Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

I’ve argued (in this post and indirectly as a question in the Dating Market Value Test for Men) that raw smarts isn’t especially relevant to a man’s romantic success. A high IQ may help in the mate market, but probably won’t help nearly as much as nerds hope.

The best that can be said for having a quick wit as a man is that it’s associated with perceived charisma, which is sexually attractive to women. (And that’s how I see it in everyday life; the charming men have a silver tongue lubed by white matter to spare.)

Another net benefit of male high IQ may be a slightly increased desirability as a long-term relationship prospect. Women seeking long-term lovers will place greater emphasis on those male character traits that suggest a willingness to settle down and get to the job of providing for her future brood.

Mostly, though, high IQ is largely superfluous to pickup, beyond what it can do to elevate a man’s witty repartee.

Reader zdeno adds to the Heatristian judgment on male IQ and sexual success:

In my mental model of game and genetics, everyone is imbued with two qualities that are both mostly genetic: 1) Natural game, i.e. good looks, charm, athleticism, social acumen, and 2) Ability to consciously improve game through applied effort, i.e. intelligence, conscientiousness, openness to experience.

What percentage of people have the intellectual ability to actually read about and understand the evolutionary background of human female sexual behaviour? Or even just memorize routines?

Style, Mystery, TD and others like them had weak natural game, but could understand and apply theoretical game very well. Someone like gunwitch had strong natural game plus a reasonably above-average ability to apply new concepts.

FYI, old-timer PUA Gunwitch was arrested for domestic assault a couple years ago, if I recall correctly.

So on one hand, you have the anti-PUA’s who claim that game is generally ineffective, attractiveness is immutable, etc. They are idiots. But there are also a lot of new-agey, “all-of-your-limits-are-in-your-MIND” PUA’s who are equally unrealistic. A short, ugly, slow-witted man who dutifully studies game will never out-seduce a smarter, better-looking man who puts in the same amount of effort.

This is generally true (although I have seen instances of dumber men out-seducing smarter men, simply because the former didn’t get caught up in their heads, and had a street urchin’s facility with spontaneous badinage). But I agree with zdeno’s overall point that more IQ — UP TO A POINT — is better than less IQ in the realm of romance. I qualify my agreement because I’ve known too many men with stratospheric IQ who suffered from debilitating personality flaws, like social ineptitude, weirdness, creepiness, or jarring body language tics.


Reader johnny caustic chimes in:

What is the _reason_ why humanity’s most brilliant writers couldn’t figure out what women are sexually attracted to over several millennia?

Well, to be fair, a lot of brilliant writers did in fact figure out what women want. The problem is that their insights keep being ignored by the generations that follow.

Because the markers of a man’s fitness have to be _difficult_to_fake_, so a woman isn’t easily fooled into falling for a less fit man. Evolution programmed women to respond to male behaviors that males don’t recognize as being special at all, because those are the most reliable indicators. Guys wind up thinking that women are primarily attracted to money or looks or expensive cars because they literally don’t perceive the very traits in men that are getting women wet.

Good point. This is why the concept of game is so difficult to grasp for so many; and, in fact, a lot of game principles — like body language, qualification, negs, and kino escalation — are a bit esoteric for the less-than-averagely smart man to comprehend. You can’t improve your attractiveness to women if you have no clue what women find attractive, and if in fact your male cluelessness is an extended phenotype of women’s inscrutable mate selection criteria.

Some claim that Game operates on a premise of flawed female detection. That is, Game exploits a bug in the female mate acquisition algorithm, leveraging the fact that women subconsciously resort to short-cuts and proxy cues to ascertain a man’s alpha bed cred. Now of course, male looks are hard to spoof (although looks can be improved with better framing, i.e., more stylish clothes), but many other male attractiveness traits are spoof-able. (Even wealth. There’s a known pickup trick in circulation involving the use of fake ATM receipts.) Game, under the Flawed Female Detection theory, is essentially a system for changing the optics of an average man to resemble that of an HSMV man with social status, charm, power, dominance, and (perhaps most crucially) ZERO FUCKS GIVEN outcome independence aka sexual market options.

So, a case can be made for the FFD theory, but an equally valid case can be made for the theory that women are perfectly attuned to what they want in men, just as men are, and that a significant part of what women want are men with the charming/asshole-y/jerkish/PUA behavior that Game attempts to deliver. This latter contra-FFD theory rejects the notion that jerkboy charisma is a cue for some other, nebulously related, male trait, and asserts instead that the jerkboy charisma ITSELF is a male attractiveness trait that women conspicuously desire.

This Fine-tuned Female Detection theory of female mate choice elegantly explains why it is not all that uncommon to see a man with no job or looks who somehow manages to hook up with scores of women through sheer confidence and swagger; the attitude he projects is a SELF-EVIDENTLY HOT COMMODITY, because women crave the love of men who act like they know women crave their love.

Read Full Post »

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

Read Full Post »

Once again, SCIENCE! affirms Chateau Heartiste maxims and squats lumply on feminist mythology while unloading a phallus-shaped deuce. A deep state study finds that there’s a neuroanatomical basis for the observed sex-based difference in emotion regulation.

As expected, males significantly scored higher in emotion regulation ability than females did. More importantly, we found the sex differences in the neuroanatomical basis of emotion regulation ability. Males showed a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, females demonstrated a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and rGMV in an anatomical cluster that extends from the left brainstem to the left hippocampus, the left amygdala and the insular cortex. The present study provides the first empirical evidence regarding the sex-linked neuroanatomical correlates of emotion regulation ability. These findings may help understand why there is a higher prevalence of affective disorders in females and maladaptive behaviors in males.

SCIENCE! and CH: dancing the duet of fated lovers. This study literally discovers neurological proof for the truefact stereotype that women are more hysterical than are men. State control…it’s a man thing. You women just wouldn’t understand.

I gotta wonder how self-deluded feminist are gonna spin this latest out-take from the HARDASFUCK sciences?

RANDOM MANJAW: “well, you see, that’s just the patriarchal culture influencing female fetuses and changing their brain wiring.”

THE SHIV OF PRIVILEGE: “is the patriarchal culture also influencing female fetuses to become raving lunatic feminists?”

PS The last line in that study abstract is lethal thoughtcrime (literally). Mood (affective) disorders largely afflict women because their brain structure provides a more fertile (heh) environment for hysteria and related emotional malfunctions to flourish. Men, in contrast, have a sex-specific brain architecture that predisposes them to the opposite: emotion-less disorders that characterize ailments like autism, psychopathy, and anti-social behavior.

PPS The Game relevance should be evident. Tap into a women’s roller coaster emotions and you can guide her to expressing herself in the way that matters most to *your* emotional needs.

Read Full Post »

A reader provides a field pic of a fat man with a skinny girl, adding,

Photo taken at the grocery store (heh).

Didn’t get her face but a 7.5. Slim little thing  Well dressed. Boyfriend was a slob. Perfect proof confidence matters.


Yes, confidence matters for men. (Not so much for women. A confident fat girl will still be a romantic loser.) A confident fat man — whether his confidence is an irrational act of willpower or a rational self-appraisal based on his compensating sexy attributes like charisma, money, humor, or outcome independent ZFG jerkboy attitude — will have little trouble scoring a cute lithesome thing.

Read Full Post »

Every once in a while one sees the exceptional couple who together smash realtrue stereotypes. I saw one such recently. A very striking, tall and slender blonde White woman kissing her asian boyfriend adieu. I’ve seen White woman-asian man couples before, but usually the woman was nothing to write home about, which is how this particular couple managed to jot a tittle in my limbic ledger.

No one wants asian guy? Not her. She wants asian guy!

Naturally my forensic Eye of Shivron whirred into gear to assess this violation of the cosmic biomechanic laws. The asian guy wasn’t a Keanuiac half-breed. Full-blooded from slope to slant. He did have some physical advantages which set himself apart from the usual ant people test-cheating hordes. He was average height (which adjusted to asian standards meant he was tall). He dressed like an A&F frat bro: crisp knit shirt, plaid shorts and sockless docksiders. Muscle-wise, also average (which again adjusted to asian standards meant he was buff). Facially, inoffensive enough to make a few asian-american girls rethink their opposition to dating inside the nippon tribe. Jawline was acceptably uncucked.

All in all, he looked completely Americanized (I’d guessed he was Japanese-American, but could easily have been Korean). Still, his alabaster lady was a White hard HB8 topping to a model-esque 5’9″ or so. And clearly, unmistakably, in love with him. (When he turned to leave her behind, I caught her staring longingly at his retreating figure for a few seconds. Those rovebirds!)

He could’ve been loaded, sure, but I think it was something else. Something that this man —

Dennis “pussy magnet” Kucinich

the fairy godmother of manlets, has similarly exhibited in photos with his hotter, tighter, younger wife who is at least three standard deviations out of his league (if we define “league” solely by the draw of a man’s physical appearance).

Wondering what that something is which our SWAG roverboy had? Look at these Kucinich pics and see if you can figure it out:




You’d be hard-pressed to burden a man with more physical and ideological shortcomings than Dennis “The Kuntroller” Kucinich — short, weird looking, skinny, old, liberal kook — yet here he is married to a genuine red-headed hottie. His unicorn horn stands taller than many nü-Aryan shitlords’ war pikes.

Yet the photos of him with his beauty reveal his secret. Notice anything missing?

That’s right, NO HOVERHAND.

Kucinich holds his lady tight and right, drawing her into him and pressing her flesh into his feeble old mannery that does not even lift. Notice too he doesn’t lean into her; if anyone’s leaning adoringly, it’s her.

Kucinich’s alpha male body language transmits a loud and clear message: “I take complete ownership of my woman”.

Ownership, aka men’s prerogative, is a vital ingredient in romantic relationships. Feminists and manlets swoon with hysteria, but TruGirls love it when a man doesn’t mince his meat. Declaring ownership of your woman, especially in public, is a powerful signal not only to other women that you have the mysterious “he’s got it” goods, but also a reminder to your beloved that you don’t live in apprehension that she’ll someday soon withdraw her love. Body language ownership is the opposite of the appeasement and fearfulness that the hoverhand betrays of a man’s character.

Returning to our SWAG, that’s what he had. In spades. During the kiss goodbye, he drew her by the waist into his chest and squeezed her ass in full view of NSA surveillance cameras. He winked at her before turning to depart, and didn’t look back to assure she was still tailing him with her gaze. There was no hoverhand, no leaning, no awkward pigeon footing, and no tender salivary pecks and canoodles so common among beta males who think a woman’s bosom is a security pillow to nestle their weary cuckheads.

Lesson of the lovingkindness: The right attitude and an unflinching assgrab will more than compensate for a man’s physical imperfections. If only more men would learn this lesson instead of projecting the contours of their visual-centric desire onto women.

PS Anecdotally, I don’t feel nearly as much aesthetic repulsion to WW-AM couples as I do to mudsharks. Maybe my hindbrain swiftly calculates that the genetic distance, physically, behaviorally, and mentally, between a White woman and a northeast asian man is a relatively small one set against the Saharan expanse between a White woman and a black man, and therefore my disgust reflex is comparatively dampened with the sight of the former. One is taking a piss in the White gene pool while the other is dropping a steaming deuce in it. Alternately, it could be that the extreme rarity of the former makes it more of a curiosity to me, and thus less noxious, while the relatively higher frequency and, especially, propaganda-fueled essence of the mudsharkers provokes a stronger emotional response (tied up as these coal burning couples inevitably are with their anti-White Narrative sponsorship).

Read Full Post »

Via Shiv Maester chris, a study that puts hard numbers to women’s sexual (and thus romantic) worth.

This gives us data showing that late teens to early twenties women are twice the value of a 30 year old women, and the 30 year old woman is twice the value of a 40 year old woman.

Women who leave settling down till they have finished college and started a career/paid off college debts are screwing themselves over when it comes to capitalising on their attractiveness to secure a high value long term mate.

By examining what men are willing to pay for sex, Professor Sohn provides a new window onto this issue of fertility and attraction. Men do not have unrestrained choice in whom they marry or date, but they do get to choose whether or not to pay a prostitute for sex, and the amount they are willing to pay reveals something about what they most prefer. Economists call this “revealed preferences,” assuming that the amount we are willing to pay for any commodity gives a good index of how much we value it.


That is some stone cold id-vivisecting truth right there. Am I a sadist for pressing this news above the fold? Sure. But I am also a giver. A humanitarian, even, whose message, if heeded, will save the love lives of many, many post-America wayward women.

A 40-year-old woman is worth (sexually) half of a 30-year-old woman, who is worth half of a 20-year-old vixen. These incontestable facts about the nature of the sexual market matter, and matter in big ways, to women’s romantic fortunes.

PS Despite the age-related radical decrease in prostitute’s earnings, it is funny to note that a 40-year-old actual whore still makes more than an established 40-year-old corporate whore. Even bad sex is more valuable to men than a paper pushing HR schoolmarm.

PeePeeEss Big swinging stones to the first shivlord who sports a tee with that hourly earnings graphic above on it, and swaggers into daylight to hit on girls while wearing it.

Read Full Post »

I have remarked that one will see far more fat man-slender cutie couples than the inverse. This REALTRUE observation perfectly accords with sexual market theory: specifically, men place primary importance on women’s looks and women place primary importance on men’s social status and personality (or, less pointedly, holistic importance on each facet of a man’s character).

But libido-projecting male readers remain astounded: how could it be so?

Instead of a dry exegesis on the mechanics of the dating field and women’s evolved romantic preferences, I’ll paraphrase a pithily revealing convo I had with a girl when this subject came up.

SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: You know [fat guy X]. His girlfriend is so cute. And thin! He must bring something to the table.


SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: {Faux curiosity} Oh yeah?


SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: {faux prying} And that makes up for the uncinematic sex?

EXPERIMENTAL GIRL SUBJECT: *laughs* I bet the sex is hot. He probably throws her around like a rag doll.

Yes, for anyone, man or woman, it’s better to be lean than fat. No one of sound mind would argue otherwise. But a fat man with an out-sized personality and bloated self-confidence will easily compensate for his extra pounds. (A fat woman has no such option, because men aren’t wired to see past her blubber to the beauty within.)

Girls have an amazing ability to overlook or rationalize a man’s physical demerits if he has equal or surpassing merits in his non-physical traits. Nothing further needs saying on this topic.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: