Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

If we artificially constrict the sexual market to include only money and looks as variables, we can get a pretty good idea of the emphasis that women (and men) place on both as criteria in opposite sex mates by using heavily filtered dating website data. (h/t chris)

Really what we want to do is observe people’s choices directly which is why dating websites are so useful to us. Here’s an example. What if I have a hypothesis that when choosing a mate, men care more about their potential partner’s appearance than her income and women care more about her potential partner’s income than his appearance. Imagine the following experiment. A woman/man can choose between communicating with two people. One earns $60,000 a year and is more attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. The other earns X dollars per year and is less attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. Every other observable characteristic about these two people is identical. We can use the information that tells us who individuals choose to communicate with to determine what X would have to be in order to make a woman/man prefer the less attractive person.

Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all—$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.

Men are the reproductively expendable sex (sperm is cheap and plentiful and has no expiration date) so it is no surprise that men’s attractiveness qualifications for a woman are so much less complex than the attractiveness criteria that women have for a man. What men want is a hot bod, a cute face, and a lot of residual reproduction value (aka youth). Anything more than that is gravy.

What women want is a far more extensive list of attractive male traits, because a woman can less afford to submit her rare and depleting resource of eggs to the inquisitive probings of subpar sperm.

The results of this study align with the real world observations of anyone who’s spent a day in his life outside the home interacting with women in human settings:

Women value money *and* looks.

Men value looks.

On paper, this means a very ugly man’s ugliness carries a $186,000 per year premium to access the same hotties that a good-looking man can get. Which also means that it is possible for an ugly man to buy his way into prime pussy. In practice, an ugly man can fake the appearance of wealth to cheat his way into prime pussy (while a good-looking man who is poor will have trouble getting past the first date if his Game is weak).

On paper and in practice, no amount of money will make an ugly woman attractive to men. So ladies it’s time to ditch those PhD in patriarchal deconstruction degrees for a gym membership and an MRS.

This is yet another study (as if one was needed) that repudiates the ONLY LOOKS MATTER queefiing chorus of quisling cuntboys. The bigger picture is even more unfriendly to the looks crü. When we examine the sexual market as it functions in reality — that is when all metrics and multivariate attractiveness traits are thrown together in the search for a lover — we discover (and science confirms) that men’s attractiveness to women is greatly influenced by nonphysical factors.

Men are visual.
Women are holistic.
The rest is commentary.

Read Full Post »

Chateau Heartiste has featured snapshots of men executing flawless alpha male poses because these men are lessons to learn from if your goal is capturing the love of women (and the admiration of men). You should, as often as humanly possible, aspire to the alpha male body language aesthetic. Supplicating beta males and bitter feminists may not like it, but the following photos are what peak male performance looks like.

The curious reader wonders what qualifies as the best alpha male body language pose? I’ve culled some pics from the archives and consolidated them here in this post for you, Chateaulords, to determine which iconic alpha male pose is the one the God Emperor would assume, even when taking a dump.

First, a new addition: Michael Caine claiming ownership of a meat-stiffening minx. Note the direction of his gaze, the lean of his upper torso, the delightful choke-hold, and the nascent smirk.

cainesstable

***

Next up: Prince Harry.

begone, peasant girl!

***

Here’s Jason Stratham (in the ideal location for a man to be when he’s got a woman wrapped in his arms…back to a mirrored wall, surveying his kingdom).

alphabl

***

The Brazilian Shitlord (photo cropped by press agents because he had his penis out to taunt the smelly participants at a feminism rally).

wait your turn, ladies

***

Donald Trump, whose year leading a new American Revolution has provided a master class in various victorious alpha male poses.

***

Steve McQueen, whom many women consider (as much as their hindbrains can take under consideration anything of a primal nature) the iconic coolasfuck jerkboy.

STEVE-McQUEEN-King-of-Cool-Photographs-by-John-Dominis-ATLAS-Gallery-yatzer-1

***

Birthday Cat, because no matter how hot or bitchy or manipulative the girl, this cat keeps his cool.

The voting:

Read Full Post »

The woman in this photo is a robot (aka sexbot, for that inevitably will be her primary utilization).

sexbotloveyoulongtime

The uncanny valley — that stage in lifelike robot development when near-but-not-quite-there-yet-similarity to real humans provokes a creeped-out response — has always been an obstacle to nerds designing anime-tronic lovers. We like our cute Wall-E robots; we don’t like our cute fucktoy robots that look a little bit “off”.

But recent rapid advances in sexbot tech hint at a future that is not far off when the uncanny valley is ascended and sexbots are almost indistinguishable from real (Playboy Centerfold) women. When that future arrives — and it will, barring a cleansing patriarchal cataclysm — millions of romantically unsuccessful or unsatisfied men living in Obesitopia and Androgynopolis and Sheryl Sandberg-La will face a choice:

sexbotcontrast

Their choices will be easy to understand, even if it is the final choice civilization makes before its disappearance from the earth.

Houellebecq chuckled.

***

Reminder that Le Chateau was the first alt-realist to bring you news and opinion of the impending sexbot revolution, and how its arrival would radically reconfigure the dating and marriage markets.

Read Full Post »

The “Calais Jungle“, a decrepit third world outpost established in Calais, France by their traitorous elite and housing disgusting “””refugees”””, has a secret to divulge. (It’s not much of a secret to enlightened Chateau guests.)

Volunteers in the Calais Jungle have been accused of sexually exploiting refugees and even child migrants.

The Independent has discovered a serious row has broken out among some unpaid charity workers at the camp in northern France, with some believing forging sexual relationships with adult refugees is natural in such circumstances, while others say it breaches all usual codes of conduct.

Wait for the twist ending.

One man who raised the alarm was later subjected to a barrage of online abuse.

Have you guessed it yet?

The man wrote: “I have heard of boys, believed to be under the age of consent, having sex with volunteers. I have heard stories of men using the prostitutes in the Jungle too.

“I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day. And I know also, that I’m only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse.”

Sex with underage boys? Multiple migrant partners? Maybe you’re thinking this is a homosexual meeting place.

The man added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male refugees – which he claimed risked the objectification of women volunteering in the camp.

Bleeding heart (and bleeding bush) Frenchwomen are lining up to fuck the rapefugee dregs of humanity….in a romantic setting that looks like this:

calais-sex-camp

Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

PS LMFAO at this revealing betaboy blurt:

He wrote: “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex. This impression objectifies women in the camp and increases the risks.”

How cucked, craven, and pusillanimous do you have to be to reinterpret women’s freely choosing raw dog refugee sex as some nebulous patriarchal assault leaving an “impression” that “objectifies women”. NO DUH IT LEAVES AN IMPRESSION. Just not the impression that this micropeen of a male thinks it leaves.

His comments prompted accusations of sexism and misogyny from female members of the group. One commented on the post: “I find this attitude incredibly patronising and paternalistic with added sexism and racism.

“There is a serious point in here among all the moralistic bullshit but I find it very off-putting. I find the assertion that women choosing to have sex encourages rape quite frankly disturbing.”

She’s right, of course, but her rightness is self-damning.

Weak beta males have a studied aversion to placing any blame for women’s ill-conceived romantic choices on women themselves. To do so, in the beta male mind, would mean having their puritanical romantic idealism dashed against the rocks of the bitter reality of primal female desire. The weak beta male suffers his morbid prostration to the pussy pedestal gladly, and is loathe to have it detached from his pursed lips. For if the day comes that his precious pussy pedestal is gone from his life, he’ll have no celibate space to retreat to for self-pitying comfort, and will be forced to deal with women as they are, not as they materialize unsullied in the brainscape of his sentimental daydreams.

tl;dr it was a big mistake to give women the vote.

Read Full Post »

The photo evidence suggests not all is well in the world headquarters of the high functioning gypsy-ant person alliance.

cuckedbychannowa4chantroll

@CuckedByChanNowA4Channer

That body language is horrible. Zuck looks gay sticking his butt out, smiling like a special needs kid, and pecking at his wife’s nose. Chan looks….is repulsed too strong a word? Icked out?

I’m all for Cuckersperg blowing his billions on quixotic doomed quests to “promote equality for all children in the next generation.” Yeah, good luck with that bud. May as well air drop wads of your cash in the African jungle. It’ll do about as much good. Meanwhile, you starve your putative borg heirs of your billions, so there’s that, which is nice.

PS Gotta hand it to Zuck, the low T manlet really lives down to his betaboy image placing his wife’s name before his.

Read Full Post »

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

  1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
  2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
  3. Sluts are ascendant.
  4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
  5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.

Read Full Post »

Recall the Chateau Heartiste Fundamental Premise governing all human social dynamics.

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

The Fundamental Premise essentially states that women are more reproductively valuable than are men, and that this inherent biological disparity in sex-based worth precipitates all sorts of double standards in social policy and cultural norms.

Aaaaaaand once again ¡SCIENCE!, with love in her heart and fire in her loins, administers a meticulous old-fashioned to my tumescent ego.

Moral decision making study finds men willing to sacrifice 3 hypothetical men for every woman of reproductive value.

***

Killing someone in order to save several lives seems more morally acceptable to men than to women. We suggest that this greater approbation of utilitarian killings may reflect gender differences in the tolerance to inflicting physical harm, which are partly the product of sexual selection. Based on this account, we predicted that men may be less utilitarian than women in other conditions. In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

The id-shiv is contained in that final bolded part. That, more than anything, proves the Fundamental Premise: women are coddled only when they still have REPRODUCTIVE VALUE. As women age into the dead ovary zone, men treat them same as they do other men: with utilitarian indifference.

This, too, explains more than anything the bitter man-hating rage that your typical aging feminist spinster is capable of uncorking on “the patriarchy”. She has lost her female privilege, a privilege that, unlike the mythological male privilege, has real world evidence (and, now, scientific evidence) proving its existence.

White Knighting and Pussy Pedestaling is baked in the braincake, so to speak. As is the disposability of men. Remember all this the next time some whackjob feminist is screeching about the poor poor wymyn suffering under the boot heel of male privilege. She is constructing a semantic fantasy world and deluding herself that she lives in it. Her lying theatrics are a balm for the fear that she’s discovering what it’s really like to live as a man in what is in reality a woman’s world.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: