Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Women prefer to lay with taller men, generally. There is a visual dominance aspect to this preference that synchronizes with the female craving for men who are socially and psychologically dominating. In short (heh), women like the feeling they get when they literally and figuratively have to look up to men.

Less remarked upon is men’s preference for women smaller than themselves. Far from universal, it is nevertheless a common sight to see a taller/larger/fatter man with a shorter/smaller/thinner woman. Much more common than seeing the inverse.

It used to be thought that the latter was simply a consequence of the former; that is, women choose to be with bigger men than themselves and since women are the choosier sex men don’t choose smaller women so much as men end up with smaller women who have chosen them.

But what if the preference for sex-based size differentials goes both ways? What if men prefer smaller and thinner women as strongly as women prefer bigger men?

Reader Ironsides speculates that, if it exists, a male preference for smaller women is probably an evolved predilection that harkens back to a distant time — and which remains salient today — when size was the integral factor of tribal dominance.

[A smaller woman] also might instinctively indicate a person who won’t be constantly fighting the man for dominance. Instinct may not be fine-grained enough to distinguish a large, muscle-bound creature from a large, blubbery creature. It simply perceives enough bulk to indicate the mass necessary to challenge the male for leadership of the family/pack.

Kind of like how most guys won’t get in an LTR with a woman taller than they are — and how they often seem to be the subject of mockery or scorn when they do. See, for example, the view of Scalzi’s home life on this site.

Scalzied’s wife is not just taller than him, she’s bigger too. She looks like she could break Scalzi over her knee. And he’s the type of blobby shitlib goober who’d brag about that.

A large female may simply trigger a hard-wired “rival, not mate” reaction, even if the largeness is helpless blubber rather than muscle. Or at least, triggers a “what is it?” reaction from the instincts, which might be even more fundamentally unsettling than a straight-up “this is a rival” response.

So men have two good subconscious Darwinian reasons to reject fat chicks: fatties have lower fertility, and can be mistaken for dominance rivals. Or resource hogs (heh).

It’s an interesting supposition, but I think it goes even deeper than Ironside’s Fatties As Assumed Rival Theory (FaART), to the sexual dynamic always present between man and woman. Smaller women (relative to the man they’re with) appear more vulnerable and in need of protection. This female vulnerability adds a layer of pleasure to a man’s arousal, because men (White men at least) have evolved a wintry instinct to provide for a woman and any children they may have together. Big ol horsewomen don’t trigger that response in men. That’s why betafag low T losers like scalzi glom onto amazons….those kind of weak men prefer to be in the role of the vulnerable partner, mentally fapping to their own powerlessness.

All these calculations are subconscious (or fleetingly conscious). The grunt work to ensure our reproductive success on this earth is done by the tiny imbued survival and replication motors in our hindbrain architecture built and powered by our genes. On the poolside level of awareness, it’s all about the custard cannon. Men don’t like big-n-fat chicks because they look disgusting and sex with them feels gross. That’s really all the justification the God of Biomechanics needs to get His dirty work done.

Read Full Post »

Submitted for your judgment: A photo of four — two women, two men — preserved in a ripely evocative group pose begging for a body language analysis.

We’ll start with the men.

USA Hat: strong posture, shit-kicking boots, no toothy smile, no hoverhand (his hidden hand might even be snugly nestled in the small of the woman’s back), contrapposto standing pose (this is the iconic alpha male pose when standing in place), the fist is a little try-hard and cheesy but it works as an accessory to his general aura. Most telling: he has no discomfort pressing his body and her body together for the camera. A subatomic particle couldn’t wedge itself between those two. Bonus body language cue: there’s a subtle, yet jam-packed with sexual polarity, power dynamic in evidence: she’s practically motor-boating his pecs. VERDICT: ALPHA MALE

Paramilitary Peacocker: feet pointing straight ahead and nearly heel to heel in a casual setting indicates some discomfort with his surroundings, arms clasped tightly behind back add to the overall impression of closed body language indicating that this man is uneasy in this free-wheeling social environment and doesn’t want his body intruding in the physical or sociosexual senses. The un-toothed smirk is a plus as is the Eastwoodian squint, but the facial confidence is betrayed by his body leaning into the group. If you’re worried about getting cropped from a photo, don’t lean in; just position yourself closer to the center of the pack, even if it means physical closeness that stresses you out. VERDICT: RECENTLY WOKE AND WILLING TO LEARN BETA MALE

Now the women:

Blondie: Easy natural smile, relaxed posture. She’s executing a three-quarter turn which means she’s not too solipsistic for a woman (the self-absorbed women tend to stop whatever they’re doing and turn to pose conspicuously and dramatically for the camera), the three-quarter turn with one knee bent also reveals an underlying feminine warmth that I bet translates to a preference for bedroom intimacy…and note to whom her bent knee is pointing (USA! USA!). This broad looks like a lot of fun at a party, the type of girl who’d scamper around making everyone feel at home. VERDICT: ALPHA FEMALE BASED ON LOOKS ALONE

High Contrast Ravenette: Her smile is a mystery novel, evoking at once consternation, callousness, mischief, and a volcanic smoldering sexuality. Her MAGAma is about to blow. All she needs is to find that man with enough T in the tank to scale her summit, peer over her precipice, and with a cocksure grin coax a mighty eruption from the abyss that is her tightly wound womanly soul. And from the body language assessment I have provided so far, that man won’t be Paramilitary Peacocker. Bonus body language clue: look closely and you’ll see she’s matching USA Hat’s contrapposto pose. Mmmmhmmmm, awww yeeeeahhh. VERDICT: ALPHA FEMALE BASED ON LOOKS ALONE

PS Big ups to both women for keeping their hair long and their tats, if they have them, away from their necks and faces. It’s almost too much to ask of women nowadays, ain’t it?

PPS Ladies, ladies, don’t knit your delicate brows. You should feel honored to place among the women who have served as CH muses. Seriously.

Read Full Post »

Regularly dating young women in their nubile prime and having long-term relationships with some of them can provide unexpected jolts of depressing reality delivered through ordinary objects that provoke intense bouts of rumination.

Most modern couples have photos of themselves from the time they first met, usually of them hanging out, all smiles, with a group of friends. The pre-relationship photo montage is a peculiarity of the digital photography age; photos of couples spontaneously enjoying each other’s company in the dawning of their love would have been much rarer before the camera phone became ubiquitous. This is why you hardly have any photos of your young parents or grandparents drinking in a bar with their friends celebrating some urban slut’s birthday. It used to be that couples’ photos pretty much began and ended with their marital careers.

I’m thinking of this seemingly trivial sexual market phenomenon as I write this post. More than once when I’ve been balls deep in a relationship I’ve been stopped in my tracks by a passing glance at an early photograph of the both of us that my lover had framed and prominently displayed on a dresser or somesuch. I’d look at this photo and even if it was taken only a year earlier I could discern the greater glow of youth in her appearance to what she exuded in the present. For most women, three years difference is enough to notice the quick fade of their late teens-to-mid 20s youthful allure, and the noticing becomes worse the further past prime nubility she has time traveled.

The photo juxtaposes tragically with a man’s greater SMV longevity compared to women’s SMV lifespan. This is the curse that shadows any man who has skin flute in the game; if you are still capturing and amplifying flirty vibes from fresh cleft, then that haunting “pre-relationship photo” with your steady will have you questioning whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the schwing-less sorrows of restricted options, or to take arms against diverging values, and by leaving reset them.

This was an ugly post, but it needed saying, because the world has become a playground for platitude pushers, and more than ever the services of borderline sadists are required to fight back against the plying of the lies. The feminized West needs this Chateau reminder of the tremendous unheralded sacrifice that men make when they commit to one woman…a sacrifice that isn’t measurable by econometric formulae or social science r-squareds, but that is just as significant as the sacrifice women make for motherhood or soldiers make for their country.

Read Full Post »

SCIENCE SAYS!: Noodle-armed bitch-tittied nü-males are more likely to be shitlibs.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology.

“This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” said Dr. Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

I know, try to contain your shock. But this is SCIENCE, the beloved snark totem of the shitlib self-holding company, speaking authoritatively on a topic that causes shitlibs to spontaneously menstruate and temporarily forget that ¡SCIENCE! can and often does radically undermine their globohomo worldview.

I’m surprised shitlibs have so desperately allied themselves with the SCIENCE abstraction, given how incredibly easy it is for subversives like yours unduly to rhetorically hang shitlibs with their own professed faith in SCIENCE. “You’re a fan of science, libmanlet? Good for you! So tell me, what are your thoughts on the science of physiognomy and innate race and sex differences?”

Predictably, the mass cucking of America over the past few generations has allowed shitlibs the luxury of wrapping themselves in the cloak of SCIENCE because there have been — UNTIL NOW — so few shitlords willing to id-slap the neotenous SCIENCE crowd with findings that cut against the equalism and magic dirt narratives.

PS “Science not Silence” is the latest mystery bleat canard shitlibs have adopted to virtue snivel to their fellow shitlibs in their all-White hipster doofus gentrified enclaves. Like I said, this is a shitlib own goal as long as the Maul-Right is around to remind everyone what SCIENCE has to say about subjects that science-hating shitlibs would rather ban from public discourse.

Read Full Post »

The Chateau is long on record observing that a man’s force of personality — his charisma — is a powerful lure for women. As women are unlike men in some very fundamental aspects, it benefits men to understand which ways women differ from men and to tailor their seduction technique to press women’s particular arousal buttons.

One major difference between the sexes is the emphasis each places on desirable traits in the opposite sex. Shortly and sweetly, women are holistic mate evaluators, men are visual mate evaluators. Women want the whole package, but are especially aroused by men with intoxicatingly jerkboy-ish attitudes who stand apart from the masses of “So what do you do for a living?” beta males. Men want hot babes, end of story. More sweetly:

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.

Male power is projected through various social cues, including dominance (over men and women), humor, confidence, cockiness, entitlement, wit….and creativity. All these traits fall into the “male personality” category, which broadly speaking one can call “charisma”, which is why the CH “Dating Market Value Test for Men” includes questions such as:

13.  When was the last time you went to a house party?

Within the past month:  +1 point
Between one month and one year ago:  0 points
Over one year ago:  -1 point

14.  Have people besides your family called you funny?

None:  -1 point
A few have:  0 points
Nearly everyone who knows me:  +1 point


21.  You’ve just met a cute girl in a club and have been talking with her for five minutes when she abruptly changes the topic to a raunchy conversation about her multiorgasmic ability.  You respond with:

(A) a huge grin and an eager “Damn! That is HOT!”
(B) a look of mild disdain.
(C) a raised eyebrow while saying “Hey, thanks for the medical report.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.


In the ruthless world of the mating game, plain-looking men instinctively know that being funny, smart or poetic helps to compensate for a less-than-stellar exterior.

That gut feeling has now gained scientific validation from an unusual study published Wednesday.

Average-looking men become more alluring when women sense the man has an imaginative spark, it found.

Charisma can vault an average beta schlub past hunky men and into the hearts of women. This is vindication of a core CH concept.

But for women, sadly, there may not be the same boost.

Indeed, one experiment suggests that less attractive women even worsen their mating chances if they show mental zing.

This too is vindication of a core CH concept: men don’t much care about women’s wit and wisdom as long as she lookgood. In fact, men are a little bit TURNED OFF by women who have interesting personalities that could make the men’s personalities seem lame in comparison. (The same happens with wealthy or over-educated women; men don’t like to be with women whom they perceive as competitors, or as possessing traits in sufficient quantity and quality that diminish the attractiveness value of those same traits in men. This is why it’s arousing to men when women seem vulnerable and admiring.)

The results showed that men with less attractive faces get a big boost in the popularity contest if they show a creative touch, Watkins found.

“Creative guys with less attractive faces were almost identical in attractiveness to really good looking guys who were not as creative,” he told AFP in a phone interview.

Male smarts are pointless for attracting women unless those smarts are put to use crafting an intriguing, creative personality. In other words, more storytelling, less logical explaining.

The top-ranked men were those considered to be both physically attractive and creative.

Also does not contradict CH teachings. Looks matter less for men’s romantic success than they do for women’s romantic success, but that doesn’t mean male looks don’t matter at all.

For women, though, the news is not so good. Looks remain paramount.

In one experiment, creativeness did nothing to boost the allure of attractive women — and it even reduced the appeal of less attractive women.

I enjoy being with witty funny women….who are super cute. But that’s because my wit and humor is at the infinity-eth percentile. The point being, the stablest, happiest relationships are those in which the man is superior to the woman in all ways except looks. Women want….NEED…to look up to a man to feel love for him. Men want….NEED….to know that a woman is looking up to him to feel loved by her.

Why would women rate creativity among men so highly?

Watkins pointed to evolutionary biology — the hidden criteria that drive us to seek the best mate for ensuring healthy offspring and their survival.

“Women on average are a more selective sex when it comes to choosing romantic partners,” he said.

Imagination and inspiration may be “a proxy for intelligence,” he suggested.

“Creativity is thought to be a signal that an individual can invest time and effort into a particular task or can see things in novel ways that may be useful for survival.”

Evolution works on the human hindbrain by hiding its intentions. Women aren’t thinking “Oh, I really want to sex with a high IQ man who will be better at providing for our future children”; what they’re thinking is “Wow, this man makes me feel great. He’s so funny! Wew is that a love puddle in my yoga pants?”

That means nerds and poets are at a big disadvantage in online dating, where decisions to swipe left or right — to shun or show interest — are often based on just a glance.

“Certain platforms that we have now for dating might not be favourable for assessing people on more complex attributes,” Watkins said.

This is another vindication of a CH tenet: online dating severely restricts the range in which men can display their mate value to women. Use online dating as an appetizer, never the main meal, especially if you aren’t a top 5% man in the looks department. If you’re an exclusive online dater, you are handicapping yourself if you’re a man with that ineffable jerkboy charm that women crave in doses of close physical proximity. It’ll be much easier for you to get across your charms face-to-face than through the Zuckerborg Dehumanization Autistoportal.

Read Full Post »

Story. It won’t be long before genes linked to race differences in behavior and intelligence are identified.

Are equalist shitlibs feeling like this:

or more like this?:

Bonus shitlib cogdis BTFO: Our common chimp ancestor may have been from Europe rather than from Africa.

Read Full Post »

The anti-White miscegenation propaganda pushed by Pedowood, marketing departments, ad agencies, and Globohomo, Inc appears to have had an impact on Americans’ mate choices. I have noted recently that I’ve observed an uptick in mixed couples in both red and blue towns. The numbers coming from Pew Research vindicate the focus of my eagle eye.

More and more Americans are marrying people of different races and ethnicities, reaching at least 1 in 6 newlyweds in 2015, the highest proportion in American history, according to a new study released Thursday. Currently, there are 11 million people—or 1 out of 10 married people—in the United States with a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of US Census Bureau data. This is a big jump from 50 years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled interracial marriage was legal throughout the United States. That year, only 3% of newlyweds were intermarried, meaning they had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity. In 2015, 17% of newlyweds were intermarried.

“There’s much greater racial tolerance in the United States, with attitudes having changed in a way where it’s much more positive toward interracial marriage,” Daniel T. Lichter, [ed: ((()))?] director of the Institute for the Social Sciences at Cornell University, tells the AP. “But I think that a greater reason is the growing diversity of the population. There are just more demographic opportunities for people to marry someone of another race or ethnicity.” Researchers say Asian-Americans were most likely to intermarry in 2015, with 29% of newlywed Asians married to someone of a different race or ethnicity, followed by Hispanics at 27%, blacks at 18%, and whites at 11%.

Don’t get too excited about that relatively lower outmarriage rate among Whites, because the absolute size of the US White population means that Whites will have a lower outmarriage rate compared to nonWhites who are (for now) demographic minorities. If there are 10 marriageable asians and 100 marriageable Whites and three couples are asian-white mixes, then that means a 30% outmarriage rate for asians but only a 3% outmarriage rate for Whites.

A few thoughts:

I’m not surprised asian-Americans outmarry at the highest rate (and I presume most of those marriages are asian women to White men). Culturally and educationally, and probably genetically, there’s less distance between asians and Whites than there is between blacks and Whites. Asian women love White men (OkCupid data revealed that asian women respond at a higher rate to White men than they do to asian men).

Asian women are also, on average, thinner than their White female counterparts, and I can’t impress upon women enough that men, especially high value White men, really HATE HATE HATE the thought of sex with a fat chick. The obesity epidemic is pushing a lot of White men away from White women and into the yellow fever swamps.

The de-masculinization of White men and de-feminization of White women are two trends accelerating the outmarriage of White men to asian women. White nerds who get nowhere with White women will find a more receptive audience among asian women, whose own men are uber-nerds in comparison. If a White nerd wants to feel like Adonis (or any Gentile God Hero), he’ll hitch himself to an asian woman.

“Asian” is a broad category. Are ching-chongs, kimchees, and nips the predominant outmarriage culprits, or is it the flips, gooks, and pakis? Clarity in all things.

“Race or ethnicity” is also a broad category. If interethnic marriages are included in the total outmarriage rates, then that would sweep up all the intermarrying White ethnics — Poles with Dutch, Irish with Germans, English with Italians, etc — which is to say the least a very misleading lump-stat intended to demoralize Whites into believing there’s been a massive uptick in Whites marrying nonWhites. As a commenter at the linked article put it,

Hmmmm … so does this mean that the marriage between my wife, a Scottish-German-Irish American, and me, a Franco-Italian American, is counted as a “marriage between different races or ethnicities”? If so, then I think your “1 in 6” statistic is ridiculous, because it has nothing to do with race. In particular, Americans have been marrying across ethnic lines for generations. Virtually everyone in my family has married someone of a different ethnicity since the 1940s. I therefore find it extremely hard to believe that marriage rates across ethnic lines in America have increased much in the past 50 years, since they were already high 50 years ago. That said, if what you really meant to say is that marriages across racial lines have increased greatly in America and are now 1 in 6, that fact would be significant. So did you mean that 1 in 6 American marriages now cross “racial” lines? Or just that they cross “racial or ethnic” lines? And if the former, why didn’t you simply say so? And if the latter, why report this at all, since it’s not news?

FYI, a big reason “White nationalism” is more salient in the US is precisely because of all the marriage across White ethnic lines over the generations, which has literally decreased the genetic distance (and therefore the cultural distance) between American Whites. Paging MPC

Diversitopia™ may influence outmarriage rates (the argument being essentially, options = instability), but I wonder about that. The pre-Civil War black percentage of the US population was higher than it is now, but outmarriage between whites and blacks was virtually nonexistent then. However, a “raw numbers” argument for Diversity itself boosting outmarriage may apply if the racial minorities are closer to the White gene/culture norm. The huge influx of invader hispanics in the past thirty years must have been accompanied by a concomitant rise in hispanic-white couplings.

There are hispanics and there are “white hispanics” (aka diaspora Spaniards). I’d bet a lot of the hispanic outmarriage is with blacks, and the outmarriages with Whites are to phenotypically European Spanish-speakers. Few White men not named ¡Jeb! Bush are hitching themselves to squatemalans.

NOWSS (no one wants soul sisters).

Readers have asked, “tell us how you really feel about miscengenation?”. At the individual level, if deep love is truly the motivating principle, then godspeed to those mongrels. But even those lovebirds should know that they are putting their families through a lot of silent pain, and they might flinch a little inwardly if they gave serious thought to the disruption of their genetic and phentoypic lineage if they had kids. Aesthetic continuity matters; mongrelization destroys in one fell splooge thousands of years of evolutionary refinement.

That aside, my real beef is with the miscegenation propaganda pushers. Let love flower where it may, but for all that is holy don’t brainwash people into thinking mongrel love is any kind of special love that deserves glorification, pumped 24/7 into the eyeballs and eardrums of goyische kop who still cling bitterly to the quaint notions that one is ideally attracted to the opposite sex from one’s own race and that having kids who look like oneself is a normal and natural preference. Race-mixing agitprop that sublimates the propagandist’s subconscious genocidal urge is distilled evil, in my opinion.

White interethnic mixing that has occurred since the mid 1800s in America is not the same beast as modern mogrelization imposed on us by open borders third world enrichment. An Englishman and a German are distinct White ethnicities up until their respective gene streams, so unique to the sharp-eyed observer when meandering side by side, collide at the Dirt World delta and a vast muddy effluvium obliterates the sparkling European waters.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: