Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

scissister

*band name alert

PS Reader The Observer observes,

You can learn a lot by watching a lesbian work on her target paramour while out and about, too.

They push boundaries HARD. They know it works, and where the limits are, and walk right up to them. They understand the function of obligation in the female psyche.

Observe, and learn.

Obligation and submission are two powerful psychosexual undercurrents in the roiling sea of a woman’s soul. It’s a shame it goes so little remarked upon by mainstream social analysis. But that’s why the Chateau exists; a beacon of truth guiding the way through a dark wood. *heart bursts with vanity*

Read Full Post »

File the latest SCIENCE! study in the “Chicks dig jerks” binder (it’s bulging).

Women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds

There has been a long history of people falling for inmates and criminals and now a study has found the phenomenon may be more common than thought.

According to a new study of prison guards and other correctional workers, the attraction is felt more by females than males, and hardly ever has a happy ending. […]

In a study published in the journal Déliquance, justice et autres questions de société, the researcher focused on more than 300 cases of the phenomenon in the US and European media over a ten-year period, from 2005 to 2015. […]

The study found women were more affected than men, with over 70 per cent of cases of sexual misconduct in US correctional system involving female staff, despite them making up less than half of the prison workforce. [ed: much less than half. in 2011, women were a quarter of total prison facility employment]

The usual Hivemind-approved rationalizations are given for why women LOVE LOVE LOVE incarcerated lowlifes (“emotional manipulation”, “forced intimacy”, “savior mentality”, etc), but really the answer is the most Occam-y of the hypothesis razors: dangerous men make women’s vaginas wet with arousal and their hearts flush with yearning.

Scathing ridicule aside, let’s keep something in perspective. Women fawning over hardened inmates and opening their pussies to criminal cock is an insult to the families of the victims of these killers. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

But that is female nature for you. Instead of ignoring that nature, or hand-waving it away under a shitstream of sophistry, we should all confront it and accept it as an unchangeable fact of life. Then, we as a nation need to have policies which recognize and synchronize with the reality of female sexual nature rather than attempt to defy it or mold it into something alien. So here’s an eminently reasonable suggestion that will be dutifully tut-tutted by our equalist overlords: ban women from working at male prisons.

Perhaps Trump can bring this up on his victory parade to the White House.

Read Full Post »

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d  = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d  = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE!❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

Read Full Post »

Forget the free market economy. The sexual market is the one market to rule them all. As if my preening weren’t already supremely ostentatious, here’s a recent SCIENCE! study confirming another Heartiste axiom: every human interaction and transaction is downstream from the existential struggle to find a quality mate, fuck, and procreate.

Fewer romantic prospects may lead to riskier investments

Encountering information suggesting that it may be tough to find a romantic partner shifts people’s decision making toward riskier options, according to new findings from a series of studies published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Environmental cues indicating that one will have a relatively difficult time finding a mate can drive people to concentrate their investment choices into a few high-risk, high-return options,” says psychological scientist Joshua Ackerman of the University of Michigan, lead author on the research. “This is true even when the decisions people are making are not explicitly relevant to romantic outcomes.”

I’ve received some scoffing from spergy types projecting their spergitude onto this ‘umble outpost of love concerning the assertion often made here that the sexual market governs, consciously or subconsciously it doesn’t really matter, the machinations and ultimately the outcomes of the more palpable activity that takes place in the economic market. But here we have a study proving the truth of the CH observation that ripples and undercurrents of sexual compulsion and romantic desperation are the “invisible loin” that guides all human behavior in the secondary market of the economy and its supporting markets (like academia).

“This is exactly opposite from the pattern of investing we would predict if we assumed people were using an economically ‘rational’ decision strategy,” Ackerman explains. “From an evolutionary perspective, if the options are to do whatever it takes to find a romantic partner or risk not finding one, the more rational choice may be to do whatever it takes.”

This is a stone cold truth that no libertardian like Alex Tabbarak or Cheap Chalupas will ever get. Humans aren’t rational actors; they’re rationalizing actors. And what they rationalize are choices, in all spheres of transaction, that directly or indirectly improve their chances of landing that alpha male or that hot babe.

In a second online study, 105 participants read a newspaper article discussing demographic trends in the U.S. They then evaluated stock packages with equivalent values (e.g., 100 shares in 8 companies, 200 shares in 4 companies, etc.) and chose which package they would invest in.

Again, the data showed that both male and female participants who read about unfavorable sex ratios opted for riskier investments, choosing more shares in fewer companies, than those who read about favorable ratios.

In practice, “riskier strategies” for women amounts to what we see today on college campuses, where women outnumber men 60-40. The zeitgeist is a sexual pornucopia for a few alpha men getting the milk for free without buying the cow, and a lot of disappointment and depression among marginally pretty women who thought they could turn that fling into a thing.

The fact that sex ratio had an impact on decisions that were not directly linked with mating success suggests that sexual competition elicits a general mindset geared toward achieving the largest possible reward, regardless of the risk involved.

Polygyny, as is the norm throughout Africa, can induce the same risky investment strategizing from men as can an unfavorable sex skew. When a few men lock up many women, each individual man has an incentive to throw caution to the wind to be one of those few winner men.

As such, the researchers argue, these findings could have implications for decision making in domains as diverse as retirement planning, gambling, and even making consumer purchases.

Executive Summary: The meaning of life is to fuck.

Read Full Post »

There is a theory to explain the origins of the core population of White cucks. (I use the term “cucks” in its shitlordy colloquial sense to mean White people who express more solidarity with antagonistic nonWhites than they do with their congenial racial kin.) This White cuck theory, associated with the writings of HBDChick, invokes two historical processes to account for the evolved psychological preferences of NW European Whites to feel altruistic urges and a moral duty toward strangers and particularly toward nonWhite strangers:

manorialism and non-kin marriage.

Basically, over a thousand-year period (or less) in the parts of Europe that today correspond to the Germanic nations, Scandinavia, and England, (aka core Europe), outbreeding (cousin marriage was prohibited by the Catholic Church) and circumstantial pressures (e.g., manorialism) that selected for more cooperative and docile individuals created a distinct type of people who are amusingly known by the acronym W.E.I.R.D.O. in social science circles — Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic, and Outbred.

I would add my personal theories to HBDchick’s emphasis on outbreeding and manorialism to explain the development of White universal altruism: the Buffer Zone Theory and The Culling. Core NW Europe, being a core, is surrounded by White nations and White tribes. Over millennia, this “ring of white” lands shielded core Europe from the worst depradations of the nonWhite world. This proto-NATO defense umbrella permitted the rapid selection for supranice Whites within the Bubblecuck region who had rarely had to confront violence on a regular basis from truly foreign-looking and -acting invaders. From other Whites, yes. But not so much from Vibrancy.

The Culling simply states that the great 20th century wars of White fratricide removed the hardiest and least cucked men from the gene pool. I don’t see how a continent’s character emerges unchanged by 80+ million premature deaths.

Whatever their provenance, altruistic WEIRDOS all have psychological traits in common, and one very noticeable commonality is their NICENESS. If you’re American, you’ll encounter this radical niceness in the Midwest and plains states, where White people of Core European lineage settled and multiplied. It’s practically the basis for the humor in the movie Fargo. Nice Germanics and Scandis and Anglos will have nary an unkind word to say about anyone, and warmly welcome any traveler who might wander into their lands. They are trusting (and trustworthy) and are just about the best kind of people to go to for a car repair, financial advice, or contract negotiation. They won’t screw you over, and they (perhaps naively) believe no one means to screw them over.

These are the people, not to put too fine a point on it, who practically built Western Civilization and modern society.

What can one possibly say about them that is less than fulsome praise? There is no end to the ways in which nice people are nicer than not-nice people…

except for one flaw in the WEIRDO algorithm.

One very big flaw.

Possibly an existential flaw that will negate every good thing achieved by these NiceWhites.

Their gullibility.

(Throw in a predilection for sanctimony, and you’ve got all the ingredients for supreme cuckitry.)

I agree with John Derbyshire that Midwestern NiceWhiteness “is America’s Achilles heel, and will bring down our civilization one day.” It’s becoming more apparent that these niceguy White cucks will go to their golly gee willikers graves dispensing unreciprocated niceness on the world’s ingrate riff raff, and in their misdirected zeal to be nice to the world’s 7 billion not-nice schemers and dirty dealers, they’ll take America down with them.

The Trumpening is illustrative. Twatter renegade @Ricky_Vaughn99 compiled a list of the state-by-state share of pro-Trump vs anti-Trump White ethnic groups that can be used to predict Trump wins.

corewhitecucks

The anti-Trump NiceWhites are mostly inside-the-Hajnal, core NW European ethnicities. (Keep in mind these are the cucks who happily voted for Marco Lubio, and who love open borders nutjob John Cucksich. Ironically, fake phony fraudulent slimeball Ted Cruz is a beneficiary of cuck love. Like I said, gullible.)

The pro-Trump Whites who love his fighting spirit, properly directed decency, and straight talk are borderlands, periphery, Southern, and Central/Eastern European ethnicities. These are the Whites who get, at least on a gut level, the danger posed to survival by the mass migration of alien peoples who have nothing in common with the White-centric heritage of America.

There might be an intervention which could save NiceWhites from themselves, and thereby save America and the West: forced integration with the blessings of Diversity™. You’ll note most NiceWhites live in very White states. And most RealWhites — Whites who are less gullible about the realities of the world and who prefer Realtalk over Poopytalk — live with or near nonWhite Diversity.

The hypothetical remedial emerges: expose the NiceWhites to those vibrant characters they claim represent “who we are”, let stew for a generation or two, and voila!… hardened shitlords speaking openly about the coming RaHoWa and assuming the aliases of ancestral Viking berserkers and Visigoth barbarians.

Read Full Post »

Twatter tartlet @clairlemon passes along a study sure to get on the nerves of neckbeard atheists and secular anti-Christian (((feminists))). She writes,

Interesting paper suggests that monotheistic religion is a paternity-certainty facilitator.

With paternity certainty, comes paternal investment. Men who don’t know if the kid is theirs are less likely to stick around and support mom and child. The blowback from that is an exercise in imagination I leave for the readers.

From the abstract,

The major world religions sprang from patriarchal societies in which the resources critical to reproduction, whether in the form of land or livestock, were inherited from father to son down the male line (13). Consistent with patrilineal inheritance, the sacred texts set forth harsh penalties for adultery and other behaviors that lower the husband’s probability of paternity (48) (SI Discussion). The scriptures also place greater emphasis on female than on male chastity, including the requirement of modest attire for women and the idealization of virginity for unmarried females (6, 8). Previous studies have considered the evolutionary biology of patriarchy, but have focused on primate antecedents or cultural factors rather than religion (2, 911). Here we test the hypothesis that religions that more strongly regulate female sexuality are more successful at limiting the incidence of cuckoldry, defined as offspring sired by extrapair copulations (EPCs).

SCIENCE! lands another sloppy wet kiss on the Chateau’s turgid…ego. Female chastity and fidelity really are more valuable to men than male chastity and fidelity are to women. (Male chastity is actually a subtraction from women’s appraisals of men’s mate value.)

The study population is the Dogon of Mali, West Africa, who practice four religions: Evangelical Protestantism introduced by conservative American missionaries; Catholicism introduced by French Jesuits who focused on humanitarian projects; Islam; and the indigenous Dogon religion, which is monotheist. Our quantitative analysis supports the hypothesis that religious ideology serves the purpose of defense against EPCs.

CH is on record (check the archives) predicting that the wholesale abandonment of religion by Western societies will lead to higher rates of cheating and cuckoldry, by both men and women. Recent CDC data on infidelity supports the CH observation that cheating is up, especially (and critically) among women. And as I have argued, unrestricted female sexuality is FAR MORE dangerous to civilizational health than is unrestricted male sexuality, and this is why thousands-year-old religions have evolved to specifically curtail the existential threat of female infidelity.

Muh dik is the slogan of the black ghetto; muh muff is the dirge of the dying White West.

Discovery of the reproductive consequences of religious practices is helpful for understanding the interface between the sacred and the secular, a neglected terrain despite growing interest in the evolutionary biology of religion.

Atheists and other irreligious types nursing an exaggerated spite against (mostly) Christianity have no idea the forces of chaos they are working towards unleashing. If they can’t tolerate pious platitudes and Sunday Church services, they are gonna have a really hard time getting accustomed to the worldwide Zimbabwe that an areligious “state of nature” will portend for their sexdoll time. Once you kill paternity certainty, you have signed the death warrant on Western Civ.

We show that paternity certainty was higher in the indigenous religion than in Christianity, which we attribute to the abandonment of menstrual taboos by the Christians.

The liberalization and feminization of Christianity will mean its death, either through attrition or transmogrification.

Women in the traditional religion are exiled for five nights to uncomfortable places called menstrual huts; during the day menstruating women work in the fields (23, 24). The indigenous religion uses the ideology of menstrual pollution as the supernatural enforcement mechanism to coerce women to disclose their menses by going to the menstrual hut. Hormonal data showed that fear of breaking these religious taboos enforced honest signaling to the men of the husband’s family, who situate the menstrual huts in close proximity to the toguna, which is a shade shelter specific to the males of a given patrilineage.

“Modern” feminists balk, but there’s a good reason for the existence of these religious rituals that appear, superficially to the comically stunted shitlib mind, to be relics from an antediluvian past. Stupid shitlibs think they can ignore the wisdom of their ancestors without consequence.

These findings for an evolutionary purpose to religion are often hard to disentangle from the native traits of the people that constitute the major world religions. Maybe Africans and Arabs have a psychology that requires draconian religious strictures to ensure paternity? And maybe White European women are sufficiently swayed by less onerous religious dictums? However you approach the question of causality, it’s fair to be concerned that the rapid demise of Christianity, and the concomitant rise of feminism, in the West will have downstream effects on the basic reproduction structures of civilization, and that in the future atheism and agnosticism and secularism may even influence the process of sexual selection and change the genetic characteristics of the people to something that resembles the anti-civilization shitholes of today.

Read Full Post »

Girls, bless their holistic hearts, aren’t keen on detailing the reasons why this or that man is unsuitable as a lover. Instead of a sober assessment of a man’s characteristics, girls prefer to render their judgments in all-encompassing terms like “creep” or “weirdo” or “loser” or “nice guy”. Many subconscious mate value calculations operate in the female hindbrain that are consciously concatenated into swift and sure slanders of dismissal.

If a girl thinks you’re “creepy”, console yourself that her assessment doesn’t necessarily mean you are a creep. All it means is that you failed to exhibit those behaviors and traits that trigger her arousal instinct. But you should still take the smear as an opportunity to improve how you sell yourself to women. The alternative is meta-death.

With that in mind, here’s an illuminating study about the male tics and mannerisms that women think qualifies as “creepy”.

On the nature of creepiness

Surprisingly, until now there has never been an empirical study of “creepiness.” An international sample of 1341 individuals responded to an online survey. Males were perceived as being more likely to be creepy than females, and females were more likely to associate sexual threat with creepiness. Unusual nonverbal behavior and characteristics associated with unpredictability were also predictors of creepiness, as were some occupations and hobbies. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that being “creeped out” is an evolved adaptive emotional response to ambiguity about the presence of threat that enables us to maintain vigilance during times of uncertainty.

The limbic “creep” burp is a distant early warning to a girl that the seed under consideration shall not penetrate her eggs’ perimeter defense.

Salon (fag bastion alert) does a halfway-decent job itemizing the primary creep factors.

One of the paper’s hypotheses states unpredictability in a person is associated with higher levels of creepiness. Because we’re already initially uncomfortable with being unable to assess a person’s motives, we become hyper-aware of their behavior while trying to size them up.

This claim should be read with a critical eye. Ambiguity and unpredictability (i.e., being a challenge) are actually quite arousing to women, so the risk of setting off her creep alarm should be balanced against the reward of turning on her snapper sprinkler. My impression is that when a woman is curious about a man, there always lurks in the back of her mind the potential for her curiosity to lurch into anti-creep defense mode. To put it another way, every successful seduction is accompanied by an element of danger.

Other things found to sound our creep-alarms are behaviors such as standing too close to a person, frequent and persistent lip smacking or licking, odd dress and relentlessly directing a conversation to one topic.

Touching girls early on in a pickup is a crucial step to advancing toward the bedroom. But a light forearm touch is a different beast than posting up a foot inside a girl’s personal space. The initial kino should barely be perceptible; standing nose tip to nose tip is a little too “on the nose” for most women.

As for lip smacking and licking, don’t do it. Obvious. You ever see a man who does well with women licking his lips like Marco Rubio after the foam party antics have dried out to a crusty glaze?

Odd dress… just means don’t dress poorly or too skewed from the norms for your culture. Wearing a Bedouin sheet in Chicago will freak out a lot of people.

The last creep factor is the most important one: conversational stubbornness. Girls love freewheeling convos full of breezy associations and delectable tangents. We all know that nerdo or spergo who can’t let go of a point he’s trying to make over the happy din of a socially-gelling mixed group. If there’s one piece of advice I would give to men on how to avoid being the creep chicks despise, it’s LET GO. Didn’t get your point across? No prob. Ride the wave. Swing at another pitch. Take the detour in good humor and with a sense of adventure. The best womanizers I have known all shared this trait in common; they were pros at both leading conversations and going with the conversational flow. You can do this, too, but it will demand that you get out of your head and become more situationally aware. The field  of seduction is no place for shutting out external catalysts.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: