Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

If you want three kids the natural way, you had better start by knocking up a woman no older than 23. Younger, hotter, tighter, and now with more residual reproductive value! (h/t chris)

If you know how many children you’d like, and whether or not you would consider, or could afford, IVF, a computer model can suggest when to start trying for your first child.

Happy with just one? The model recommends [women] get started by age 32 to have a 90 per cent chance of realising [their] dream without IVF. A brood of three would mean starting by age 23 to have the same chance of success. Wait until 35 and the odds are 50:50 (see “When to get started”).

There’s a cautionary statement at the end of the article that I think worth reposting for all man-hating bitterbitch femcunts who so desperately wish the God of Biomechanics would treat men and women the exact same way.

The information captured in the fertility model is extremely important to have out there. There’s been a lot of publicity recently about the decline in fertility with age – not all of it well informed. This is such an emotionally charged subject with such fundamental consequences, we need to get the message right.

In June, for example, one scientist suggested that women who haven’t started a family by the age of 35 should freeze their eggs. But this doesn’t guarantee a family – eggs don’t always freeze well, and you need to freeze quite a few to give yourself reliable insurance.

It’s also been suggested that all men should have their sperm frozen at the age of 18. That’s even more ludicrous, because while male fertility falls with age, the effects don’t kick in until the late forties.

The biggest Darwinian difference between men and women? Women run out of eggs, men don’t run out of sperm.

Young people today expect to have complete control over their life. The messages about unwanted pregnancy are clear – you can control that with contraception. But when it comes to getting pregnant things are less clear. For most people, it’s not as simple as coming off the pill.

The Pill has distorted the thinking of many urban shitlib women, not to mention corrupted their femininity. The ability to perceptibly sever the connection between womb and vagina has metamorphosed in women an aggrocunt personality and sleazy sexual voraciousness that doesn’t sit well with their sex.

It is our duty to educate people about the decline in fertility with age. There is also a case for providing fertility checks to couples. At the moment, such tests aren’t widely available to healthy people, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t be.

Couples need support so they can start their families early. Women who have children in their 20s are more likely to achieve their desired family size but can also expect lower lifetime earnings than women who start later.

Careergrrls who can’t abide this trade-off will simply see their genetic lineage disappear from the face of the earth. The lower earnings of more feminine, mothering women will be made up in their ability to attract more masculine male providers who are aroused by vulnerable women.

We need to ensure women aren’t disadvantaged at work, and sort the lack of childcare facilities so we can enable young couples to establish their careers and families at the same time.

This is an impossible task. You either have a fertile society, or you have a lawyercunt careergrrl society. Any attempt to reconcile the two on a large scale will end in massive debt overhang and gradual social decay. Western shitlib Whites are gonna have to learn this lesson or take their insipid equalism ideology with them to the darwinian dustbin of discarded DNA.

And there are sexual market disruptors coming that will make the Pill and abortion seem like piker stuff. Just remember, when the sexbot revolution emerges like a kraken from the depths of the robot AI-fake skin-so-soft tech atlantis and sets off the final solution for all of humanity, CH was among the first to warn you.

Gabber @cleisthenes writes that a TradLass revolution is inevitable,

Between trans women dominating their sports and sexdolls (I assume childbearing ones will be a thing eventually) women are going to move to hard Trad positions over the next 50 years. Will be their only option.

A plausible case can be made that social forces now in motion will birth a TradLass reaction the likes of which haunt feminists’ nightmares. It’s not just tranny normalization, the Pill, and sexbots contributing to a potentially society-wide backlass. Assuming current disparate fertility rates between lib and con women continue on the same trajectory, there won’t be many rootless deracinated White women left to bitch about the patriarchy. The gene pool of the future will shimmer with tradly luminescence, and that more than anything will alter the direction of “progress”.

Read Full Post »

Once again, shitlibs who love SCIENCE will have a major cogdis to overcome, because their totem to liberal reason and intellectualism has discovered that babies show racial bias in picking their playmates.

Two white adults divided the toys, one equally and the other unequally.

Seventy per cent of the toddlers chose to play with the researcher who distributed the toys fairly.

But in a second test, when one researcher favoured a white recipient over an Asian one, they picked the ‘fair’ researcher less often, the journal Frontiers in Psychology reports.

And the babies are more likely to help those who share the same ethnicity, which is known as in-group bias when people favour those with the same characteristics as oneself. […]

The study revealed when it came to picking a playmate, the babies seemed more tolerant of unfairness when the white recipient benefited from it.

They picked the fair experimenter less often when the unfair experimenter gave more toys to the white recipient rather than the Asian one.

The researchers say this implies that babies can take into account both race and social history when deciding which person would make a better playmate.

Professor Jessica Sommerville of the University of Washington said: ‘If all babies care about is fairness, then they would always pick the fair distributor, but we’re also seeing that they’re interested in consequences for their own group members.’

I’m really starting to wonder if there’s something to the disparaged evolutionary theory of kin-based selection.

This latest study lines up with a previous study finding that 6-to-9 month old infants show a marked in-group racial preference for own-race adults and for associating nice things with own-race faces.

Technically, babies aren’t racist, they’re racialist. They prefer to play with and to be supervised by own-race babies and adults, respectively. No doubt, further research would find similar preferences among nonWhite babies (for totally shocking reasons, the research to date has focused almost exclusively on the racialism of White babies. Things that make you go HMMMMMM.)

Racialist babies are proof that God loves the separate races and wants us to be happy with our own kind. Libs could use a gleeful reminder at this point of the post that the fact of racialist babies proves racialism is inborn and not the product of social conditioning or patriarchy or White privilege. Our racialism is normal, natural, healthy, and inspiriting. It is also comforting, particularly to the most vulnerable of us. Our beautiful inborn racialism is the product of millions of years of evolution, and it won’t be dislodged by a few decades of shitlib social engineering and anti-White agitprop, nor should it. If freakqualist shitlibs want to abolish Beautiful Racialism, they will have to do it at the barrel of a gun, for they are up against human nature itself, and we know how those Wars to Eradicate Human Nature usually go.

Read Full Post »

It;s not just the low self-esteem, indigent, welfare class white-less girls who dig jailbird jerkboys. A well-off White woman who works for Google, excuse me Goolag, gushes (literally) over prison inmates in this article titled “Prison, Proximity, Pure Humanity”. (CH version: Delinquency + Proximity = Open Vaginity.)

The reader who emailed the link thoroughly cross-examines all its implications, so I’ll repost what he wrote rather than write essentially the same thing myself.

Fodder for your chicks dig jerks and criminals subseries, with a dash of Goolag. A white collar white woman who works for Google and verbally splooshes over the thugs in a California prison.

So, this woman by the hippie name of Sage Moon (she’s white, or maybe happa), who by the way is a full time Google employee, penned the following felon-sploosh essay about her outreach work at a local prison. If you don’t trust email links, it can also be found by Binging or DuckDuckGoing terms like “sage moon prison proximity pure humanity”.

On her LinkedIn, she humbly describes herself as “Story-Teller | Smart-Creative | Global Policy Wizard”. (Have you noticed public female egomania has became socially acceptable, even blase – every woman declares herself Wonder Woman meets Denerys Mother of Dragons?)

Self-glorification is practically a rite of passage for today’s gogogrrl. In stark contrast, men must abjectly renounce their egos and prostrate themselves before the GloboCunt.

By the way, ‘Policy’ at companies like Google usually is the go-to term for the people who deal with PR and government lobbying type stuff…..so this little slice of life may also shine some insight on the sort of employees who are the liaisons between Google and the Democrat party and Deep State.

Web of shrikes.

But I digress. Sage Moon starts by describing her experience with the prisoners: “To call it ‘life-changing’ diminishes my experience. This was soulful. Raw. Nothing but absolutely human at its core.”.

Bet ya she’s never talked about her interactions with the nerds at Google as ‘soulful’ or ‘raw’ or ‘absolutely human’. She drivels on with which bodice-ripping language such as

“Carl never took his eyes off mine, and I never took mine off his. Tears streamed down my cheeks but I smiled through them; I radiated every.single.ounce of love in my being to every man in that room.”.

Chicks need to feel desired by dominant men. When a prisoner locks stone cold killer eyes and unlocks his tongue to speak in powerfully emotive grunts and curses, the woman will feel something she has never felt with the masses of mediocre betas who flit around her inoffensively: she’ll feel vulnerable. Vulnerable and objectified. With no remorse, no apology from the man. What a feeling if you are a woman! It must be as if Lucifer Himself flicked her clit with a bony red finger.

It’s interspersed with sappy song lyrics. Then she talks about how Carl the crook gave her a rose to remember him. You can’t make this shit up.

I know there’s a Chateau maxim somewhere in the archives about one heartfelt cheap display of love meaning more to a woman than expensive vacations and jewelry.

The essay drivels on about emotion and humanity and how ‘we’re all ex-somethings’ (maybe Sage is thinking of her own exes from the carousel?)

So here’s what’s so hilarious to me: she isn’t some poor white trash skank who lives in a no-name town with a big local prison and naught else. If she works at Google in California, she is surrounded by nerdy genius-IQ white knight beta males pulling mid six figures, with the local gender ratio skewed in her favor, I guarantee it. And she’s getting paid to hang out with them 9 to 5.

Beta male nerds should spend some time in jail, or make up stories about jail time. It’ll help them get laid and get loved.

And yet she volunteers to spend unpaid hours on a bus going across the state to go do volunteer work and hang out with locked up thugs elsewhere in California. Then she – publicly, on LinkedIn, her professional social media profile – proudly pens this purple-prose essay about how raw and human it all is. (I’ll bet she was raw, after getting home and spending a few hours with the purple rabbit while she reminisced over Carl.)

When I first saw this, I was reminded of your heartiste posts about chicks and prisoners. If you make a post about this gem, don’t mention my email address in the post, but feel free to quote parts of my email. However my own words can scarcely do it justice – the essay truly speaks for itself, as you’ll see, and I can scarcely make reading between its lines even more obvious than it will be to you or any red-pilled heartiste readers.

Been reading for years. Keep up the party. I’m convinced that the mainstream percolation of terms like cuck and red-pilling all trace back to you. You’ve nudged the needle and Overton window on the culture.

Female nature is so poorly understood by so many men because one, they don’t have a well of experience to draw from and two, they actively fight against the dreary acknowledgment that their romantic ideals are built on a foundation of sand. Or on birth control pills and sappy poems written as odes to hardened inmates.

I’m not claiming that all women will rush to the local prison yard to meet a man, but I am saying that the nontrivial minority of women who do, or who fantasize about doing so, is a leading indicator that all women harbor in their souls an ancient and untamable urge to bend to their knees and break their hearts open to a man who has proved willing to laugh in the face of societal expectation and feminist demands, and to take what he wants without a consent form nor promises of lifelong provisioning.

If the role of man is to dominate, then by the principle of reciprocation the role of woman is to submit. And both sexes never feel more alive than when assuming their proper biomechanical roles.

Read Full Post »

Surplus women.
Male paternal investment.
Female dependency.

williamK explains,

You’re missing an ingredient.

A boner favorable female to male ratio is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for female beauty.

Due to the outsized spermatazoa-to-ovum ratio and the longer sexual market viability of men, you can never truly skew the female-male ratio enough. There will always be men who will give the less good looking women a throw occasionally.

Its not that given the choice of women, men only choose the most beautiful. No. Given the choice of women, men will choose all of them.

Even the ugly, fat woman was 18 and do-able once. (Especially in the evolutionary environment we’re talking with lower obesity rates). And that’s all it takes. She’ll get knocked up and pass on those genes.

What you need is an environment where women are dependent on men. This is most effectively imagined by food. If an African knocks up 50 women, its good for him. The women can gather food for her and the babies. He doesn’t have to see them ever again. An ancient Scandinavian does this, and all 50 women die on the frozen tundra with their fetuses and his genes die. They NEED him to win food for them because they can’t hunt or fish reliably and there’s no gathering to be done. (Now parlay this thought to racial differences in approach anxiety).

It is good ratio, but also male parental investment and female dependence that creates beauty.

Drearily for lovers of Truth&Beauty, the modern Western sexual market may select against the production of exquisite female beauty.

Surplus women?

Nope. If anything, there’s a surplus of men in the West. Infant mortality rates have dropped, technology has brought immense comforts, wars of attrition are largely one-sided affairs now, and there’s been an effective elimination of male-skewed early deaths from hunting and disease.

Male paternal investment?

Retreating. Presumably it’s still an innate disposition in White Western men, but shocks to the functioning of the sexual market have incentivized a gradual shift to caddishness and delayed family formation, especially at the margins where there are men who could go either way (towards a dad or cad lifestyle).

Female dependence?

Nope. This is the big one. As I’ve argued here before, female economic self-sufficiency like we have now in the West creates massive negative feedback loops in the Male Commitment-Female Commitment Worthiness relationship. And as williamK notes, female independence (in which women can feed, house, and clothe themselves) not only pushes women to emphasize fulfillment of their desire for sexy cads, but it pushes men to DE-EMPHASIZE their beta provider skills. Men don’t feel inspired to wife up self-sufficient women; men DO feel inspired to provide for and protect vulnerable women. And in en environment of female dependence, men will be careful to choose the prettiest women they can get, because they will be investing a lot in her. In contrast, an environment of female independence encourages men to spread their seed indiscriminately, because the pressure to provide for careergirl yaass queen shrikes has diminished.

Executive summary: The West is currently selecting against the efflorescence of female Beauty and selecting FOR the effluvia of female Ugliness.

Literally feminism means more ugly women and fewer beautiful women. Feminism is the ideology of Ugliness.

PS I have to disagree with one point williamK makes about men being willing to fuck anything that moves. It isn’t true. Like I’ve said before, I wouldn’t get carried away with this glib smear of male looseness. Eurasian men do have standards, which they exercise even when the have effectively limitless options in mate choice. Fat, ugly, and older women really do suffer a romantic and even sexual penalty in the modern dating market. So I’d amend williamK’s comment to say that a sex skew favoring men CAN be sufficient to move sexual selection toward producing more beautiful women, but that for maximum effect the emergence of widespread female beauty requires all three preconditions — female sex skew, male paternal investment, and female dependence.

Read Full Post »

Nestled in the quaking bosom of the Chateau comment section was a discussion about European female beauty and why it seems more often to float down from the mountain than emanate from the plain. I suggested that hot spots of female beauty from around Europe (and yeah sure the rest of the crappy world too) be labeled Boner Zones, riffing on the Blue Zones where the healthiest people live. Although now I’d like to change that term to Bone Zones, for its symmetrical quality.

for reasons that are a bit beyond my ken atm, striking white female beauty seems to emerge more often and with greater intensity of flourish from mountainous regions. though not always. if we designate hot spots of white female beauty — call them Boner Zones — then the big three would be the Italian Alps, the Ukraine steppe, and the Baltic seacoast.

A reader emailed with a reply addressing the likely causes for the eruption (heh) of Bone Zones in particular geographic and historical regions. Bottom line: it’s the sex skew.

Remember, ABD: Always be Darwinian.

Why would female beauty emerge anywhere? Because there is a shortage of men, and women have to compete for men, which is not the usual thing. Where do women have to compete for men? Where the men are engaging extremely dangerous occupations and lots of them get killed, occurred in Northwestern Europe over the centuries. Working in the mountains, logging, mining, fishing in the North Sea, all very dangerous ways to make a living. Or in places where there has been sustained violent conflict and huge numbers of men were killed off. Beautiful women in Kiev? World War I, Red Revolution, Holodomor, Great Purge, Barbarossa, Nazi occupation … . All of Eastern Europe is similar. The Baltics were especially hard hit.

Female beauty is nature reasserting life and fertility in the face of bloodshed and slaughter.

That’s a great final insight. Beauty is the flower of bloodshed.

At least for some peoples and places. Has endless bloodshed in Africa given rise to female beauty?

Generally, though, there does seem to be something to the hypothesis that native White European Beauty is unique in the world and uniquely arose from an environment that became the premature resting place for millions of its young native men, resulting in a veritable pornucopia of pussy for the men left alive who did what men naturally do with a surfeit of choice in women: they chose the hottest, youngest, tightest, and had a lot of kiddies with those proto-HBs.

I hate to leave a post viewed through a soft focus lens, so here’s a jarring depth-of-field corollary to whet your inner masochist:

In regions and in times that there isn’t any culling of men, and the sexes enjoy a stable, long-lasting 50:50 ratio that restricts male choice and in which women don’t have to compete for the hordes of thirsty betas begging for cummies, women evolve to become……

uh oh…..

uglier.

Does this corollary remind you of a specific time and place?

If we are fated for Civil War 2, one upside is that in the aftermath white female beauty may return to the land of the twee, home of the knave.

Read Full Post »

I’ll make the brief case here that the cuntventional wisdom is wrong about porn. It doesn’t raise men’s standards in real life women by visually and orgasmically acclimating them to hotter women; it lowers men’s standards by supplying an outlet of multiple hot digiwomen into which men spill their vitality and leaves them unmotivated to spend any energy acquiring a sole fleshwoman of impeccable femininity.

Porn probably raises the aggregate beta male thirst, and probably also raises the aggregate beta male disgust threshold for acceptable mates. (The higher your disgust threshold, the more you can tolerate a disgusting presence in your life.)

The old feminist-inspired argument goes like this:

Man watches porn featuring slender babes catering to his fantasies. This adjusts his expectations upward for real life women, because he can now only get off to women who are as hot and sexually voracious as his Redtube Lovers. He drops out of the dating market dissatisfied with the IRL heifers available to him.

Sounds plausible, but it’s (mostly) wrong.

The new and improved Chateau argument:

Man watches porn featuring slender babes catering to his fantasies. This reduces his urgency to find a sexy real life lover, an urgency which he would normally feel absent the steady stimulus of porn. Blue balls and T build-up that would occur in a pre-online porn environment act together to focus and energize a man’s sexual standards, because he’s not going to blow his one chance for sexual relief on a heifer or bitterbitch feminist. So he hunts for prime pussy with a starving man’s clarity of vision and intensity of purpose. But the porn-saturated man has lost that clarity of the hunt, and, depleted of his T, settles into a low energy, passion-less relationship of convenience with whatever skank or cow roams into his field of view. Or, if cowfraus are his only option and he has a shred of dignity left, he’ll commit to a lifetime stay in his masturbatorium.

This therefore is the negative double-whammy of widespread, cheap, easily available, hardcore online porn on the healthy functioning of the sexual market:

Porn simultaneously increases sloppy beta male thirst and decreases beta male standards.

The downstream effects of porn are notoriously bad for lovers of feminine Beauty: recklessly insincere beta male thirst bloats the egos of an ever-expanding horde of self-entitled fatties and sluts, and loose beta male standards discourages fatties, fugs, and unfeminine skanks from making themselves more pleasing to men.

Porn is beta malaise. Betalaise. The lethargy of body, mind, and spirit that porn induces in men, but especially in beta males who don’t have regular access to 3D hot babes and must live with the dreary knowledge that their pornlife is less a complement to an active dating life than it is a necessary substitute, dulls their seductive allure, atrophies their courtship skills, and weakens their internal drive to win the love of a sexy hot girl. The pornfed soyboy is content hitching his rickety pisswagon to an unfeminine careerist shrike or gargantuan blob because his porn habit rescues him from abject sexual starvation and the motivation to fill his ballbelly.

Delivered from the brink of sexual starvation by the drip drip of pornified dopamine hits, the betalaise sufferer misses out on the starvation-induced mental energy and clarity that would suffuse his loinsoul and push him inexorably towards conquest of a worthy woman. His hunger thus partly sated by porn, he surrenders his day-to0-day public existence to the passion-free comforts of a sluggish, insensate coupling with an uninspiring unwoman who is easy to keep around and who will by her dull presence slap his life story with the imprimatur of bourgeois respectability.

Related concept: Hormesis.

Read Full Post »

It’s reasonable to assume porn slakes beta male thirst. The more betas get their rocks off online, the less motivated they’ll be to effortcourt live girls. A spent and sated man should, given this simple formula, behave less needfully in the company of women. His ZFG heartlight will shine, and he’ll never thirst for female attention.

Generally, this is true, but on the condition that the satiety comes in the form of real sex. Porn, as a simulacrum of real sex, may paradoxically have the opposite effect on a man’s thirstiness. Richard James explains,

Video games and porn are part of the problem. Character comes from working or waiting for whatever it is you want and I would say the broadest weakest of western man is a lack of patience. Being instantly gratified causes people to behave more desperately I’ve seen a man lose his rag at a microwaveable meal taking a whole 6 minutes. First world problems.

In addition to that the old workhorse can’t have a decent house, a job for life and a loyal wife with only one string to his bow. The one-dimensional, the aspie and the bland all lose to the multi-faceted modern man with his many irons in the fire.

RJ gets at something profound here. The instant gratification that porn provides is definitely part of the beta thirst equation, but it goes deeper and broader than that. I’d say the relevant variables are:

instant gratification
+
uninspiring real life options (compared to porn stars who can’t say no to betas)
+
diminished admiration for women (the red pill is a bitter swallow)
+
atrophied seduction skills
+
reinforced feelings of sexual worthlessness

Those last two imo are the biggest contributors to beta male thirst. Unzipping, gripping, and jizzing, all in a three minute window, destroys a man’s motivation to learn and practice the art of seduction (a much slower process than porn-facilitated release, even under the exceptionally favorable circumstances of perfectly run Mystery-style Game that takes a girl from meet to meat in seven hours). Over time, the porn-addled beta male’s seduction skills will atrophy, to the point where he’ll blurt out thirsty solicitations such as “god yr so hot, I would treat u like a queen”. Men who have dropped vats of seed to porn will inevitably get sloppy in their real life pick up attempts, because they will have been drained of the vital masculine elixir that drives them to excel at the pursuit of women and to sharpen their bantz to be more alluring to women. (Think of Idiocracy, except as a warning on sexual dysgenics rather than intellectual dysgenics. Porn decreases the average seduction IQ of its male users. Call it Creepocracy.)

The last one — feelings of sexual worthlessness — is the rocket fuel of thirst. Porn tricks the brain into thinking the body has scored a hot willing chick up for anything in the bedroom, and dopamine hits follow in staccato bursts. But the brain is not so thoroughly fooled for long. The Darwinian imperative has inserted mal-aware into the limbic code that activates when the reproductive fitness algorithm senses the reward circuitry is connected to a chafed hand rather than a moist vagina. A subconscious ping of despair accompanies the fap act, and the beta can’t help but over time feel sexually worthless, knowing as he must that his recourse to porn strongly suggests he has failed at acquiring the real deal.

To answer the title of this post, porn exacerbates beta male thirst. Porn whittles a man’s courtship skill, and porn reduces a man’s feeling of sexual worth. The two factors combine with an unregulated sexual market teeming with delusional, entitled fat girls and unfeminine careerist shrikes to create a beta and omega male Thirst Monster that has neither the inclination nor the emotional continence to avoid thirsty displays of low sexual market value.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: