Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

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



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 »

The globalist warehouse of planned obsolescence consumerism, Amazon, uses the same Takeaway Game that Trump and PUAs use to seduce their respective objects of love. Reader Mutant Seven notices the relevant algorithm,

I was howling over today’s post, “Trump’s Takeaway Game.” The takeaway close is a brilliant maneuver and I fall for it every time – even though I know about it! I keep a bunch of shit in my Amazon “save for later” queue, just to monitor the price fluctuations. These are things I want but don’t at all need. (A lot of people must do this, and the Amazon AI overlords must cackle in fiendish glee every time we take the bait.) Let’s say there’s an item in my queue for $10, for example a new pair of handlebar gel grips. I see it at $10 day after day but all I do is stare at it. Then it starts to move. It goes up to $11.29. The next day $13.01. The day after that $14.75. Now I’m legitimately pissed. Shit, fuck, goddamn! I could have had those at $10. Now they’re way out of price. No way! Then a few days later it drops to $9.99. Man, I jump on that baby like it was a magna cum laude grad at Beverly Hills Cosmetology Tech. Bam, it’s mine now! Hahaha!!

Oh wait, I still didn’t really need it.

Works every time.

You can call it a brain hack. I prefer to call it a pussy pry, given that my amazingly prime (heh) consumer base is lithe ladies.

All goal-oriented language has an element of seduction, and Game denialists who support Trump should know they are as much in thrall to their happy manipulation as any “BPD damaged bar slut”. (self-refuting sneer quotes added for effect).

I wonder if something similar to Takeaway Game can be redirected to utterly discredit and socially isolate Jeff Bezos’ anti-Trump rag, the Washington Post-Op? Flood the gynecomasperger social media hives with broken links to “this great Wapo article DEMOLISHING Trump”, wait for unfulfilled ego validation to build, and then “fix” link to point to whatever mildly anti-Hillary article you can dig up on Wapo. A little bait-n-switch mixed with heightened anticipation and higher buying temperature could yield a lot of snapped shitlimbic systems.

Read Full Post »

I’ve argued (in this post and indirectly as a question in the Dating Market Value Test for Men) that raw smarts isn’t especially relevant to a man’s romantic success. A high IQ may help in the mate market, but probably won’t help nearly as much as nerds hope.

The best that can be said for having a quick wit as a man is that it’s associated with perceived charisma, which is sexually attractive to women. (And that’s how I see it in everyday life; the charming men have a silver tongue lubed by white matter to spare.)

Another net benefit of male high IQ may be a slightly increased desirability as a long-term relationship prospect. Women seeking long-term lovers will place greater emphasis on those male character traits that suggest a willingness to settle down and get to the job of providing for her future brood.

Mostly, though, high IQ is largely superfluous to pickup, beyond what it can do to elevate a man’s witty repartee.

Reader zdeno adds to the Heatristian judgment on male IQ and sexual success:

In my mental model of game and genetics, everyone is imbued with two qualities that are both mostly genetic: 1) Natural game, i.e. good looks, charm, athleticism, social acumen, and 2) Ability to consciously improve game through applied effort, i.e. intelligence, conscientiousness, openness to experience.

What percentage of people have the intellectual ability to actually read about and understand the evolutionary background of human female sexual behaviour? Or even just memorize routines?

Style, Mystery, TD and others like them had weak natural game, but could understand and apply theoretical game very well. Someone like gunwitch had strong natural game plus a reasonably above-average ability to apply new concepts.

FYI, old-timer PUA Gunwitch was arrested for domestic assault a couple years ago, if I recall correctly.

So on one hand, you have the anti-PUA’s who claim that game is generally ineffective, attractiveness is immutable, etc. They are idiots. But there are also a lot of new-agey, “all-of-your-limits-are-in-your-MIND” PUA’s who are equally unrealistic. A short, ugly, slow-witted man who dutifully studies game will never out-seduce a smarter, better-looking man who puts in the same amount of effort.

This is generally true (although I have seen instances of dumber men out-seducing smarter men, simply because the former didn’t get caught up in their heads, and had a street urchin’s facility with spontaneous badinage). But I agree with zdeno’s overall point that more IQ — UP TO A POINT — is better than less IQ in the realm of romance. I qualify my agreement because I’ve known too many men with stratospheric IQ who suffered from debilitating personality flaws, like social ineptitude, weirdness, creepiness, or jarring body language tics.


Reader johnny caustic chimes in:

What is the _reason_ why humanity’s most brilliant writers couldn’t figure out what women are sexually attracted to over several millennia?

Well, to be fair, a lot of brilliant writers did in fact figure out what women want. The problem is that their insights keep being ignored by the generations that follow.

Because the markers of a man’s fitness have to be _difficult_to_fake_, so a woman isn’t easily fooled into falling for a less fit man. Evolution programmed women to respond to male behaviors that males don’t recognize as being special at all, because those are the most reliable indicators. Guys wind up thinking that women are primarily attracted to money or looks or expensive cars because they literally don’t perceive the very traits in men that are getting women wet.

Good point. This is why the concept of game is so difficult to grasp for so many; and, in fact, a lot of game principles — like body language, qualification, negs, and kino escalation — are a bit esoteric for the less-than-averagely smart man to comprehend. You can’t improve your attractiveness to women if you have no clue what women find attractive, and if in fact your male cluelessness is an extended phenotype of women’s inscrutable mate selection criteria.

Some claim that Game operates on a premise of flawed female detection. That is, Game exploits a bug in the female mate acquisition algorithm, leveraging the fact that women subconsciously resort to short-cuts and proxy cues to ascertain a man’s alpha bed cred. Now of course, male looks are hard to spoof (although looks can be improved with better framing, i.e., more stylish clothes), but many other male attractiveness traits are spoof-able. (Even wealth. There’s a known pickup trick in circulation involving the use of fake ATM receipts.) Game, under the Flawed Female Detection theory, is essentially a system for changing the optics of an average man to resemble that of an HSMV man with social status, charm, power, dominance, and (perhaps most crucially) ZERO FUCKS GIVEN outcome independence aka sexual market options.

So, a case can be made for the FFD theory, but an equally valid case can be made for the theory that women are perfectly attuned to what they want in men, just as men are, and that a significant part of what women want are men with the charming/asshole-y/jerkish/PUA behavior that Game attempts to deliver. This latter contra-FFD theory rejects the notion that jerkboy charisma is a cue for some other, nebulously related, male trait, and asserts instead that the jerkboy charisma ITSELF is a male attractiveness trait that women conspicuously desire.

This Fine-tuned Female Detection theory of female mate choice elegantly explains why it is not all that uncommon to see a man with no job or looks who somehow manages to hook up with scores of women through sheer confidence and swagger; the attitude he projects is a SELF-EVIDENTLY HOT COMMODITY, because women crave the love of men who act like they know women crave their love.

Read Full Post »

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

Read Full Post »

Once again, SCIENCE! affirms Chateau Heartiste maxims and squats lumply on feminist mythology while unloading a phallus-shaped deuce. A deep state study finds that there’s a neuroanatomical basis for the observed sex-based difference in emotion regulation.

As expected, males significantly scored higher in emotion regulation ability than females did. More importantly, we found the sex differences in the neuroanatomical basis of emotion regulation ability. Males showed a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, females demonstrated a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and rGMV in an anatomical cluster that extends from the left brainstem to the left hippocampus, the left amygdala and the insular cortex. The present study provides the first empirical evidence regarding the sex-linked neuroanatomical correlates of emotion regulation ability. These findings may help understand why there is a higher prevalence of affective disorders in females and maladaptive behaviors in males.

SCIENCE! and CH: dancing the duet of fated lovers. This study literally discovers neurological proof for the truefact stereotype that women are more hysterical than are men. State control…it’s a man thing. You women just wouldn’t understand.

I gotta wonder how self-deluded feminist are gonna spin this latest out-take from the HARDASFUCK sciences?

RANDOM MANJAW: “well, you see, that’s just the patriarchal culture influencing female fetuses and changing their brain wiring.”

THE SHIV OF PRIVILEGE: “is the patriarchal culture also influencing female fetuses to become raving lunatic feminists?”

PS The last line in that study abstract is lethal thoughtcrime (literally). Mood (affective) disorders largely afflict women because their brain structure provides a more fertile (heh) environment for hysteria and related emotional malfunctions to flourish. Men, in contrast, have a sex-specific brain architecture that predisposes them to the opposite: emotion-less disorders that characterize ailments like autism, psychopathy, and anti-social behavior.

PPS The Game relevance should be evident. Tap into a women’s roller coaster emotions and you can guide her to expressing herself in the way that matters most to *your* emotional needs.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: