-old woman is worth (sexually) half of a 30-year-old woman, who is worth half of a 20-year-old vixen. These incontestable facts about the nature of the sexual market matter, and matter in big ways, to women’s romantic fortunes. (Link)

***

Men, no matter what age they are, converge on a female attractiveness ideal. And that ideal is a 20-year-old tart. A college bro and a middle-aged suburban domesticate want to screw the same dewy susie. Oh sure, the older married guy will never admit it in polite aka judgmental company, but you can bet he’s feeling it. Remember that, you older wives. And keep your hubbies away from cheerleader practices and college orientations. (Link)

***

Past age 20, women begin the retreat from their maximum potential beauty. The fade is slow at first (as reflected in the less precipitous drop of the right side of the beauty curve), and this initially slow deterioration gives women a five to ten year graceless period to hone their self-delusion skills. “I’ll find a great guy when I’m 30!” CH: “No you won’t. You’ll settle for less, and your gogrrl friends will lie to you about this fact.”

By age 30, a woman is down to about 85% of her previous beauty high. At this stage of the game, she can no longer deny the tribute her skin and sag have paid to the überpatriarch, Father Time. It might not be evident yet under winter clothes, but it sure is the morning after twixt the bedsheets.

Now the decline accelerates in earnest. Age 35: 60% of former glory. Age 40: 40% of former glory (equivalent to her incipient preteen beauty buds). Age 50: 10%. For the typical woman, the Wall — the age at which she becomes sexually worthless to any man who isn’t legally obligated to assuage her fears — strikes sometime in her mid-50s. Almost no women beyond age 60 are capable of inciting genuine boners in any (white or asian) man. (Link)

***

If you are a woman, this test will measure your dating market value.  The higher the number, the better quality man you can catch.  The lower the number, the more likely you will find yourself surrounded by cats.  Unlike the male version of this test, here I have added a sliding scale to some of the questions because this better reflects the outsized importance that certain factors have on a woman’s total sexual value.

Guys, you may take this quiz for your girlfriends or wives to see if you have settled for tepid sex once a week or if you always get hard looking at her and never forget her birthday.

1.  How old are you?

15 to 16 years old:  +5 points
17 to 20 years old:  +10 points
21 to 25 years old:  +8 points
26 to 29 years old:  +3 point
30 to 33 years old:  0 points
33 to 36 years old:  -1 point
37 to 40 years old:  -5 points
41 to 45 years old:  -8 points
46 to 49 years old:  -10 points
over 49:  you’ve hit the wall.  waysa? (Link)

A women’s remaining eggs and her remaining sexual worth roughly correspond. A decrease in Inner Eggs accompanies a nearly equivalent decrease in Outer Beauty.

What a funny coinkydink.

You got ten, maybe fifteen, good years, lasses.

DON’T

FUCK

IT

UP

(literally)

The fatherly advice youze poppas oughta be giving yer fairer sprog, but won’t because yer betapussies.

Read Full Post »

Meta-Analysis: Sex-Based Differences Are Biological And Unchangeable

A recent meta-analysis of sixteen studies concluded that sex-based personality characteristics and preferences are biological, inborn, and unchangeable.

In related news, a million fluid transgenderist feminist lamebrains exploded simultaneously from the meaty intrusion of evidence-based SCIENCE.

According to a new study, differences between boys and girls are biological and not fluid, as transgender theory claims.

Research revealed in the Infant and Child Development Journal concluded that gender preferences in children are not so much the result of their environment and upbringing as they are intrinsic within the child. These findings contradict prevailing LGBTQQICAPF2K+ belief that gender is both externally directed and fluid. […]

Sixteen studies composed of 787 boys and 813 girls were documented. Researchers found that consistently “boys played with male-typed toys more than girls did, and girls played with female-typed toys more than boys did.”

This finding won’t surprise most parents, but it defies prevailing transgender theories that say gender differences are simply a “social construct.”

The same innate gender preferences were observed in a variety of contexts. “No significant effect of presence of an adult, study context, geographical location of the study, publication date, child’s age, or the inclusion of gender-neutral toys” made a difference, the data showed.

The scientists concluded that the data from these studies indicated “gender differences” have a “likelihood (of) biological origin.” In other words, before you were born you were a boy or a girl, and that’s not subject to change.

“The consistency in finding sex differences in children’s preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin,” the study says.

The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic feminist ideals.

Just as what one sees in an ink blot or instinctively associates with a suggested word can indicate one’s internal psychology, so a child’s free, self-directed choice of toy can indicate his or her innate psychology. Researchers say such choices “appear to be the product of both innate and social forces.”

More and more, when social scientists say “appear to be the product of both innate and social forces” they really mean “appear to be the product almost entirely of innate forces but our freakqualist leftoid egos are fragile and we’re still holding out hope that a super duper secret replicable feminist study will rise from the grave one day soon to prove once and for all that NURTURE BTFOs NATURE MUHFUGGA!”.

The study also found male gender differences increased with age. “Older boys played more with male-typed toys … than did younger boys,” but “the same pattern was not found in girls.” Researchers speculated that this observation may be because of increasing social pressure on girls to break from innate stereotypes.

So boys became more boy-like with age, while older girls stayed as girl-like as they were when little.

I can think of a few reasons for this apparent disparity, in descending order of likelihood.

• Boy brains experience more profound changes going through puberty than do girl brains, because masculinization is a greater physiological and psychological change from the state of childhood neoteny than is the process of feminization. In other words, grown men are more different from their former childhood selves than grown women are from their former childhood selves. This results in the perception of older boys gravitating more strongly toward “boy-like” hobbies and preferences.
• Related to the above explanation, boys develop a powerful visuospatial center in their maturing brains (which girls do not) that further predisposes them to male-typed toys.
• Adult social pressure on girls to be second-rate boys (“early intervention gogrrl careerist shrikery”).
• Adult social pressure on boys to be less boyish (“toxic masculinity”).

If, say, genetic biological immutability accounts for 70-80% of sex-based preferences and aptitudes, then imagine how malevolently insistent, unremitting, and remorseless the Leftoid Equalist social pressures would have to be to overcome that innate predisposition and have an impact on the choices of growing boys and girls. Downright evil, really.

Read Full Post »

The Smotherhand

The opposite of the Hoverhand and the Chopstick Grip is the Smotherhand. It also goes by the name Hineyhand.

I’m not very familiar with the cast of Maul-Right characters, but this dude is supposedly Based Stickman, caught on camera claiming ownership of two tradthots by laying hands on their asses.

pic.twitter.com/NX0jffGJIC

— MicroGramps™ (@MicroMystery) February 10, 2018

Tweet deleted! Here’s a zoomed-in thumbnail as backup:

A felony record and a waifu at home apparently fine with his road trip meet-ups? Hands firmly palming ass ledges? That’s just the jerkboy magic tradthots can’t resist!

Speaking of ass ledges and impudent palmistry, here’s what the official hand placement guide says about Based Jerkboy’s status with these two tradminxes:

Officially flirting, and scandalously close to assuming boyfriend privileges. Wew I knew there was something between those three!

PS You’ll never catch this God Emperor hoverhanding. Never.

Read Full Post »

Cheater Red Flags

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).

***

Update

I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Read Full Post »

The Arc Of Beauty

The video below is a time-lapse of a Dutch dad’s daughter as she aged from 0 to 18 years old, compressed into five minutes. It’s very cool. Takeaways:

• Cute babies grow into cute adults
• A hint of her raw nubility makes its first appearance at 3:00
• Her rapid beauty ascent & teen facial exaggerations begin at 4:00
• Final frame: Peak Beauty (age 18)

A follow-up time-lapse of Lotte from age 18 to age 50 would be decidedly sadder to watch. We viewers would be subjected to the cosmic cruelty of witnessing in ten minutes the full flower of her peak beauty (years 18-25) slowly wilt at first and then accelerate with demonic tribute into a far less bubbly woman of wrinkles and sag (age 45, give or take).

But for now let’s enjoy this gift of Whiteness. It truly is special. There are so few of her kind in the world, it would be a shame not to protect the homelands which give birth to her.

Unfortunately, we are ruled by shameless homewreckers. This exquisite beauty will be wiped from the earth if the globohomos get their way and turn White nations into outposts of the Dirt World.

Read Full Post »

Beautiful Truth Of The Day: Sexual Polarity

The successful pair-bond is the successful polarity-bond. Ever try to squeeze two magnets of the same pole together, as feminists and manginas insist we all do? REPULSION!

The dominant man<–>submissive woman is the strongest magnet in the known universe. The submissive man<–>submissive woman or the dominant man<–>dominant woman are the weakest bonds. In warped sexual markets, the submissive man<–>dominant woman couple can work — for a while — but it’s a coupling of egoistic convenience rather than one of passion. Its bond is reliable enough for tax purposes but also weak, and marked by frequent resentments that can provoke unfaithfulness.

The current Western sexual market is riven with submissive man<–>dominant woman couples, which doesn’t bode well. It’s why assortative mating along arid criteria like credentials and political ideology are the norm now instead of the exception, and why mating along hot wet passionate criteria like masculine-feminine frisson and provider-nurturer sex-based roles is becoming less the norm and more the exceptional act of rebellion.

Hard times will bring back the ideal Darwinian bond of strong men coupling with submissive women.

Read Full Post »

Our Wayward Wenches

There’s a Swedish Faceborg advocacy group called #WeCantTakeIt — meaning the middle-aged women participating in the group can’t take their rapefugee loverboys being sent back to their shitholes. They lobby the Swedish government and (unsurprisingly) the women-heavy feminist government gives in to their demands, ruining Sweden in the process. Here’s a photo montage from the group:

On a hopeful note, some Swedish men (they still exist) mocked the group by creating one called #WeCanTakeIt which featured old, fat balding men and their imported Thai girl lovers.

Naturally, the offended Swedish scoldocracy deleted their sarcastic faceborgle group post-haste. The oldbroad-rapefugee matchmaker group still exists.

We’ve run out of time to beat around the bush (heh) any longer. Our virtue shrieking single White women and desperately lonely middle aged White broads are the PRIME VECTORS of misery, rape, death, indigence, crime, ugliness, and terrorism into the West.

At the least, these wayward wenches ought to be mocked so hard they self-deliver. And for real, not that fake phony attention whoring attempted suicide crap that women are wont to do for FB Likes.

Exhibit A: Our wayward wench of the day, @missmayn

H/t @JackMcKrack,

she stepped outside to cry – and take a selfie.

Pathological attention whoring. She should’ve gone outside and thrown herself in traffic to ease the pain of Trump. That way we’d know she was sincere.

I’m convinced now that most online pathological attention whores are hitched to soyboys IRL and are using the internet to advertise themselves to usurper alpha males.

For Miss Mayn, that usurper could be any man who doesn’t take pictures with his mouth gaping like an expectant gloryhole. For our Swedish spinsters above, that usurper is the vast barbarian horde.

I’ve said it before, and it deserves repeating: we men of the West bring our women to heel, or our women will have the West kneeling to the Shadow Swarm.

Read Full Post »