Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Although CH prefers the more direct means of measuring a man’s degree of alphatude, there are proxy methods for coming up with a ballpark figure for the Alpha Within. One such proxy is the amount of shit a woman will put up with from her man. The more crap she happily tolerates, the higher her man’s alpha male rating.

As commenter WillBest explains,

Women are far and away more pragmatic about men’s affairs. I know of several couples that have survived a man’s affair and none that have survived a woman’s affair.

You could probably plot your relative alphaness against what your wife will tolerate.

brothel outside country < … < discrete mistress < rumored affair < open mistress < claiming bastards < having your wife assist in selection of your harem (as seen on Marco Polo).

It’s funny ’cause it’s cruel.

A marriage can survive a husband’s infidelity because the real risk, from the wife’s gene’s POV, is the redistribution of his resources (of which love is a proxy indicator) to the other woman. As long as the husband remains primarily devoted to his immediate family’s finances, his oat-sowing won’t much affect the future of his children or the guarantee of the mother’s “maternity assurance”.

But a wife’s infidelity is much more dangerous to her family’s cohesion. She could get pregnant on one of her slutcations, and saddle her husband with another man’s spawn. (And this would’ve been more likely in the contraception-free environment of evolutionary adaptation.) This is the worst thing that can befall a husband from his genes’ POV. And if he finds out, the whole family may be nuked from orbit.

Naturally, a man’s affair isn’t automatically forgivable. Women aren’t totally inhuman; they will feel the sting of romantic rejection. But it’s true that the more alpha the man, the more tractable his woman. Hell hath no fury like a scorned wife… if her husband is a beta male. Heaven hath no angelic forgiveness like a scorned wife of an alpha male.

This post cries out for a handy dandy chart.

There’s a reason for the exponential trajectory. Observe closely, and you’ll notice most married men are betas whose wives won’t even tolerate their wandering eye without stirring up a storm of martyrdom. But once a man begins taking on the penumbras and emanations of alphaness, his woman’s toleration curve skyrockets. Each increment of alphatude results in a drastic expansion of the scope of caddish misbehavior that a wife or girlfriend will tolerate. At the extremes of male alphatude, their women are complicit in helping their men achieve the limits of sexual and romantic pleasure that are particular to the male domain of desire.

I hope this post has been instructive. May it guide you to better days in your own relationships.

Read Full Post »

An article at Psychology Today titled “What Do Women Really Want?” hits all the Heartistian Realtalk notes. The author sounds like he spent his vacation at Le Chateau, and absconded with a few dusty tomes on his exit for later perusing. Excerpts:

[M]ore recent studies show that [sex] differences in reported number of sexual partners are reduced or disappear altogether if women are told that they are connected to a lie detector and that the information they provide will remain confidential. […]

The female tendency toward a roving eye can also be inferred, according to the work of evolutionary psychologist David Buss, from the very phenomenon of male jealousy, which is common in all societies and consistently related to men’s fears of potential cuckoldry. If women really do not want extra marital sex, then why are men so suspicious and jealous? Why put Stop signs on a street with no traffic?

Women aren’t as naturally promiscuous as men (especially men with options), but neither are they as pure as the wind-driven snow, as white knights and pedestal-polishing betas fervently believe.

Recent studies indicate that the objects of female sexual attraction vary with the menstrual cycle. During their fertile days, women tend to fancy high-testosterone men who are not good candidates for monogamy but have healthy male genes. How many married women secretly act on this impulse is difficult to estimate, but this type of ‘sperm poaching’ appears to be quite normative among our primate relatives.

CH has discussed “Ovulation Cycle Game” in a few posts. You need never again be SURPRISE CUCKSEXED! by an ovulating lover.

Men, in turn, are designed for this sperm competition as well. Biologist Robin Baker of the University of Manchester found, for example, that the amount of sperm a man discharges during intercourse with his wife is not dependent on the timing of the man’s last ejaculation but on the time since his last sex with his wife. If a long time has passed (increasing the chances that someone else’s seed found its way into his wife’s vagina), the husband’s ejaculate contains more sperm cells, which increases his competitive odds.

How weird to think that there’s a part of our limbic subconscious which puppeteers certain aspects of our behavior completely outside our conscious awareness.

Sex after a long separation tends to be more intense and prolonged. This is because long intercourse increases the chance of the woman reaching orgasm. According to research by Baker and biologist Mark Bellis, the uterine muscle contractions that accompany the female orgasm help retain sperm inside the vagina and move them toward the ovaries, and fertilization.

I don’t know about the validity of the explanation for it, but I agree that absence makes the rod grow harder even if it doesn’t necessarily make the heart grow fonder.

[T]he evidence suggests that women initiate divorce more often than men, and benefit less from marriage than do men on measures of health, happiness, and wealth. Additionally, as is well known to clinical psychologists and marriage counselors everywhere, many women who feel close to a loving partner nevertheless fail to feel passion for him.

Relationship Game is the cure for what ails a wife’s flagging libido. And, yeah, that female hypergamy is a bitch on lifelong love.

If monogamy, intimacy and communication are the engines of female desire, why do so many women fail to ignite with a familiar and faithful man? Why does their passion fizzle in marriage? Why will they seek to secretly graze in foreign pastures? Why do they not benefit from the monogamous arrangement more? Why do they break it up more readily?

All these burning questions answered here, in full, at the Chateau over the years. We are your one stop shoppe for the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And amorality.

As additional evidence [for the subversive nature of female sexual desire], developmental psychologist Lisa Diamond of the University of Utah found that many women experience their sexual interests as fluid and open, encompassing at different times men or women, or both. Richard Lippa of California State University has found that unlike men, whose sexual appetite narrows as it increases, sexually charged women display an increasingly open orientation. Women with higher libidos are more likely to feel desire toward members of both sexes.

We’re all familiar with the observation that many more women than men go through a bicurious sexually experimental phase. The old joke: What’s two women and a man? A threesome. What’s two men and a woman? Gay.

Marta Meana, a researcher at the University of Nevada, has argued provocatively that the organizing principle of female sexuality is the desire to be desired.

That’s the money shot right there. Women’s desire is to be desired. This conclusion is perfectly in line with similar notions of female sexual psychology made at various UglyTruth outlets, such as the idea that women are the “receiving” sex or that women want to submit to a dominant man. The shared animating impulse described by all these ideas is the innate compulsion of women to be desired. Desired so strongly that a man loses control of himself. Women are, by their very nature, irredeemably solipsistic, and this solipsism is a function of their genetic prime directive: to use their bodies and their beauty to capture the seed and the services of a high value man.

The woman who denies her prime directive is a genetic dead ender.

In her view, the delicate, tentative guy who politely thinks about you and asks if this is okay or that is okay is a guy who may meet the expectations of your gender politics (treats me as an equal; is respectful of me; communicates with me) and your parents’ preferences, but he may also put you into a sexual coma—not despite these qualities, but because of them.

Niceguys finish last. Jerkboys finish on her face.

Female desire, according to Meana, is activated when a woman feels overwhelmingly desired, not rationally considered. Female erotic literature, including all those shades of gray, is built on this fantasy. Sexual desire in this view does not work according to our expectations and social values. Desire seeks the path of desire, not the path of righteousness. It thrives not on social order but on its negation. This is one reason all religions and societies try to control, contain, limit and re-direct it.

I’m sure there’s a CH maxim somewhere in the archives asserting that female sexuality is more dangerous than male sexuality to social order, primarily because a wanton woman can fuck a man’s shit up for eighteen years.

Marta Meana had men and women watch erotic pictures of contact between a man and a woman and tracked the participants’ eye movements. She found that men and women focus on different aspects of the sexual event. Men looked at the women, while the women watched the two genders equally. They concentrated on the man’s face and the woman’s body. What turned them on apparently were the desired female body, with which they identify, and the man’s lustful gaze, for which they long.

Men are visual, women are holistic. This is why a man’s looks aren’t as crucial to his romantic success as a woman’s looks are crucial to hers.

Despite what is commonly believed, then, Meana argues that female sexuality is more self-centered than male’s. Mick Jagger’s lamentations aside, male fantasies focus on giving satisfaction, not on receiving it. Men see themselves in their fantasies bringing the woman to orgasm, not themselves. Women see the man, set aflame by uncontrollable lust for them, bringing them to ecstasy. Men want to excite women. Women want men to excite them.

Women are the more selfish sex, in and out of the bedroom. Color me shocked.

Basically, everything feminists assert, the opposite is true.

[W]ouldn’t more women be jealous of the desired woman who cannot orgasm than of the orgasmic woman who is not desired?

Yes, women are more jealous of beautiful women than of ugly fatties. Someone make a social awareness campaign about it.

Meana asserts that this aspect of female sexuality explains the prevalence of rape fantasies in the female fantasy repertoire. Rape fantasies, in this understanding, are actually fantasies about surrender, not out of masochistic yearnings to be harmed or punished, but out of the female desire to be desired by a man to the point of driving him out of control.

This is the one part of the article with which I mildly disagree. In fact, there are plenty of women who yearn to be harmed or punished, even if their yearning operates mostly on the subconscious level of cognition, below the level of survey administrators asking pointed embarrassing questions. You need only look at the long lines of death row groupies to see that there resides among womanhood a non-trivial contingent who welcome the whip hand of a dangerous man.

It’s as if a woman’s desire to be desired is, when taken to extremes, warped into a need for punishing treatment as the only demonstrations of male desire that will mean anything to her.

According to this view, monogamous marriage does work for women on a certain level: it provides security, intimacy, and help with the children. But it also suffocates female sexual desire.

According to GSS survey data, married men have a little bit more sex on a weekly basis than do single men, but this finding is horribly skewed by the reality of all those lesser beta and omega male singles who are utterly invisible to women. I’d bet the ranch that the single alpha male gets a lot more sex, and (obviously) gets it with a much greater variety of pussy, than does the average married man.

At the end of the day, the accumulating evidence appears to reveal a paradoxical element at the core of female desire, a tension between two conflicting motives. On the one hand is the desire for stability, intimacy, and security—picture the flame on the burner of a gas stove: controlled, utilitarian, domesticated, and good for making dinner. On the other hand is the need to feel totally, uncontrollably desired, the object of raw, primal lust—a house on fire.

Female sexual nature is bifurcated. Game — the art of applied charisma — will help build a loving bridge joining together a woman’s maddening, competing desires.

Read Full Post »

Its provenance uncertain, an anonymous sage explains the Fishing Theory of Game:

It’s like fishing. You don’t just jerk your line out of the water as soon as you can. That’s how you get a broken line and lose an expensive lure. You jerk her in slowly letting the fish tire herself out. Once she’s sufficiently submissive then it’s time for the net. After that if you feel like catching another one then just cast your reel again.

You never let a girl control the line. That’s how you lose fish.

Mystery’s “cat string theory” describes a similar phenomenon of female psychology. A cat won’t lunge for the string if it’s just sitting there in front of her, but if the string [your penis and any proxies for your penis, like your brain or personality] is moving away or zig-zagging, she’ll pounce.

The shared idea behind all these pithy game theories is that women want a man who seems like he gets so much mad pussy that he can take or leave any one particular pussy. This is the man who “flips the script” and has women chasing him. Women love the man of plenty. Women are repulsed by the man of need.

I don’t make the biomechanic rules, folks, I just deliver the news, because a well-informed citizenry is an accountable sexual market.

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of the fine folk at the Seminary of Christian Sadists, a chart pulled from a research paper on the subject of patterns in racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters:

Where da white wimmin at? Nowhere near you, D’Quattroprius.

CH tackled this topic a while ago, coming to roughly the same conclusions as this more recent paper’s findings. In what are essentially self-report surveys, (Yahoo Personals profiles), white women profess the least desire to date outside their beautiful, privileged white race, and asian-american women the most desire to date outside their race. These, among other… problematic… confessions of the id, must bedevil Hivemind drones tasked with the maintenance and transmission of Equalist agitprop.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, understand the inherent limitations of self-report sex behavior data, even self-reports in real world non-laboratory contexts. As all good players know, what women say and which dick they privately raw dog are two very different animals. This crimson pill maxim applies as well to internet dating profiles. Yes, when women must consciously think about what kind of men they want to date, and they feel emboldened by pseudoanonymity, they’ll reveal glimpses of their limbic darkroom in print. But in the helter-swelter of a charged romantic environment, oftentimes that pro and con, bullet-point checklist women keep stashed in their hamster cage bedding gets tossed in favor of the “man in the moment” who distracts her from the whitenoise of her humdrum existence.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that the data-mined revelation that white women don’t want to date black men, and the countervailing “me own two eyes” observation that more white women are banging black men than one could surmise from the tabulated declarations on internet dating profiles, can both be true.

The dating preference survey data reveal that the rhetoric of those who fear a mudshark planet is overblown. But, equally overblown is the rhetoric of white knight pedestal polishers who insist no white woman would willingly date black men. For a refutation of that premise, I merely have to go outside and take a fifteen minute stroll on a nice day.

PS Yahoo Personals, as far as I know, is a free online dating service. There will be a sample set bias because free sites tend to attract certain types of women (roaring sluts, cheapos, unserious girls just looking for fun on the side, girls desperate for a relationship with a beta provider because they have no money of their own).

Up next: Ok, master of charms, but is it true only the dregs of white womanhood date black men?

Read Full Post »

Steve Sailer, bless his hardening heart, has a post up about a Charles Murray article reminding leftoid paymasters that high achievement on tests like the SAT are more a consequence of genetic heritage than of socioeconomic status.

One of the commenters, Jonah, draws the mostly-unspoken parallel of SAT scores to female hypergamy:

I’d wager a guess that the correlation would be significantly stronger if the father’s IQ could have been assessed as well. I’d assume that there are a significant number of affluent families where the father is the skilled/educated breadwinner.

This is very astute and under-considered by sociologists looking at longitudinal data like these. Given hypergamy – the propensity for women to “marry up”, and the willingness of men to “marry down” in favor of looks or other non IQ traits – I would bet Murray’s point would be amplified by if you looked at father’s IQ instead of mother’s. Wish he had the #s for dads/SAT rather than moms/PIAT. Would be a stronger and more striking piece.

By the way, I doubt I’m the only person here whose father was smarter than my mother. It’s probably true for over 60% of the population but you never hear about it. For people with one parent SIGNIFICANTLY smarter than the other, I bet it’s Dads over Moms 10-1.

And yes, the math checks out. Dumb, low status men, and ugly smart women are more frequently shut out of the marriage game than their gender opposites.

Female hypergamy in the West is, at least in its current configuration, dysgenic. Smart, overcredentialed women are shunting their smart genes into an ever narrower demographic slice, because these women can’t stomach the thought of “marrying down” in intelligence or phonyfuck credentials. And we see exactly that playing out, as the fertility rate of high IQ white mimosaettes is zeroing in on a little over 0.0 kids per woman.

But high IQ fathers, especially conservative fathers who don’t do woman’s work, have higher fertility and thus “male hypergamy” is eugenic. The primary reason has to do with the lifetime SMV slopes of men. High achieving men experience a gradual increase in their SMVs peaking at right about the time same-age women’s SMVs are crashing into the Wall. Many of these men go on to second or third younger wives, and produce second or third families of scions.

A secondary reason for the eugenic effect of male hypergamy — the urge to pair off with ever-younger, hotter, tighter minxes — is the fact Jonah mentioned: High achieving/high IQ men cash in their higher SMVs for prettier women at a wider range of female smarts. Because, you see, to the vast majority of men, even to the SJW manlets in full denial mode, a woman’s youth and beauty are nitroglycerin to a man’s boner. Blows it right up. A woman’s smarts? No effect. Worse for the grad school ladies, boners will sometimes wither under the droning onslaught of SMRT women with something insufferably feminist to prove.

In the final analysis, high IQ women demographically hoard their advantageous genes, just like they romantically hoard their eggs. High IQ men, in contrast, spread their advantageous genes just like they spread their sperm.

Which brings us to the fascinating, if perturbing to fragile minds, question Jonah asks: Is your father smarter than your mother?

I can recall with the crystal clearest clarity only Lucifer’s favored son can summon that it did, and does, seem to me most of my peers’ fathers were/are brighter than their mothers. (NB: I am not a product of a black ghetto. I only play one on TV.) There were a few glaring exceptions, and like all exceptions they are extraordinarily memorable by reason of their rarity. Mostly, these pairings featured a ballbuster proto-feminist tankwife cracking the whip over the back of a stepnfetchit beta hubby. Not all though. A few couples in which the mother of my friend was noticeably smarter than the father had the right sexual polarity — submissive wife and dominant husband — that managed by way of alchemical sexual magic to work despite the father’s relatively gimped brainpower.

That’s the monkey wrench in the patented CH theory of dysgenic female hypergamy: The allure of badboys — who may or may not have upper quintile SAT scores — to all women, maybe especially to SMRT women surrounded in their milieus by supplicating beta males. If the Pill and condom and abortion weren’t acting as procreation thwarting intermediaries, the fertility of high IQ women might be a lot higher, as they opened the un-latexed gates to their eggs to sundry charming jerkboys.

Evolution grinds regardless. Where are we heading? I don’t know, but I do know the late 20th-early 21st century paradigms are not long for this world. More and more it appears the historical pairing of smarter, high achieving men with prettier, low achieving women has been severed and hijacked by powerful anti-human social forces. More and more the romantically healthy arrangements are upended by discordant faux-aristocratic entities. What was once common — a vital middle class distinguished by fathers smarter and higher achieving than mothers — has become a curiosity gawked at by the destroyers of harmony.

We know our trajectory. What we don’t know is our destination. So certain are you that a bright, sunshiney day waits at the end?

Read Full Post »

The really illuminating lesson of this photo is the tacit realization that its inverse wouldn’t be nearly as revealing of the participants’ SMVs. If a hot girl was in the arms of a shlubby beta male, no one would mistake her as the female version of “beta”. She would still be a hot chick. A hot chick with a really lucky beta boyfriend who must have some compensating SMV-boosting traits. No one would negatively reassess her looks (the bulk of a woman’s SMV) because her boyfriend didn’t appear to be “in her league”.

In contrast, people DO reassess the SMV of men based on the physical attractiveness of their girlfriends. A handsome man with an ugly girlfriend isn’t a quirky love match; it’s a tell that the handsome man has unattractive personality qualities which decrease the potential return on his looks. Similarly, an ugly man with a beautiful girlfriend immediately prompts musings that he’s got cash, got flash, got mast, or some combination of all three plus the rarefied “charisma”.

An ugly girl with a handsome boyfriend isn’t the fortunate recipient of positive reassessment from onlookers. An ugly man with a pretty girlfriend *does* receive revisited glowing reviews. This photo is sort of a Voight-Kampff empathy test, reminding viewers that the sexual market values of men are women are intuitively assessed very differently by impartial strangers, because the measure of a man is nothing like the measure of a woman.

In short:

Ugly man with a hot girlfriend is an alpha male.
Handsome man with an ugly girlfriend is a beta male.
Ugly woman with a handsome boyfriend is still an ugly woman.
Hot woman with an ugly boyfriend is still a hot woman.

Read Full Post »

CH is feeling slutty and hypergamously empowered, hence the reason for this batch of themed posts. We’ll be back to practical pickup advice on the morrow. *tips fedora to adoring concubines*

A reader passes along a sly study which found some discomfiting facts about the mate pairing choices of male and female doctors.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Two medical schools in Ohio.
PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of physicians from the classes of 1980 to 1990.

RESULTS: Of 2000 eligible physicians, 1208 responded (752 men and 456 women). Twenty-two percent of male physicians and 44% of female physicians were married to physicians (P < 0.001). Men and women in dual-doctor families differed (P < 0.001) from other married physicians in key aspects of their professional and family lives: They earned less money, less often felt that their career took precedence over their spouse’s career, and more often played a major role in child-rearing. These differences were greater for female physicians than for male physicians. Men and women in dual-doctor families were similar to other physicians in the frequency with which they achieved career goals and goals for their children and with which they felt conflict between professional and family roles. Marriage to another physician had distinct benefits (P < 0.001) for both men and women, including more frequent enjoyment from shared work interests and higher family incomes.

***

Case study of hypergamy regarding “high status women” i.e. doctors:

22% percent of male physicians and 44% of female physicians were married to other physicians

How do those numbers add up?

How indeed. 😏

Part of the reason for the sex disparity in physician-to-physician (P2P) marriage is the demographics of these two medical schools. If male medical students roughly outnumber female medical students two-to-one, then a necessarily higher percentage of the female student pool will be married to their male peers, assuming all the P2P marriages are within-school.

That’s a big assumption, of course. Most likely, many of these P2P marriages drew from the larger physician mating pool outside of the medical school context. Therefore, something else must be going on to fully account for the P2P sex disparity.

Female hypergamy is the most obvious “something else”. Women HATE HATE HATE marrying down, where by “marrying down” we mean marriage to a man with a combination of social, physical, personality, occupational, and economic statuses that in total lower his MMV below the woman’s achievable spouse acquisition threshold. Given two equally attractive men, (attractive along multiple dimensions of measurement), separated by only one difference — their job title, say — most women would choose the man with the higher status title.

This is a highly abstract thought experiment, to be sure, but it does help illustrate how intolerable the idea of, as Rollo puts it, an “unoptimized hypergamous desire” is to women. Unlike men, for whom as a sex there is very little psychological consternation when contemplating marrying an HB8 nurse versus marrying an HB8 doctor (usually the nurse wins this mental exercise and almost as often wins the real world exercise), women have a real aversion to failing to absolutely maximize the return on their sexual value. Women’s visceral aversion to marrying down expresses as a distraught emotional state, which itself is a property of their Bartholin’s-drenched genes impelling them (usually) to be supremely cautious about choosing which men will have the honor of monopolizing their limited collection of rapidly-spoiling eggs.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, as it were. 😎

If Female Hypergamy, MD is at play in the P2P marriage statistics, then the numbers found in the linked study make sense. More female doctors refuse to marry non-doctor men (“doctor” being one of, if not the, highest status general occupations), and instead hold out to marry (likely beta male) doctors. If men are not as hypergamous as women, (and given men are predominately interested in youth and beauty), then we would see relatively fewer male doctors obsessively pursing marriage with female doctors to the exclusion of all other kinds of women who meet similar physical attractiveness thresholds.

Which, again, is what the numbers allude.

Female hypergamy can be both a force for good and a recipe for decrepitude. Think of it this way: when women place high demands on their potential suitors, men are motivated, under normal patriarchally-delineated and tribally-coherent circumstances, to step up and appease the reproductively more valuable sex. Female hypergamy, in this instance, can assist in civilizing an organic nation. But the civilizing assist rests in large part on the nature of the women’s demands. Do women demand accomplished, peaceable, wise men, or tattooed, impulsive roughnecks? The answer isn’t so obvious, and can change depending on environmental or biological cues, the most palpable cue being women’s ovulation cycle.

Where female hypergamy can fail a civilization is when it spins out of control, driving high social status women possessing a more civilized suite of genes to become terribly assiduous about reserving their genes for men of equal or greater genetic blessing. This failure manifests in two ways: One, by reducing the fertility of aging, high IQ spinster candidates. Two, by restricting the Clarkian genetic mobility to a small sliver of inbred, credentialist, suckup overachievers.

If female doctors refuse to breed with any man who isn’t a doctor, then their civilization-compatible genes get shunted into a narrow, shrinking demographic slice. In this scenario, female hypergamy fails to further civilizational progress, and can even reverse it by unwittingly creating massive chasms in intra-ethnic economic, social, and reproductive inequalities.

The real mean trick the devil played on women when he crafted their souls was his refusal to reconcile female hypergamy with female beauty. Ugly women with high social status want the same high social status men that pretty women want. Her intrinsic hypergamy becomes the ugly overachiever woman’s worst enemy.

But the ugly women have no chance, an intractable problem which is compounded by the ability and willingness of many unattractive, masculinized SMRT women to conceal under mounds of self-delusion and ego-sparing bromides, aka Feminism.

In stark contrast, high IQ and high social status male doctors, who aren’t nearly as maritally hypergamous as their female peers, spread their civilization-compatible genes more widely. There are plenty of youthful, pretty girls at most IQ ranges, after all. There then follows a “trickle down” effect in doubleplusgood genes, as higher status men knock up sexy but not quite as feminist tankgrrl striver-ish secretaries and nurses. If anything, most men with options prefer somewhat lower social status wives, as they generally present fewer headaches on the way to romantic and familial bliss. (Sexual polarity is the best preventive medicine against marital discord.)

Female Hypergamy is both Brahma the Creator and SHIVa the Destroyer. Women’s leashed sexuality births empires; women’s unleashed sexuality desiccates civilizations. We are well past the birthing stage of America and well into the barren womb stage.

I have mentioned before that the cultural, if not consequently procreative, shift in female romantic preference for badboys may be a subconscious reaction to a native society getting overrun with weak, effete males intent on bending over and taking it up the pooper by unapologetically self-serving, outgroup marauders. If I’m right, then the trend toward intensified assortative mating within the credentialist classes, as noted by Charles Murray of “Coming Apart” fame, may get short-circuited by a silent, but extremely powerful, resistance in the form of a shift in female hypergamous mate preference for less conformist (and hence less credentialed), less obediently beta, sexier jerkboys.

Highly speculative, I admit, but my instant-feedback field observations tell me something like this is happening in geographic beta male cuckspots. Picking up the dinner tab, waiting months for sex, and signaling dependability just don’t buy as much lovestruck pussy as it used to. Sending a half-assed birthday cat emoji, on the other hand, pays poon dividends.

In secular, sex egalitarian, established civilizations like the West, the great anti-feminist truth may be that Male Hypergamy — the desire of men for ever prettier and younger women, and the ability of HMMV men to fulfill that desire — will be the heart matter force that saves the advanced cultures from navel-gazing themselves into oblivion.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,249 other followers

%d bloggers like this: