Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

More major Hivemind organs are beginning to accept, or at least grapple with, some core concepts of Game and how men and women interact in the flesh when they aren’t being prodded to chant equalist talking points. The New York Beta Times and even that den of shrikers, Jizzebel, have in their own way, and likely without knowing it, come round to the Proposition long espoused at Chateau Heartiste that romantic love is a glorious biomechanistic function which can be induced with certain premeditated seduction techniques, and that these techniques are especially effective on women who are the sex with an innate holistic appreciation of potential mate quality.

YaReally did such a bang-up job providing the backdrop to this post that I’ll just repost his comment here:

Jezebel admits that PUA works.

…without realizing it. lol The experiment they describe is just smoothly building comfort/rapport and the exercise ends with 4 min of deep eye-contact which is just running standard laser-eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Z4Nq0OrrM

“Catron calls this accelerated intimacy”

Ya, she’d BETTER call it that…because if she called it PUA or Game, Jezebel would shit a brick lol

It’s cute when normal society finally manages to spark a fire with rocks when they actively refuse to use the lighters PUA has offered for years lol

Posting this mainly to link the actual questions they use ’cause there’s a lot of good comfort/rapport building questions in here to swipe.

For reference, here are the 36 Questions that you should ask a woman, in order of increasing intimacy, with the goal of making her fall in love and desiring sex with you:

******

Set I

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

Set II

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

Set III

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling … “

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share … “

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

******

Many of the above questions designed to create a rapid emotional bond with women will be familiar to long-time guests of CH. In fact, they are the EXACT SAME questions discussed in this six-year-old post.

YaReally continues,

Note that they go from silly/fun/light to deep/personal, just like building comfort/rapport should (really you build rapport and then transition into comfort). The first questions are more rapport based. Also there’s a lot of “us VS them” questions (assuming the two of you are together already and reinforcing that), and future projection (assuming the two of you will be together).

There’s also showing vulnerability but it comes AFTER the rapport stuff. The first Set of questions has no vulnerability but the third set has tons of vulnerability. A lot of this creates an emotional rollercoaster done in order too…like what’s your favorite memory (emotional high), what’s your worst memory (emotional low), and back up again after a few more questions.

Really this is rock solid in terms of the results it should give, though it would be weird to execute it in it’s full design in any way other than as a game/experiment. But you could take a handful of these questions and add them to your cheat sheet of comfort/rapport building questions and drop them into a conversation congruently and to the girl it would fell like, as Jezebel says, “and anyone who has met someone and moved fast knows what this feels like: It’s when you want to know someone so quickly and so thoroughly and so urgently that you wish you could do it via osmosis. You want to give of yourself and be given to, equally.” which in logical man-speak means “PUA fucking works, duh.”

“Which makes it worth noting: The experiment sounds like some kind of trick or shortcut to love, but if both parties are well intentioned and in agreement to try it, who is to say what sort of time it should really take to scale this terrain? We all move at our own speed.”

Will have to quote this the next time some feminist is crying that PUA is an evil trick that doesn’t work. lol

lol indeed. I’d also add a ‘heh’.

Also the description of laser eyes was interesting as it’s something I’ve been focusing on over the last year:

“After completing the questions, Catron and her date do the four minute unnervingly deep stare that ends the experiment, which at first involved a lot of nervous smiling, but then got a little more comfortable. She writes:

I know the eyes are the windows to the soul or whatever, but the real crux of the moment was not just that I was really seeing someone, but that I was seeing someone really seeing me. Once I embraced the terror of this realization and gave it time to subside, I arrived somewhere unexpected.

I felt brave, and in a state of wonder. Part of that wonder was at my own vulnerability and part was the weird kind of wonder you get from saying a word over and over until it loses its meaning and becomes what it actually is: an assemblage of sounds.”

Again it’s gay woman-fluff speak, but translated into something you can apply it describes why slowing down your speaking and leaving long lingering silences while you hold the laser eye-contact Liam describes in that video works…the first few seconds (I find it’s around 10-20 seconds) the girl is off in la-la land and then her brain realizes “oh wait, we’re really looking at each other here…” and her words trail off and your conversation switches more to subcommunications instead of surface level communication.

But casual glances or talking so fast you don’t leave tension in the air etc. won’t pass that point where it’s “nervous smiles” and entering that vulnerable “sense of wonder” stage that holding it and leaving silences creates.

Drive with Ryan Gosling is a good movie to check out for laser eye-contact…him and the chick do a lot of sub-communication shit just staring at each other. It’s exaggerated in that movie, but that’s along the right track.

Biggest key that Drive doesn’t do and this experiment doesn’t add is closing the distance during laser eyes. If you lock eyes and slowly close the distance so you get closer to the girl, it sends butterflies in her stomach into overdrive and you can turn that into attraction/sexual tension.

Gambler demos it here at 33:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unuqF4uklE&t=33m35s

She doesn’t fully crack until he takes that last step and closes the space.

This really deep rapport/comfort stuff is what Mystery Method was built around and it’s the reason that Mystery was getting girls to “fall in love” with him, not just want to fuck him. Old school MM game was more about creating multiple-LTRs where the girl felt like you had a special connection she’s never felt with anyone else before etc. than just getting enough attraction for a one-night stand. There were reports of girls breaking down crying when Mystery/Tyler/etc. wouldn’t take their number, which sounds like bullshit until you’ve run this really deep comfort/rapport game a bunch and seen how earth-shattering it is to girls to experience it (especially hot bar chicks who are used to more shallow interactions with people) and taken it away from them suddenly and seen how they flip out and chase lol

I agree with this observation. Men (aka inexperienced betas) underestimate just how few women, and how infrequently those women, get to experience the attention of a man who really knows how to properly seduce and challenge small-talk emotional blockades. A woman who is a gifted recipient of a man’s seductive expertise can fall in love harder and faster than she ever thought possible.

This is also why people I meet feel like they’ve known me for years when we’ve only just met, because I know how to smoothly build comfort/rapport with strangers.

If you’re finding girls don’t stick around for more than one or two lays, or if you want to get into mLTRs, [ed: multiple long-term relationships, for the iSteve readers] experiment with this stuff. But also be aware that if you want casual relationships, you don’t want to use too much of this or she’ll get too attached and drop the Ultimatum sooner than she would’ve if you hadn’t built so much comfort/rapport.

And seriously, go study Mystery Method. Skip the feather boas and black nails, but study everything else. It’s lengthy and dense but it’s the ultimate foundation of understanding this shit.

Mystery Method, first edition, is a compendium of truths about the sexual marketplace and women’s romantic natures that will never go out of style. As Ya said, don’t be put off by some of the outlandish self-promoting of the original playas (OPs). They hit the field and in so doing hit upon deep abiding realities about women and their call-and-response behavior to particular courtship tactics.

Read this post carefully and think about the implications of the message contained in it. ‘Yes, you can inspire a woman to feel love for you by following this flowchart of pretested questions and nonverbal communication, just as the game aficionados have asserted for years’ is not the kind of lesson that will warm the tender hearts of rom-com saturated women or trad-con saturated men. A thousand bromides about the mystery of love and “just being yourself” will need to be jettisoned, to make way for a better understanding of the human universe.

To ask so much of them is practically an exercise in cruelty. You can tell this by the enraged and uncomprehending reaction they have when their polite beliefs confront stone cold reality.

Read Full Post »

First Things peers into the playroom of women’s minds and discovers that women really LOVE LOVE LOVE dominant alpha males and are BORED BORED BORED by beta males, when they aren’t HATE HATE HATING them. Has First Things been visiting the Chateau? Yes.

[W]hat are fans of the Fifty Shades series seeking?

One answer is that there’s a hunger that’s not being satisfied: Namely, for men who are unabashedly masculine, who aren’t afraid to take control, and to lead. That is, there’s a longing (even a lusting) for men who aren’t afraid of what’s classically been called “headship.” To this end, while Fifty Shades subverts Christian sexual morality, it subverts the modern crusade for “genderlessness” all the more.

For the past forty years, there’s been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the sexual differences between men and women. The sought-after utopia is the “truly equal world” envisioned by Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg, in which “women [run] half our countries and companies and men [run] half our homes.” According to this view (and contrary to the scientific data), the differences between the sexes are merely social constructs: the culture is to blame for women being feminine and men being masculine.

The funny thing about “Fifty Shades” is that I doubt the female author set out to subvert “genderlessness”. Rather, she set out to write a book with themes that she knew would be arousing for women to read, because those themes are arousing to her. It’s female hindbrains all the way down (to the vaj).

A reader responds with an optimistic take:

Chicks dig assholes, sure.

But women are aroused by male strength, even when the man is not an asshole.

If people want a moral regeneration of the USA then the key is to restore masculine strength as a virtue to be cultivated and admired.

Good luck with that. Every Western culture vector is pointing to more androgynes of either sex. Have you seen a manboobed new atheist or an iron-jawed feminist lately? They’re everywhere. Have you seen them get raked over the coals by the Hivemind, as a lesson for the others? I haven’t. Rehabilitating these sexless wonders will be like squeezing healthy sperm from a brony. Their anti-human abasement is enabled and encouraged by the megaphonies.

This is possible but will be difficult.  On the positive side, there is a pent up demand there that dares not speak its name.

Exalting masculine strength NECESSARILY means discrediting feminism and trannyism and all the other degenerate freak mafia -isms. The former cannot COEXIST with any of the latter.

(And the PLAYA, echoing St. Augustine, says, yes, ok, sure, some day, but not too soon, maybe in a decade or two, in time for me to retire in safety and comfort, but not yet, the women have to stay loose for a while  … .)

I believe women are aroused by assholes qua assholes because assholes are, above all, INTERESTING men. They aren’t like the mediocre masses of rapidly feminizing beta males. You want masculine, virtuous men of the West? The path to that nirvana is blazed by the swashbuckling assholes.

Read Full Post »

Conventional wisdom has it that raw sluts aren’t the prettiest girls in school. The conventional wisdom is mostly right about sluts. CH has noted (archive hunt alert) that the sluttiest sluts tend to fall within the mediocre to cute range of female looks. Most sluts are 5s, 6s, and 7s. Proportionate to their demographic ratio, there are not as many slutty 8s, 9s or 10s. Likewise, but for a different reason, neither are there many slutty sub-5s.

(I’m using the term slut in its common parlance: A promiscuous girl. This doesn’t necessarily mean she has a lot of sex partners; it could mean she’s impulsive and will sleep with a man on a whim, or jump from boyfriend to boyfriend on flimsy pretexts.)

The disproportionate representation of moderately attractive girls among sluts is a function of being just cute enough to get banged out by alpha males* but not hot enough to get commitment from them. These cute-ish girls are in the gray zone between the uglies who can’t slut it up because desirable men don’t want to fuck them, and the hotties who won’t slut it up because men are willing to give them want they want.**

*Reminder: Sluts haven’t lost their powers of female hypergamous discrimination. They may be quicker to fall into bed, but they’re still not giving beta males the time of night.

**There is a class (a minority) of hot babes — eternal ingenues — who cash in on their looks by acquiring the seed and resources of multiple lovers. Their numbers are few, but their danger to unwary men is considerable.

Some sluts are discreet about their nighttime activities, although they seem to be decreasing of late to make way for what I call the Thirsty Slut, a Declining Empire breed of bed hopper who takes strange pleasure from proclaiming her sluttitude to the world.

As commenter shartiste (nice, bro) writes,

Surely the dark Lord has seen the “I fucked Edelman” photo by now. Further photos revealed her to be a gentleman’s 7. I’d bet it follows some Heartistian law that its always the less hot girls who trumpet to high heavens when they get an alpha dick inside them while the hot ones are more discreet?

Edelman is a Patriots football player. A hot babe who was accustomed to the company of high value men wouldn’t feel a compulsion to publicly announce her role as a passive sexual conquest of a footballer. She has nothing to prove, because her beauty is all the social proof she needs.

But the marginal gentleman’s 7 feels like she has a LOT to prove. Sexy alpha males aren’t a part of her daily life like they are for hotter women. When one of those alphas gravitates into her orbit (or, more typically, she lurches into his orbit) her hindbrain neurons fire a 21 hamster salute and her vagina pops off like a bottle of champagne sitting in the sun all day.

Who knows for certain what’s going through the thirsty slut’s head? Nevertheless, we have clues based on environmental inputs.

– Our attention whore enabling society emboldens her. The “slut” sting still penetrates, but now that the internet is filled with girls hoisting their pummeled pussies aloft like trophies after a big win, the individual slut doesn’t feel so alone and ostracized. Sluttery loves company.

– She thinks (mistakenly) that demonstrating the speediness of her labial parting for sports stars will bring all the other boys to her yard. (It won’t. Preselection doesn’t work for women. It only grosses out relationship-ready men subject to her pubic displays of coition.)

– Maybe she wants to lord it over her equally mediocre female friends in one of those esoteric femme status rituals that make no sense to men. If so, the temporary ego-stroked reward she earns from envious BFFs will be more than paid for by the permanent stain on her SMV record.

– Or it could be as banal a reason as inciting a beloved ex-boyfriend to jealousy. (Note to ladies: This never works on men with options.)

Like her male equivalent — the rejected try-hard beta who loudly insists he “never wanted the bitch” — the thirsty slut is a transparent cartoon of a woman, impressing no one but the mirror and her delusions of social acceptance.

No class, battered ass, take a pass.

As shartiste (two-fer) commented at Goodbye America, the thirsty slut is

…like a dude posting “just bought dinner for Emma Stone” and posting an $800 receipt.

Slut girl = beta guy

Doubleplusheh.

As any man who wasn’t a feeb male feminist or a stepnfetchit white knight would say to the oddly prideful thirsty slut, “Well, OK, that’s great. Now tell us again… what did you get out of it?”

“Edelman!”

Really?

“Sure! He’ll text me any minute.”

Not holding breath.

Why do I call the loud, proud, and indiscreet cock hound a “thirsty” slut? She is thirsty for SOCIAL STATUS. She is thirsty for VALIDATION of her worth as a woman to love. Most conspicuously, she is thirsty for LOVE itself.

This is all female nature 101, but I bring it up because the bigger picture interests me. It seems that in the past few years the frequency of thirsty sluts demeaning themselves in public for a dong hit of attention, and the bravado with which these sluts crow about the achievement of spreading their legs, have increased a hundredFOLD. Not coincidentally, the term of art “slut” has rocketed into the cultural consciousness of late.

Are there simply more sluts now as a percentage of the female population? The available evidence is inconclusive. The population share of sluts appears to be in a holding pattern.

So, again, why the sudden surge in thirsty sluts? I have a theory: It’s attention whore enabling technology plus the EFFECTIVE sex ratio influencing the dating lives of 15-30 year old women that’s provoking mass public sluttery.

Women are natural LOOKATME exhibitionists. It’s in their nature as the sex with the most to gain from displaying their bodies and faces for male judgment. So it’s no wonder high bandwidth social media provides an irresistible platform upon which women may strut and slut.

Now, combine this incredible environmental shock with another: The retreat from the sexual market by millions of men into video gaming and hardcore internet porn. This is what I mean by an effective sex ratio skew. On the one hand, you have obesities effectively shrinking the pool of attractive women available to men, and on the other you have the de facto disappearance of video gaming and wi-fi fapping men from the dating market.

These kinds of mass convulsions in the human courtship mechanism can cause untold downstream consequences that most people are either incapable of grasping or unwilling to contemplate. The inglorious rise of the Thirsty Slut can best be understood as a visceral ragepout by marginally attractive women to a painful contraction in the availability of the greater beta and alpha males with whom women most desire to form long-term relationships.

Read Full Post »

Tucked in the CH archives is a seminal (heh) post on the subject of male sexual pleasure and how it relates to women’s hotness. It was titled “Hotter Women, Better Sex” and it scandalized neophyte ears, and provoked knowing nods from romantically experienced players.

I suspect the people who think that men chase hot girls the most feverishly so as to lord it over other men have an agenda. They want to believe that human nature is not immutable; that with the right amount of peer pressure and fist-shaking at the media juggernaut men’s desires can be altered — tamed — to accommodate their conceit. And pride is malleable where thermonuclear blasts of lust are not.

If, on the other hand, men pursue the best-looking women at the behest of hidden compulsions buried deep in the reptilian cores of their brains, then there is nothing can be done to change this fact of manhood and what it means for less attractive girls.

How your body responds to a woman during sex tells the tale. The hotter I find the girl, the better the sex is, all else being equal.

What followed was a jizzbomb chart positively correlating a woman’s attractiveness with the liquid volume and ejection force of a man’s ejaculation.

Not satisfied with field observations, undersexed nerds demanded SCIENCE. It was supplied:

Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age.

Previous research has indicated that men generally rate slimmer women as more sexually attractive, consistent with the increased morbidity risks associated with even mild abdominal adiposity. To assess the association of women’s waist size with a more tangible measure of perceived sexual attractiveness (as well as reward value for both sexes), we examined the association of women’s age and waist circumference with an index of men’s erectile function (IIEF-5 scores), frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), and sexual satisfaction in a representative sample of Czechs (699 men and 715 women) aged 35-65 years. Multivariate analyses indicated that better erectile function scores were independently associated with younger age of self and partner and women’s slimmer waist. PVI frequency was independently associated with women’s younger age and women’s slimmer waist. Sexual satisfaction was independently associated with men’s younger age and slimmer waist for both sexes. Better erectile function, greater PVI frequency, and greater sexual satisfaction were associated with women’s slimmer waist, independently of both sexes’ ages. Possible reasons for the waist effects were discussed, including women’s abdominal body fat decreasing their own desire through neurohormonal mechanisms and decreasing their partner’s desire through evolutionarily-related decreased sexual attractiveness.

The vigor of the splitter is the smack of the fact. An hourglass-shaped, slender young woman is nature’s viagra, yohimbe, and horny goat weed compound, delivered with a hit of Ecstasy.

Interestingly, there’s a female version of the CH “hotter women = better sex” formula. Reader RosieOnMaChest stumbles on it:

Asshole game!

Women really do behave differently in bed with alphas and betas.

Since adopting a more alpha persona, around 5 years ago. Apart from upping the standard of women I let into my life, I’ve found one other very unexpected bonus…. Sex is a whole lot better and a whole lot wilder.

Once a woman assesses you as alpha, there seems to be almost nothing she won’t do to please you in bed. Two of the current plates have started sticking their tongues into my asshole . Kind of shocked me at first but I guess it’s just a sign of the times.

Sign of the hinds.

This is what I call the “More Alpha = Better Sex” formula, and a chart should help clarify exactly what it measures.

First, an explanation of the variables.

“Moan strength” is the loudness of the woman’s sex moans. Obvi.

“Shakes strength” is how much control over her body the woman loses during lovemaking.

“Pliability” is the woman’s willingness to indulge the man’s sexual fantasies, no matter how freakish.

Presenting… the handy dandy alpha maleness-to-female pleasure chart:

status of man      moan strength           shakes strength        pliability
omega dreg         sounds of silence       zen stoicism             she calls the shots
omega                grunt of annoyance    she can multitask     carbonite rigidity
greater omega    disguised wince         stilted pelvic grind    100 “no”s, 1 “yes”
lesser beta          1db college try          did a muscle tense?   it’s your birthday!
pubertal beta     10dbs (cat meow)      0.1 second toe curl   it’s our anniversary!
beta                   20dbs (puppy yap)     brief shiver               pre-coital BJ
striver beta        30dbs (dog bark)        1 back scratch          doggy style
greater beta      50dbs (black woman)  10 back scratches      mirrors
lesser alpha     70dbs (2 black women)  leg tourettes             cameras
alpha                100dbs (corvette)      dog shitting peach pit   chandelier
supraalpha        150dbs (jet engine)     call a sexorcist         “i am your slave”

There are many reasons for a man to learn game and ascend the ladder of alpha maleness, but one goes unmentioned far too often: The better your game, the more pleased your women will be with your sexual healing.

 

Read Full Post »

The shapes of female figures have real world consequences, for both men’s capacity to experience pleasure and willingness to commit, and for women’s ability to leverage the sexual market to snag a winner man and fulfill their romantic needs. Given that men, unlike women, are neurally primed to get aroused and motivated solely by stimulating visual cues, it’s difficult to overestimate just how much a good body shape assists women in the promise of a healthy and happy love life.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a lie insofar as it presupposes every female body type is equally attractive. They aren’t. Women don’t have equal sexual or marriageable worth. Some body types are better than others. And one body type is so much better than the others that women who possess it can name their price.

The Anti-Gnostic, ruddy and taut from doing a yeoman’s job disinfecting that cistern of stupidity at Cheap Chalupas whenever the subject turns to mass nonwhite immigration, forwards a handy chart illustrating the four five female body types.

He adds for effect,

Female body types: hourglass, pear, banana, apple.

I’d add a body type of “rotund”, given the historically unprecedented numbers of fertile, obese females.

Never bonked an apple or a rotund. Ever. I’ve had some widely variant sexual partners, but if she doesn’t have inflection points that result in a definite waist, the right subinsular is just not going to be firing. No amount of drugs or desperation on earth could get me over that hump.

The recently added Rotund fifth female body type:

Who said America’s inventive spirit is dead? We’ve invented a whole new female body type!

Of the five, rotund is obviously the most disfiguring, and the ugliest female body type. A woman with this non-shape will suffer MASSIVE constraints on her mate choice options. Compared to less celestial women, she will have the least number of men pursuing her, and those who do will be the lowest value men. Her odds of spending many years enduring painful involuntary solitude are very high. Like her male analogue the socially clumsy nerdo, she will likely spend months, perhaps even years, in parched involuntary sexlessness. And any man she does manage to lure into her sticky, bulbous, pitcher plant vagina will be less interested in a longer-term commitment with her than he would with a woman of more human shape.

The Rotund female body type is so bad in contrast with the others that it practically deserves its own graphic. Correction: It needs its own graphic due to screen size limitations. So we boot Violet Blobbybarge into Jupiterian orbit where she belongs, and rank the remaining four female body types in ascending order of attractiveness.

Apple

Not nearly as atrociously repulsive as the Rotund, the Apple nonetheless squats lumply below the other three body types. Top heaviness works for linebackers, not women.

Pear

The Pear is interesting, because much of her sexual appeal or lack thereof depends on the distribution of her fulcrum fat. If her fat sits grotesquely on her hips like a hoop dress, and her ass juts like a National Geographic native, she will turn off more (white) men than the Apple-shaped girl. If she sports an incipient fupa, even worse. The entire deleterious effect is magnified if her narrow-shouldered upper body sways like a swamp reed atop the mountain of fat below.

But if the Pear’s fat isn’t obtrusive, and it rests gracefully and smoothly on child-birthing hips without too much distortion, the Pear can be quite bangable. Unfortunately, most Pears aren’t this lucky.

Banana

I expect this categorization to elicit the most opposition from the penis gallery. Men like curves, and will assume the Pear has more of those boner-inducing curves than the Banana. But that’s not how it always plays out. Bananas have curves that are proportionate to their overall slender body shape. The waist-hip ratio is what counts, not the absolute hip width.

Bananas are your archetypical athletic girls: Tall, slender and built like sex pistons. Bananas are overrepresented among porn starlets, probably because they have the optimal balance of higher testosterone-induced horniness and thin body shapes that arouse male viewers. If the Banana has a narrow waist to complement her lithe hips, and her torso isn’t overdeveloped, she will turn more men’s eyes than the Pear. However if the Banana is tubular, the Pear with pleasing pelvic padding will win more head-swivel contests.

Keep in mind that men with a keen future time orientation who are also seeking relationships will be better at projecting the Banana and the Pear into the future, whereupon they will see with mental clarity what happens to each type of body after ten or twenty years, and the Pear doesn’t come out looking so good under those conditions. The Banana typically holds up better, while the Pear turns into a Weeble.

Hourglass

And here we arrive, at last, to the goddess. My, but she is a tall drink of tumescence. The vast…. VAST… majority of men prefer hourglass-shaped women. Those perfect Playboy measurements — 34/24/34 and mostly unchanged in their boner-popping power since time immemorial — are so desired by men that women with this body type run laps around their sexual market competition.

The Hourglass lady is desired by the most men, pursued by the most high value men, and when pursued is solicited the most frequently by men with offers of long-term commitment. If she is also pretty of face, she has, for all practical purposes, unlimited sexual market options.

***

There it is. Women would do well to understand and accept the visual acumen with which men make their split-second judgment of women’s bodies. Men are frickin electron microscopes in human form when they’re visually assessing women’s figures. A centimeter here, a millimeter there, can mean the difference for women between suffering the awkward sexual interest of a spazzy beta or the passionate love of a smooth alpha. It can mean the difference between waiting for years for an Alex Pareene to propose in cubic zirconia, or weeks for a God of the Rod to gift wrap a bag of Skittles.

Read Full Post »

Animatronic host society leech Bryan Caplan took a break from spreading the ass cheeks of his nation to report on GSS survey data indicating that monogamy remains the norm among Americans.

The problem with sex surveys of this sort — i.e., the kind that ask in no uncertain terms just how slutty (women) or charming (men) you are — is that people lie. They lie to assuage their egos, and they lie to meet social expectations. And lo and behold, there are attenuating studies which discredit to some extent the reported results of sex surveys. This one, for instance, found that:

Men report more permissive sexual attitudes and behavior than do women. This experiment tested whether these differences might result from false accommodation to gender norms (distorted reporting consistent with gender stereotypes). Participants completed questionnaires under three conditions. Sex differences in self‐reported sexual behavior were negligible in a bogus pipeline condition in which participants believed lying could be detected, moderate in an anonymous condition, and greatest in an exposure threat condition in which the experimenter could potentially view participants’ responses. This pattern was clearest for behaviors considered less acceptable for women than men (e.g., masturbation, exposure to hardcore & softcore erotica). Results suggest that some sex differences in self‐reported sexual behavior reflect responses influenced by normative expectations for men and women.

Men overstate their number of partners to a small degree, and women understate their number of partners to a large degree.

Two anti-Hivemind (or pro-Red Pill, if you wish) conclusions can be drawn from this very special insight about human nature:

1. On the subject of sex, women are bigger liars than men.

2. There are more slutty women running around in the world than sexually parched betaboys think.

I’d add that, despite the above GrateFacts, it’s a good bet that lower-N count monogamy is still hanging on as the norm among Eurasian peoples. Well, serial monogamy, at any rate.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Otsuka Duojinshi highlights another great H. L. Mencken quote, this time on the topic of the romantic isolation of the wives wedded to boring beta male providers.

HLM identified a wife’s contempt for the beta/omega precisely:

A woman, if she hates her husband (and many of them do), can make life so sour and obnoxious to him that even death upon the gallows seems sweet by comparison. This hatred, of course, is often, and perhaps almost invariably, quite justified.

To be the wife of an ordinary man, indeed, is an experience that must be very hard to bear. The hollowness and vanity of the fellow, his petty meanness and stupidity, his puling sentimentality and credulity, his bombastic air of a cock on a dunghill, his anaesthesia to all whispers and summonings of the spirit, above all, his loathsome clumsiness in amour—all these things must revolt any woman above the lowest.

HLM, if he were alive today, would wholly cosign Game as a legitimate pursuit for men, because he would understand that improving one’s sexual charisma does a marriage good. Here’s the Wiki on HLM. A lot of notable quotables by the great man!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,174 other followers

%d bloggers like this: