Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Shot:

2016Avowed polyamorists are almost universally VLSMV (Very Low Sexual Market Value). This is especially true of polyandrous arrangements. The male facsimiles who volunteer to be shared by one (ugly) woman are so wretchedly unlovable that only the mentally diseased leftoid webzine Salon can identify with their cause.

2010Maxim #109: Consensual polyamory is a contrived hookup service for undesirable sexual market rejects.

2014Open relationships are almost never two-way.

One party to the “creatively ambiguous” polyamory agreement is getting the metaphorical shaft, and the other the actual shaft. The shafted is typically, but not always, the male (no need to sully the word “man”), whose role is as the eminently mockable “beta bux” (or beta hugs) available for service during those three weeks of the month when the female’s libido goes into hibernation. That he may live with his openly open-legged girlfriend doesn’t mean he’s getting the lion’s share of her vagina. But he is getting the lion’s share of her feelings and tantrums and moodiness. […]

Genuine, egalitarian, open polyamory for all practical purposes doesn’t exist among white Westerners. There’s always one or another party out in the asexual or anhedonic cold, nursing feelings of rejection and traumatic self-doubt. And if that party is a willing participant to his or her sexual/romantic exclusion, it’s a good bet he/she is psychologically broken, mentally unstable, physically repulsive, or suffering from clinically low sex drive. In other words, human trash.

Open relationship participants are almost always hideously ugly.

Polyamory is a mating ground for human rejects. Whatever else it offers, the open relationship ruse assists the comically low value sector of humanity to live amongst each other and experience pleasures of the diseased flesh.

True open relationships are predominantly polyandrous.

The general complexion of contractual open relationships — where all participants are voluntary and aware of proceedings — is one ugly to mediocre-looking woman on the pre-Wall fast track lavishing in the flaccid attention of two or more omega males. Invariably, the more masculine (and it’s all relative, so maybe it’s better to say “the less androgynous”) of the males would be the one who is actually porking her.

Illicit open relationships are predominantly polygynous.

“Open” relationships that form organically from the unspoken (and initially unacknowledged) impulses and romantic decisions of one or another partner nearly always manifest into polygynous arrangements: That is, illicit open relationships are distinguished by one high value alpha male discreetly juggling multiple concurrent female lovers. Pickup artists call the illicit open relationship the MLTR: Multiple Long-Term Relationship. Genghis Khan called it Tuesday. […]

In the real world, the openly polyamorous nirvana of ‘sex at dawn’ is really the circus sideshow abattoir of ‘sex before personal hygiene’.

Chaser:

Thank you, SCIENCE, for once again taking my balls on the chin.

***

PS If our society seems to be efflorescing with more openly proud polyamorous arrangements connecting ugly bluehairs with low T soyboys, that is likely because our society is filling up with more lsmv losers desperate for love and affection. Look around, is America currently an HSMV or LSMV nation? Obesity, pussyhattery, sluttery, and soylent grins are an epidemic.

HSMV men create good times.
Good times create LSMV men.
LSMV men create hard times.
Hard times create HSMV men.

Read Full Post »

A fat tax has been seriously discussed on various platforms for years, usually supported by the premise that fat craps cost society a lot of money in higher health insurance premiums, mitigation overhead, and the daily annoyances of dealing with fatties in public spaces, making room for them, avoiding their stank, and spending mental energy looking away from their disgusting blobbiness while trying to suppress the retch reflex.

A well-meaning but nutritionally misguided fat tax (which taxed foods high in saturated fat) was even tried in Denmark, with positive results (the tax was later scrapped due to open borders…not kidding).

But what if I were to tell you that a Fat Chick Tax makes a lot more sense than a sex-blind generic fat tax? Tucked into a great post on macro-sexonomics (which reads a lot like Heartiste posts) from the blogger who calls himself Giovanni Dannato, the justification behind the Fat Chick Tax:

When most men rarely see higher than a 6.5 in public who isn’t flagrantly anti-social, their morale and motivation is sapped and the scale of sexual market value is drastically distorted in favor of those obese and plain women who stay behind.

While men will always get thirsty enough to settle for whatever they can find, they aren’t as willing to sacrifice as they would be if access to potential mates were more equitable. Once the girls they could approach are repulsive enough compared to anime porn, enthusiasm for the chase goes into a downward spiral.

For every low-status nerd who is willing to date a fat woman, there is another who ends up a celibate omega. This creates millions of bare branches with no roots or prospects in the social order, a state of affairs which makes steadily increasing agitation against the establishment inevitable.

Even those men who still succeed with women know they could be doing a lot better.  Without any real status or bargaining leverage they are struggling with long term relationships and family formation.  They have no more stake in the present state of affairs than do incels.

Just as illegal immigration and offshoring push down wages for everyone, most men see their sexual market payoff reduced by relentless demand inflation.
To put it in perspective, we all know how an influx of millions of pretty young women would be received by the matriarchy.

The overwhelming thirst caused by the hyper-inflationary collapse of the sexual market has played a significant role in the death of civic life. […] Clearly, a society that wants to persist under modern conditions must acknowledge the importance of balancing the sexual market for the sake of cohesion and stability. […]

A main point here is when we objectively rate beauty in a new inegalitarian age we can incorporate it into policy. A special tax on obese women for instance would tacitly acknowledge they are reneging on their side of the social contract by depriving society of the beauty that motivates male participation and helps sustain a workable balance of power between the sexes.

Similar penalties might apply to disfigurative piercings or tattoos.

Congregating in a few neighborhoods in a few cities could be dis-incentivized by removing feminist laws that make it easier for women to get nice white collar jobs they can’t get fired from and imposing special taxes on certain places of residence for single females.

These kinds of measures would obviously trigger massive female opposition, but if women as a whole tried living within a stable balance of power rather than an extractive matriarchy, they might actually like it.

The modren post-America sexual market is horribly skewed against men and their interests, and this as noted is a recipe for revolution. Giovanni is essentially recapitulating the same themes CH touched upon in posts like “Obesity to blame for Game“…

Game has been refined, taught and embraced by men in direct proportion to the shrinking pool of attractive thin girls. As the reduced supply of skinny chicks have seen their sexual market value skyrocket, they have adjusted by pricing their pussy out of reach for the average guy. In return, men have sought solutions to this new challenge in the rapidly advancing science of seduction. Where simple courtship worked in the past, it is no longer effective against the deep bunker defenses of the in-demand slender woman.

There has always been an evolutionary arms race between men and women in the quest for sex but now, for the first time in human history, the sheer numbers of fat chicks — in concert with the increase of financially independent women — is accelerating this arms race so fast that many people can’t cope and drop out. The tools of seduction for men become better by the day and the women counter with more impenetrable defenses. The tension is palpable. The whining and bitching is cacophonic. Distrust and dating blogs are at record highs.

If just 20% of fat chicks lost weight relations between the sexes would start to noticeably improve. And there would be more happiness in the world, because a skinny girl with hunger pangs is happier than a fat girl with a sheepdog and peanut butter.

…and in posts like “Game. obesity, and men dropping out“:

In short, no sociological theory into sex, marriage and family trends is complete without a long, hard look at female hypergamy, the one biomechanical force to rule them all, and its intersection with economic realities. The science is out there; when women become financially empowered, they begin to choose men based on criteria other than their ability to provide.

But that’s not all that Murray, et al are missing. I’m here to tell Murray and others perusing his findings that there is another, MASSIVE factor at work skewing the sexual market, and one that, just as unsurprisingly, gets almost no attention from the PC-soaked punditariat: female obesity.

Imagine you are an unmarried working class dude recently unemployed. You look around you and marvel at a sea of grotesquely misshapen fat women, rolls upon rolls of undulating flesh hiding stores of cheesy poofs, porky hellion spawn trailing their wakes, chins resting atop chins, bloated diabetic cankles stomping the Walmartian grounds like lumbering elephants. In some towns, close to 40% of the available single women are clinically OBESE.

This is obesity folks, not just overweight. Overweight women are physically repulsive, but obesity renders them monstrous. To clarify this assertion for the modern indoctrinated female reader: an obese woman is as sexually undesirable to men as a jobless, charmless, humorless, enfeebled, dull man is sexually undesirable to women.

So back to our realistic scenario: Our typical unmarried working class man surveys his cellulite-blasted kingdom (and it does not matter how fat he, himself, is, for fat men and thin men alike prefer the exquisite sight of slender female bodies), and he makes a quick hindbrain calculation. Does he bust his ass in a crappy service sector job doing women’s work for a shot at legally bound long-term commitment to a shuffling shoggoth dragging the bastard spawn of a hundred alpha males in tow, or does he say “fuck it” and turn to video games and porn featuring hot, thin chicks for his status and dopamine fix?

You see where this is heading. It’s entirely reasonable, and expected, that a lot of men would drop out of the intensified competition for the few remaining childless slender babes in a world full of fat asses, single moms, and fat assed single moms. And even among the small contingent of sexually appealing women, they make enough in government and HR paychecks to cover expenses plus gifts for their Skittles Men. What working stiff beta provider can compete on those terms?

A Fat Chick Tax would go a long way to bringing balance back to the force — bringing Truth & Beauty to a swellscape scarred by Lies & Ugliness — and in so doing return to White Men, the creators and maintainers of civilization, the motivation to keep sacrificing for the Good.

Read Full Post »

Captain Obvious draws the obvious parallel between masculinizing women and a culture’s operative sexual market.

R-Selection necessarily MASCULINIZES women, because under R-Selection, women have to FIGHT their way into an Alpha’s harem.

You could pretty much state it as a foundational premise of Evopsych that you have “Femininity if and only if K-Selection” [i.e. monogamy].

r-selection is the term to describe a sexual market dominated by polygyny, high fertility, lower paternal certainty (and thus lower paternal investment), and usually the sexual or marital disenfranchisement of beta males. Africa is a prime example.

K-selection is the opposite: a term to describe a sexual market dominated by monogamy, lower fertility, higher paternal certainty (and thus higher paternal investment), and usually the sexual or marital enfranchisement of beta males. Northern Europe is a prime example.

C.O. is right that masculinized women — in appearance and personality — are a feature of r-selected societies, because women fight for a few alpha men, toil for their bread, and generally put less effort into behaving or looking womanly because their men are pump and dumpers who won’t stick around for the duration and are just looking for an ass to hump.

In contrast, the men of K-selected societies are romantically inclined to long term monogamy, and seek women with very feminine attributes. If a man is in it for the long haul, he’ll want a woman who herself brings a lot to the bargaining table, and her number one asset is her loveliness and femininity.

If a nation’s women are masculinizing, that is a portent of civilizational collapse, because r-selected societies are backward, violent societies filled with bitter beta males and bastard children. The masculinizing women are biologically responding and adapting to a change in sexual market norms and functioning, that requires of women a willingness to compete more forcefully with other women for the honor to be part of an alpha’s de jure or de facto, concomitant or serial, concubinage. As a culture’s women become more or less masculine, that culture is likewise becoming more or less r-selected.

Slut walks?

Pussyhats?

Studies in Patriarchal White Male Privilege?

Bitter spinsters typing Feedbuzz agitprop encouraging younger women to follow their EatPrayCarousel lifestyle?

Preteen glam mags offering tips to younger and younger women how to sexually satisfy themselves and their boyfriends using a variety of sex toy implements?

These and more are the cultural hallmarks of masculinizing women. The West is becoming Africa (minus the cannibalism, but give it time).

***

FYI in a mass contraceptive environment, “high fertility” means promiscuity.

Read Full Post »

Hot off the presses, a criminally patriarchal research paper has concluded that men with higher income and status have more reproductive success than women with high income and status have in industrialized nations. First, to set the table, an excerpt from the abstract:

It is concluded that an evolutionary perspective helps explain reproductive patterns in modern humans and may thus make a valuable contribution in the assessment of urgent contemporary problems.

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all, across space and time.
– Le 156% Heartiste

Female hypergamy, female education, female economic self-sufficiency, low female fertility…choose any four.

In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.

In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.

Low status beta and omega males are bigger losers in this new world order than they were before under the rock solid pre-femcunt patriarchal system, because the women who would be theirs under the old rules have decided to skip past them for a shot at 1. the high status alpha or 2. a tub of ben and jerrys.

The biggest DARWINIAN WINNERS are the charming jerkboy cads and the sociopath hedge funders.

Post-America alpha males enjoy not only reproductive success (in an environment in which widespread use of contraceptives thwarts the ability to convert bangs into bangbinos), but sexual success:

Potential fertility — that’s a nerdy way to say “sexiness”. Men with high social and economic status in industrialized and primitive nations alike — HSMV alphas — monopolize the hottest babes, and probably more than their fair share of the plain janes too. The Pill and condom don’t thwart the sex act; those things just thwart the consequence of the sex act, and incentivize women to liberate their sexuality (which in practice means liberating themselves from beta males). Imagine how many little snot-nosed Heartistes (heartots?) would be running around creating kindergarten mayhem if the Industrial Contraception Complex didn’t exist.

How unequally is sex distributed in industrialized jizztopias? Very:

There are interesting eugenic/dysgenic possibilities to ponder from this knowledge. There is dysgenic selection pressure on high status women — at least as measured by income, social status, and their proxy, IQ — but eugenic selection pressure on their male counterparts, the HSMV alphas who are having more kids.

This isn’t a complete picture, though, because female mate worth is so much more tied into their physical beauty. Those HSMV alpha males are choosing less educated, less wealthy, lower SES “status” women who are younger, hotter, tighter, so by Darwinian calculation the end result is very eugenic: capable sons and pretty daughters. This is evidence that the West is beginning to pursue the patented CH BOSSS strategy of sexual market health and societal reinvigoration.

I’ve been warning about this stuff for a while, and I’m glad to see ¡SCIENCE! finally catching up with Heartistian observations. There was only ever going to be one effective response by men to the emergence of weaponized female hypergamy (and it wasn’t cuddly beta supplication).

Game will save the West….in one respect, by heightening its late stage contradictions and encouraging a change in course.

***

On the silliness of the “wage gap”:

…and the silliness of the feminist narrative about the “patriarchy”:

******

Some juicy excerpts from the paper linked in this post:

religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity…

***

In addition to the fact that close inbreeding carries genetic risks (discussed previously), this may also be the case (p. 485) for distant outbreeding, although the effects of outbreeding are far less clear…

***

…homogamy along certain characteristics has consequences as well. Particularly educational homogamy may be an undervalued risk factor, resulting in less permeability of social stratification and hence a stronger segregation of the social strata. This has negative consequences for “social cohesion,” increasing the tensions within a society.

***

In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”

Word of the day: Homogamy.

It is the secret Truth that shivs miscegenation propagandists dead.

…empirical evidence for a fitness advantage over generations by reducing the number of children and investing more in fewer children is minimal or absent. Evidence suggests that on the one hand, low fertility increases the progenies’ socioeconomic position, but on the other hand, it reduces long-term fitness.

***

In addition, different strategies of maximizing versus optimizing fertility may lead to a conflict between the sexes.

Aka the modren sexual market. The battle of the sexes has never been more pitched than it is now.

Read Full Post »

Theranos.

The tech company is in the news because its celebrated female CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, was just charged with committing “massive fraud” by the SEC for misleading investors with false claims about her company’s tech.

And that little shitlord boy went HA HAAWW!

Watch this video of Holmes speaking in the patois of a souldead corporate diversiwhore automaton.

Wew. The Strange.

Under the skin of every female CEO you’ll find high T, manjawdibles, phallic clits, an excitable infidelity-cuckoldry neural feedback loop, a deep ocean vocal register, and quite often a leftover kippah from her bitch mitzvah.

In other words, a man. Parenthetically speaking.

PS Gaze into the technicolor funhouse abyss of her eyes. Crazy is as crazy glares. We live in the era of autistic psychocunts. #LOSING

Read Full Post »

*cracks knuckles*

Leaning in, kung fu grip of +100 mate guarding, forehead cuddling PDA.

Verdict: beta body language

Assessment: trouble brewing

This power couple is Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone, renowned figures in the It’s Self-Evidently Awesome to be White revolution. Sellner fronts a European “Identitaire” group, but don’t hold me to that. I don’t follow these things closely.

Does their pose remind you of anyone?

I know there’s a post in the CH archives about cheekpecker guy above, but I can’t be bothered to search for it. Anyhow, I remember the romance did not end well for him (nor did it start well for him).

The lean-in with goopy canoodling is the international symbol of anxious betatude. All men should strive to avoid it, especially when cameras are pointed at them.

A few readers have objected to Sellner’s skinny fit purple pants, green sneakers, and man purse (excuse me, European handbag). That’s not much of a hit against him, tbh. It’s classic peacocking, and it works if paired with a confident jerkboy attitude. His bigger problem is that his body language betrays an Inner Niceguy. If Brittany’s ardor wanes, it won’t be because of his floodwater purple jeans.

To his credit, Sellner does strike a legit contrapposto pose, the ideal Davidian stance that girls love across time and space.

Why do I tease Brittany? Because she’s totes adorb, and it’s what I do with adorable girls. I can’t help it, it’s in my mischievous DNA. (Sellner may be adorable, but I wouldn’t know. All men are ugly to me.) I mean no disrespek to the Movement Minxes. I wish these two the best, but Manpurse is gonna have to step up his body language game if he wants to heave Brittany the bone. Call it tough love.

Martin, less of what you’re doing in that snap above, and more of this:

You’ll thank me later.

Read Full Post »

I added this earlier to a recently published post, but I figured it deserved its own headlining.

***

A big reason why we have an epidemic of overeducated women tragically delaying marriage and childbirth until it’s too late is because of the reality of female hypergamy. When women gain economic, occupational and social status, their mate criteria rise commensurate to the rise in their self-perceived (or more precisely, their self-wished) SMV. The tragedy is that their high SMV left them in their youth.

Female hypergamy, economic empowerment, credentialism, and psychological projection are a toxic anti-natal stew.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: