Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Responding to Triflewoman (infamous cross-platform, multiblog denier of sexual market realities), LOTB commenter “map” channels many CH themes and unloads one of the best short primers I’ve read that echoed my collected writings on the functioning of the modern sexual market.

There is no such thing as male hypergamy. Female hypergamy, though, is quite real. It was enabled by the sexual revolution, which divided the relationship market into the market for marriage and the market for sex. In the sexual market, women trade up…the result is that, at every level of attractiveness, there is a shortage of women. This shortage is generated by the belief that every woman who is a 5 can do better than a man who is a 5. And this is true…a woman who is a 5 can sleep with a man who is a 6,7, or 8. This happens due to the shortage of women in these categories as well, created by the female hypergamy of their corresponding women.

The problem with this is simple and dire: women confuse the market for sex with the market for marriage. The woman who is a 5 thinks that if she sleeps with a man who is a 6, 7 or 8, that she, too, is a 6, 7 or 8. The reality is she is not, so she will not be able to convert her easy sex life into a marriage with the men to which she is genuinely attracted. She, instead, will continually be pumped and dumped until she ages past her peak years of attractiveness and can no longer pull the attention of the men she genuinely loves, usually at around age 30. The vast majority of women have gambled away their 20’s on this very high risk strategy in hopes of finally getting a marriage with a high value man.

Traditional, monogamous marriage and morality short-circuited this problem. While biological hypergamy still existed, men did not date or marry beneath them and sex outside of wedlock was frowned upon, so there were few opportunities for women to carry on open affairs with lots of out-of-league men. Marrying young and having children young also sucked out their narcissism and they focused inward on their families instead of competing with other women. The system worked…which is why the Cultural Marxists did everything they could to attack it.

Unmarried women riding the carousel until they age past their peak years of attractiveness are some of the worst human beings you will ever meet. Their personalities harden because they need to filter out the men that they previously rejected, who are now the only men that will actually talk to them. To marry one of these shrews is a guaranteed divorce. These women should never be rewarded with marriage.

Why do we focus on television? Because television is how the people who run the country, the ruling class, communicate with the masses. It is nothing but propaganda, where what you watch is exactly the kind of world the elite want you to believe can be created. So, 50 Shades of Grey is about a billionaire who loves a woman who looks like a housekeeper. Sex and the City has 40 year old women sleeping with baseball players and marrying investment bankers. Big Little Lies has a woman marrying a beta-male provider while pining for her alpha male ex. See, woman? You, too, can have a life like this.

The reality is different. Billionaire alpha males marry models, like Donald Trump did. Most women will end up as crazy cat ladies after 13 years of riding the carousel. Look at Ashley Judd. Why is she so angry? Because her husband, a former race car driver, dumped her ass, married a far younger and hotter woman, and they just had their first kid. She knows there are no race car drivers or kids in her future, so we get to watch her act out that realization in public by demanding other women make the same mistakes she did. And she is a very successful and beautiful woman, who did not lock down her options when she had the chance. Imagine the results for the less gifted. It’s a society of Meg Griffins.

Cultural Marxism is about engineering this decline, by triggering female hypergamy and letting it run wild. Once that reproductive and youthful window closes, you will have this army of women permanently, because they have no choice but to be committed to this course of action, just to avoid the despair of their own circumstances. This even operates internationally, where NGO’s try to “educate” women in various third-world countries, like Nigeria. Boko Haram was created to fight this.

Whiskey and others [ed: that would be me, the original realtalker] make the claim that women are far more valuable than men and that is how all of this is enabled. They are partly correct. Women, in their prime youthful and child-bearing years, are more valuable than men, but that quickly inverts once women lose those years. The women who have missed those windows really have no idea the living hell that is coming for them in the decades to come. Childless, unattractive women, with bitter personalities, causing problems in a resource poor and declining civilization, will get burned at the stake, like the witches of Salem. Count on it.

The kinds of people that stubbornly deny these blatant truths about the sexes and the shared mating market which they inhabit, and worse invert the truth into a distorted funhouse mirror image lie that plays to their fantasy of how they wish the sexual market worked, typically fall into two camps:

  1. ugly women
  2. flawed women

Ugly women have every incentive to deny fundamental truths about SMV. They can’t fix their ugliness in the way men can improve their lots in life, so for them lying and wallowing in vapid platitudes is better than existential hopelessness. You can throw fat women and childless post-Wall women into this mix, too.

Flawed women — for example, the aging ex-stripper who’s still sexy enough for a night but would give men pause when she began demanding more commitment than that — aren’t at risk of existential hopelessness….yet….but they loathe any incursion of sexual market reality and any messengers bringing news of that baleful incursion because they prefer to maintain the illusion that their marital market worth is the equal of their sexual market worth.

So I deduce that Triflewoman is either an ugly woman or a skank approaching the Wall.

(A third category — envious, spiteful beta males bitterly hitched to fat sow wives — are also particularly prone to resentful denials of sexual market realities; the truth in their case is a depressing reminder of both their low romantic rank and their politely suppressed desire for something better. If Triflewoman is a Trifleman, he would fall in with this group of misfits. John Scalzi is a case study.)

As to map’s comment, there isn’t much with which I’d quibble. He (likely not a she) pretty much nailed the essential difference between the sexes (chicks dig power, men dig beauty, eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap, men are expendable, women are perishable) and the nature of the modern sexual market in relation to mating behavior and marriage. He makes a good point about postmodern society severing the ancient link between the sexual market and the marriage/monogamy/parenthood market, and an even better point about children focusing women’s attention and preventing female solipsism spirals (and leftist activism predicated on megadoses of feelz; one of the reasons why divorced and single Boomer hags with no or few kids are so obstreperously anti-Trump).

Consequently, we observe that an isolated and transactional sexual market — greased by urban anonymity and social media — prolongs the time and energy women spend on the cock carousel (or languishing in “I REFUSE TO SETTLE” insol hell). We similarly observe that prolonged childlessness is a female narcissism accelerant, and simultaneously jacks up women’s standards and carves away at their likeability and femininity (aka chasteness), resulting in a snatch-22 that reduces their chance of finding love at precisely the moment they think the most highly of themselves and place the greatest demands on potential mates.

It’s an open question whether our Masturbators of the Universe intentionally or accidentally unleashed forces (abortion, condoms, the Pill, penicillin, poz, female economic self-sufficiency aka the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse) that would sever at every level sex from marriage and children, and thus lead to the low fertility of the West and the poisoning of relationships that naturally percolates when women are surrounded by weak, deferential men and men are left with the prospect of marrying road-worn sluts who secretly still pine for the dazzling cads of their nightclub bathroom passion play memories, but it’s indisputable that the oligarchs and Bezosians and open border 1%ers prefer a deracinated, dehumanized world bazaar with women freed from the constraints of early marriage and motherhood to consume, capitulate, and clog the globohomo capitalist self-negate machine as happy little office cogs.

In my opinion, the current situation is unsustainable. Something’s gotta give. In a near-future post, I will explain how our postmodern sexual market dovetails with evidence that the West is careening toward idiocracy.

Read Full Post »

Testosterone levels have been plummeting in Western men for at least two generations and this fact is without question. I will speculate in this post what a multigenerational, age-independent decline in T will portend for American society, should the trend not shortly reverse itself.

  • women will dress and act sluttier to capture the attention of increasingly benumbed men who need the services of the hardest of hardcore porn to feel aroused.
  • team sports will disappear.
  • drama club will be a required class.
  • politics will intensify its shift leftward because low T men will vote more like women.
  • the national (and psychological) borders protecting the low T men from predation will remain, for all practical purposes, open to the sewer world until, inevitably, higher T conquerors arrive in sufficient number to wipe out the low T White submissivists.
  • inventiveness and entrepreneurship will stagnate, and contract.
  • any big job or goal will demand more oversight, more paper pushing, more regulatory hurdles to overcome. the days when men gathered and made shit happen on a reasonable time frame will be over. it’ll be an HR dystopia of endless meetings all the way down to the musty cellar of the gossip mill.
  • corporations will turn into ghettos of bickering crones, slutty college girls, and yes-manlets. nothing will be produced but social media apps and articles about online dating. the resulting economic collapse will create a run on arable urban land as millions of useless SWPLs fight to the death for patches of communal gardens to plant their sad kale and heirloom tomatoes.
  • therapy and self-medication will shoot through the roof.
  • heart disease, cancer, and obesity will rise again (or continue the general upwards rise) among men.
  • the rate of infidelity will increase.
  • the rate of divorce will hold steady or increase (we may have hit the divorce industrial complex saturation point).
  • marriage will increasingly be platforms for brides to take selfies and grooms to blubber during the vows. jerkboy best men will be tasked with the job of deflowering any virgin brides remaining in the wilds as the soyfatted grooms recite lines from their favorite feminist poets.
  • fertility will continue declining.
  • the rate of cuckoldry will increase.
  • cat ownership will increase among men.
  • muscle cars will become a distant relic.
  • there will be vanishingly little entertainment made with a straight male sensibility in mind.
  • weird sexual paraphilias and fetishes will rise (those afflicted with declining libido will compensate with outlandish substitutes to bring back that lovin’ feeling).
  • the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions will increase.
  • feminism will get increasingly shrill, and male feminists increasingly servile and pathetic.
  • the population of basement bachelors, cat ladies and bitter spinsters will explode.
  • sexbots will be the only romantic companionship for half the population.
  • high libido men — cads — will reign supreme in the actual sexual market (what’s left of it) as opposed to the pretend sexual market that lonely feminists jabber about during their intersectionality bullshit sessions.
  • androgyny will become the norm.
  • polyandry will be common.
  • polygyny will be rare, but more entrenched. (the few high T men who aren’t eunuchs will have no trouble keeping de facto harems of smitten lovers satisfied and compliant)
  • balls, penises, jawlines, chins, noses, and musculature will literally shrink in men. ears may become floppy.
  • a million sociologists with shitty research papers no one has any intention of replicating will claim that beta male orbiters are our strength. they will write of the virtues of polygamy and the matriarchy, as their civilization burns down around them.
  • no one will ever again speak anything close to the truth about the world, about the sexes, about the races. equalist self-delusion will be taught in schools under the subject “everything but math”.
  • math will succumb soon afterward.
  • art will suck. music will suck. architecture will suck. literature will suck. this will continue a trend long evident. houellebecq may very well be our last great author.
  • tissue boxes will be handed out in movie theaters so that the 70-30 male-female audience may dab their eyes sitting through a full line-up of sappy rom-coms.
  • Mars? Uh, no. More like, the space program will be dead and the androgynes of the future will come to remember the moon landing as a myth promulgated by ancient hirsute men imprisoned in a strictly binary sexuality, who possessed a vestigial feature called a “jawline” and squinted a lot.
  • infrastructure will continue crumbling. instead of doing something about it, everyone will wait for the next tragedy when a bridge fails and then participate in a candlelight vigil and cry a lot. they will repeat this process until everyone is dead from preventable tragedies.
  • John Scalzi will be Premier of this Empire of Aromatase. His rule will not last long. Muslims, blacks, and black Muslims will overrun the Femme West and every capital will ring out with the dulcet ululations of muhammed’s flock.

Recall the Law of Gender Conservation:

∑Masculinity = ∑Femininity

Or, ∑T = ∑E, for short.

Nature abhors a testosterone vacuum. If one tribe’s men has low T, the fapuum will be filled with (in no particular order or likelihood of emergence):

  1. invader men who have higher T
  2. aggrocunts of man-jaw and boy-hip who have lower E (to align with the lower T of their men)
  3. intratribe men with high T who somehow evolved an immunity against the low T disease.

Option one is genocide. Not fun.
Option two is bed death. Not fun.
Option three is our best bet for saving the West. Society will rebound as Nature, in her infinite wisdom, entrusts the low T landscape to high T spermlords who, despite feminists’ faux abhorrence to the contrary, will piledrive a wide swath through a lot of parched pussy that has spent decades lost in an anhedonic wilderness of un-men.

But if we don’t get our borders under control and stop seeding our water supply with endocrine-disrupting chemsexicals, Option Three will never have a chance to pass.

Read Full Post »

A hilarious social experiment unintentionally blew up in the faces of the shitlib academics who ran it when it busted their cherished shibboleths about male privilege and misogyny. An actor and actress were recruited to replay the Presidential debates between Trump and thecunt, except the actor played as thecunt and the actress as Trump, ostensibly to confirm the biases of the liberal academic audience that only anti-woman sexism caused thecunt to lose the election.

Unfortunately for the self-congratulatory libs, their egos were stroked against the grain.

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.


“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.


We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.


We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back.

Male shitlib academics are such nancyboys.

The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

Anti-reality: Male privilege.
Reality: Female privilege.

Feminists and Globohomo poz dealers want you to believe in the anti-reality of MUH MISOGYNY, when the reality is that female privilege is the incessant undercurrent of culture, derived from the fundamental premise that governs all social organization and policy: women are more reproductively valuable than are men. The Fundamental Premise — namely, the biological reality that the sexes are innately different in reproductive capacity and in the psychology that must flow from that reality — explains why, for instance, thecunt actually would have done WORSE on election day if she were a he, and Trump would have done better if he were a she.

Female privilege is getting a boost for being a woman, which is exactly what thecunt got, given how her core natural constituency — smug liberal academics — hated her male version.

The opposite of male privilege — male privation — is closer to what Trump had to overcome; a plain-talking, aggressive, masculine man will frighten away a lot of sensitive shitlib snowflakes, whereas a female version of himself would have lowered his natural antagonists’ defenses and rendered them more open to his message.

This also clues us into why Trump supporters tend to be feminine women and masculine men; both groups are more secure in their healthfully polarized sexuality and thus unlikely to be put off by a male leader behaving as an unabashedly masculine man. Masculinized shitlib females and feminized shitlib males often feel threatened by men (and women) who are closer to the SMV ideal for their sex.

I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.

Generally, people are more accepting of masculine women than feminine men (the latter are bigger traitor risks to the tribe), but neither are loved. Sexual polarity was the God of Biomechanics’ first order of business, and that means we — all of us, whether or not we admit it in heretic-burning company — prefer our women feminine and our men masculine.

I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.

Recall, as uncovered by Jonathan Haidt in his research of the moral priorities of liberals and conservatives, that libs have a more constricted moral universe and are therefore less able to understand and empathize with conservative moral considerations. Conservatives in contrast have a broader and more soundly distributed moral spectrum of concerns that one might call “adult”, (as opposed to liberals’ “juvenile morality” that focuses almost solely on harm and fairness).

I don’t expect any of these eureka moments to crack the libshit facade. The typical post-America libocrite can accommodate levels of COGDIS that would’ve left his lib-lite grandfather a quivering lump of neuroses. No, the only solution to the currently toxic shitlib insanity is a return to the kind of existential pain that can’t be mentally eaten away.

Read Full Post »

The unintended consequences of intervention by homo economicus in the natural order of things materialize in sweeping effects (Communism), and sometimes in what can seem superficially trivial ways: Daylight Savings Time is bad for your health. And health improves once the clock is returned to Standard Time.

Revelations like this one are just more confirmation of the CH axiom that the further humans distance themselves from their evolved predispositions (in this case, from sleeping and waking to their biological circadian rhythms and losing an hour), the worse off their well-being.

The God of Biomechanics always has the last word.

Read Full Post »

Da gbfm and yours truly are on the same lollzolzy page. From Le Chateau, circa 2008:

The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

And here’s da gbfm, this week’s COTW winner, explaining the well-known connection between women and leftism:

hey hertaistetsts!! dA after much study nd reflectionsz like PLATO, da GBFM figured sometinsgz outs eiculicd logicalz!!

why do so many women vote for leftist governmentsz?

because leftist govenerments enforce da Alpha fux beta bucks system at gun point!!

obammasz tellz womenz “if you vote for me, you can ficky ficy and butthext all da thugsz, and i will criminalize white mensz for complimenting your hair in the workplace, and send da police state to grab and sconfisce da BETAs tax dollarsz zlzzlzloo and give them to you and your bastard chcildrenz, if yo vote for mez and da obammsz kangz lozlzoozolzozo”

So true it hurtslzlzlzllolz. Eunucho-tyranny.

more gbfm poetry,

once upon a time
teh great reformes said things like
“a chicken in every pot”
“A car in every garage”
“A family in every home”
todya the eneeoocn berenankerkieisi say, “lotsas cockas in every buttholeelllzlzolooloio lzozozl”

…and in every public bathroom.

PS There’s now a study which has confirmed (years late) both the Heartistian and GBFMian observations of the postmodern sexual/marital markets.

As predicted by a simple model of marital decision-making under uncertainty, we document that adverse shocks to the supply of ‘marriageable’ men reduce the prevalence of marriage and lower fertility but raise the fraction of children born to young and unwed mothers and living in in poor single-parent households. The falling marriage-market value of young men appears to be a quantitatively important contributor to the rising rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing and single-headed childrearing in the United States.

Two cardinal results help to weave these many empirical strands together. A first is that trade shocks faced by the U.S. manufacturing sector—which employs a disproportionate share of male workers—reduce the economic stature of men relative to women. Consistent with this pattern, shocks to male-intensive manufacturing industries are particularly destabilizing to marriage-markets. A second broad result, predicted by our model and strongly affirmed by the data, is that gender-specific shocks to labor-market outcomes have strikingly non-parallel impacts on marriage-market outcomes. Male-specific shocks reduce overall fertility, but reduce it by less among teens and unmarried mothers than among older and married mothers, thereby increasing the fraction of children born out of wedlock and living in poverty. Conversely, female-specific shocks have more modest effects on overall fertility but reduce the share of births to teens and unmarried mothers, thus raising in-wedlock births and reducing the fraction of children living in single-headed households. These patterns are consistent with our model in which a decline in the quality of male partners makes single motherhood a more attractive option to young mothers, while a decline in female earnings potential increases marriage rates conditional on fertility. Netting over the effects of secularly falling male earnings and improving women’s labor-market conditions during recent decades, our model predicts a reduction in both fertility and marriage, a rise in the fraction of children born out of wedlock, and an increase in the prevalence of children living in single-headed and poor households. These patterns are evident in the aggregate data and, moreover, hold as causal relationships within local labor markets when we isolate plausibly exogenous shocks to earnings opportunities overall and by gender.

Chateau Heartiste, January, 2008:

So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.

Female economic independence is the default setting when labor shocks adversely affect the economic and job prospects of men. Single mommery and alpha fux follows from that. The Trump phenomena is as much about working and middle class men striking out against an unfair economic and immigration system deliberately arranged to leave them behind as it is about beta males expressing their subconscious displeasure with the regressive, death match sexual market that has inevitably taken form as they have lost a chunk of their SMV currency.

Read Full Post »


*freeze frame*

Let me tell you why I preen so much. Because ¡SCIENCE! can’t stop slobbing the CH knob!

The Chateau was out there early laying realtalk on the stubborn ears of the eunuchracy about the male enthusiasm for no strings attached sexual release and the opposite female preference for sex swaddled in the comforting confines of commitment.

Now a study had rediscovered the wisdom of the ancients: Women regret one night stands, men regret not having more one night stands.

Feminists have striven for decades to emancipate women sexually, but when it comes to casual promiscuity, the female of the species is still more straight-laced than the male. And evolution is to blame.

The prime lie of feminism is that women are sexually and romantically wired like men. Therefore, the feminist goal of liberating female sexuality from any and all constraints will run headlong into the reality that women don’t do well pursuing the same sexual liberation that men take to more instinctively.

Only one in three women said they were happy about their casual sex experience, compared to more than 50 per cent of men.

However far more men regret saying no to a one night stand than women. Eight in 10 women said they were glad that they had said no to a recent opportunity for casual sex, compared to just 43 per cent of men.

FYI any aspiring womanizer should read this as evidence that it’s the smart move to push a woman for sex sooner rather than later. Waiting too long allows more time for her to rationalize reasons not to sleep with you. Use a Trump tactic and “flood her zone” (double entendre intended).

(The 43% of men who regretted their one night stands were the ones fucking fatties.)

“We’re not saying that there aren’t men who regret casual sex,” added Prof Kennair. “But it is far more common for women to regret saying yes. They are also less unequivocally happy about the experience.

“Women regretted having a one-night stand the most, but they weren’t sorry about saying no at all.”

High cock count sluts have that tell-tale thousand cock stare for a reason: they’re wracked with regret and a gnawing feeling of worthlessness.

Men in the study were also found to enjoy the actual sex more, with more men saying they had achieved orgasm than women.

Feminists BTFO……..by literally thousands of years of common human knowledge about sex differences!

“Due to selective pressure from the big difference in parental investment, one would expect men and women to regret different aspects of casual sex decisions: having casual sex with the wrong partner versus missing a casual sexual opportunity,” the authors conclude in the study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

Men can theoretically father thousands of children and are only limited by the supply of willing, fertile women. In the past those who could reproduce freely could have so many children that it would not matter if some did not survive.

The “scatter-gun” strategy means that the quality of a sexual partner for men does not have to be as high as for women, the study suggests. Men who moved from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.

When Whites and Asians evolved in their high paternal investment environments outside of Africa and its particular selection pressures, the men picked up a stronger discriminatory taste in women because they would be sticking around to help raise their kids. So this evo psych assertion needs trimming to account for race differences in male mate acquisition. Black men honestly will fuck anything, and that simply doesn’t apply to nonblacks to the same degree.

However for women, partner quality is far more important and adding additional sexual partners does not increase their chance of reproductive success.

The BLEEDING obvious.

“Many social scientists expect that in sexually egalitarian cultures such as Norway, these sex differences would disappear. They do not. This fact makes the findings on sex differences in sexual regret in modern Norwegian people so fascinating scientifically.”

Nordic Feminism is a luxury of a decadent people who can afford to entertain lies and fantastical interpretations of human nature.

The researchers conclude that cultural changes since the 1960s have not altered underlying gender differences in how men and women view sex.

The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic human ideals.

Read Full Post »

Fake it till she betrays it. A study found that a woman who fakes her orgasms a lot is also more likely to cheat.

According to a new study, published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, women who regularly fake orgasms were less faithful.

The survey studied 138 women and 121 men in heterosexual relationships and asked them about climaxing and cheating.

While the intensity and frequency of female orgasms had little bearing on whether women had cheated before or were likely to cheat in the future.

But there was a definite link between the number of times a woman faked her climax and how likely she was to cheat.

Women have a dual mating strategy. They evolved to reassure beta providers, and to rock their ovaries with fly-by-night alphas. A woman who is especially skilled at, and motivated to, fake her orgasms is a woman pursuing her dual mate strategy of comforting a lovemaking beta and convulsing with a raw dogging alpha.

Be aware of the female infidelity red flags, especially this giant banner. The healthiest relationships are those entered with clear eyes, full heart, and Girl Two in the kitty.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: