Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

From an American Sociological Review research paper, đź’‹SCIENTISTSđź’‹ (as opposed to feminist “””scientists”””) discover that egalitarian marriages — ones where in practice husbands shoulder a significant amount of the household chores traditionally the province of wives — are arid, sexless wastelands.

This article began by noting that American marriages are more egalitarian today than they were in the past, but scholars have found it difficult to offer a clear interpretation of how egalitarianism has changed the nature of marriage itself. One broad interpretation of egalitarianism is that couples exchange resources across various domains. Moves toward more equality in one area, such as earnings, might thus induce more equal distributions in other areas, like housework, a suggestion that has certainly received extensive investigation. In this article, we asked whether men and women use housework and sex as resources for exchange, or whether other logics govern sexual frequency within marriage.

Following up on the widely publicized claim that by doing more housework, husbands in more egalitarian marriages got more sex, we sought to investigate the links between men’s participation in housework and sexual frequency using nationally representative data. Our findings suggest the importance of gender display for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage: couples where men participate more in core tasks—work typically done by women—report lower sexual frequency. Similarly, couples where men participate more in non-core, traditionally masculine tasks report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender-typed participation in household labor. Additionally, although our main results examined core and non-core labor separately, we note that regressions using the share of total housework (core and non-core combined) also show a negative and significant coefficient for men’s share of housework.

Game, set, match, Sheryl “Lying Shrike” Sandberg. Doing more women’s work in the home will NOT improve a husband’s sex life, as you feminist creeps assert. It will result in the opposite: A gradual weakening of the sexual polarity until a unisexual listlessness consumes the relationship in a quellfire of anhedonia.

Any male feminist who at this point still claims that chipping in with the housework will make his wife happier and their sex life hotter is just fooling himself. Or rationalizing his abject supplication to an overbearing shrew. Housework doesn’t lubricate vagina; acting a dominant man with dropped testes who’d rather swing a splitter than scrub a toilet is what turns on women.

These results—whether using both men’s and women’s reports in a pooled analysis, relying on opposite spouses for reports of our key variables, or relying on men’s or women’s results alone—show that households with a more gender-traditional division of labor report having more sex. The pattern of results suggests the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity.

Sex-traditional division of labor is sexy because, stop the presses, masculinity in men is attractive to women and femininity in women is attractive to men.

Many confounding variables were accounted for in the paper, including overall marital happiness, religion, and sex ideology. None of them mediated the housework-sex frequency interaction. Men who did more girly chores got less nookie; men who did less girly work and more manly outdoors work got more nookie. Women who did more girly work got more nookie; women who did more manly work did no see a change in their sex frequency.

(The bottleneck variable appears to be the type of work that men do. As long as the husband is the whip-hand, the wife will desire him, regardless how much non-core housework she does.)

The lack of interactions or mediation lends support, we argue, to the notion that the operating mechanism is one that links within-couple displays of masculinity and femininity to sexual scripts leading to sexual frequency. […]

Men or women may, in essence, be turned on (however indirectly) when partners in a marriage do more gender-traditional work. Of course, men and women could also be turned off by doing work that is not traditional for their gender.

Feminists and their down-filled male lackeys trying to convince people that women “leaning in” like men, and men “cleaning in” like women, will heat up the bedroom are fighting a losing battle. Because no matter how much propaganda the Hivemind Hatemachine churns out, there’s simply no substitute for the rude reality-based imperatives that harden dicks and slicken pussies.

At the very least, our results are difficult to reconcile with the idea that women trade sex to men for doing what is traditionally viewed as women’s work. Based on our findings, sex seems to lie outside the realm of conventional exchange.

Why do feminists argue against common sense? Why are feminists anti-pleasure? Why do feminists loathe male prerogative? One answer has to do with the intrinsic character of feminists. Most feminists like Sheryl Sandberg are masculinized women, in body and/or in psyche. This deformity of nature arouses their bitterness and motivates their desire to upend normal society to not just acknowledge, but exalt, their peculiar disposition. A psychologically manly broad like Sandberg is nothing like the majority of women, but that leetle inconvenience doesn’t stop her from trying to poison sex relations and rework society to assuage her low-E ego.

The importance of gender has declined over time, but it continues to exert a strong influence over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

Clarification: The importance of gender as a matter of legal redress has increased over time, but despite these immense social and legal pressures to obliterate any differences between the sexes the natural and evolved compulsions deriving from our gender continue to have the final say over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

***

Executive summary: As per usual, non-feminist science shits in feminist faces and slobbers kisses all over the Chateau Heartiste worldview. To preen, or not to preen… that is a silly question. *preen*

Read Full Post »

There’s a new(ly identified) attractiveness standard by which women are relentlessly judged for sexual, romantic, and yes, marital worth: The swayback. Reader Experienced Father passes along the relevant study.

This paper reports independent studies supporting the proposal that human standards of attractiveness reflect the output of psychological adaptations to detect fitness-relevant traits. We tested novel a priori hypotheses based on an adaptive problem uniquely faced by ancestral hominin females: a forward-shifted center of mass during pregnancy. The hominin female spine possesses evolved morphology to deal with this adaptive challenge: wedging in the third-to-last lumbar vertebra. Among ancestral women, vertebral wedging would have minimized the net fitness threats posed by hypolordosis and hyperlordosis, thereby creating selective pressures on men to prefer such women as mates. On this basis, we hypothesized that men possess evolved mate preferences for women with this theoretically optimal angle of lumbar curvature. […]

Men again tended to prefer women exhibiting cues to a degree of vertebral wedging closer to optimum. This included preferring women whose lumbar curvature specifically reflected vertebral wedging rather than buttock mass. These findings reveal novel, theoretically anchored, and previously undiscovered standards of attractiveness.

The optimal swayback looks like the middle female silhouette:

The woman with no swayback too closely resembles a prepubescent boy. The woman with excessive swayback looks like a scoliotic whore who spent too may nights leaning into the open car windows of johns. The woman in the middle is juuuuuust tight.

It’s theorized that women with a 45 degree curvature of the lower spine are best adapted for squatting on their haunches and foraging for food. Over time, men would’ve come to prefer this female body shape because it indicated better fitness at the job of gathering nuts, berries, and other huthold objects.

I don’t know if this study controlled for race, but I bet one that does would find that the male preference for swayback is more cross-racially universal than is the male preference for bloated booty, which black men favor more.

Anyhow, more lab confirmation of the CH formulations based on real-world observations that biomechanics is god, love is a tender effusion stimulated in men by small adjustments in the geometric contours of the female face and body, and feminists are butthurt loons.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

Commenter nash2z writes,

[The sexual marketplace] is beginning to favor the much older man/younger woman pairing.

I will illustrate. I am a 52 year old white man, and am currently dating a 21 year old white woman, and a 24 year old white woman; simultaneously. I met both online, thru a dating site. I’ve gathered from both that their attraction to me (I do look a few years younger and can pass for mid-forties, and this is a prerequisite I believe) is in their expectations that I am more old school masculine than the younger men they can choose from in their pool. But there’s another reason I’ve picked up as well – and that is the expectation that the older man is not part of the pump-n-dump crowd (little do they know) of which the predominance as of late has been making these women feel cheated out of what they consider to be quality relationships. What they are looking for, in response to what they have been enduring their entire sexual lives, are for men to consider them in a more serious LTR light – never mind that they don’t deserve it. Putting off a muted version of this vibe while at the same time reminding them of the overall beta-flavor of their respective man-circles has done wonders not only to score with these two women, but in my favorable responses from other under 25 female prey when approached.

Could we be seeing the response from women to game – in the wider acceptance of the older man/younger woman pairing. Time will tell.

Effeminizing Millennials works to the sexual market advantage of older, more masculine men who haven’t yet learned of the wonders of the brony, male feminist, and transsexual anime lifestyles. But nash2z hits on another explanation that may be more pertinent: There are some younger women who crave a rock solid relationship. Whatever the objective reality, I would bet that older men do give off a “I’m capable of, and willing to, form an adult relationship with a woman who meets my stringent criteria for a worthwhile lifelong mate” vibe.

By filtering for these kinds of younger women tired of the dating scene, the older man can increase his meet-to-lay-to-love ratio. Beyond this implication, it’s a hypothetical exercise whether the acceptance and utilization of game by cad hopefuls will drive significant numbers of women into the arms of older (or younger) men who signal their readiness for more serious commitment.

Read Full Post »

Holding up a finger to the cultural winds carrying tingles aloft, a (probably) female reader writes,

Sia is a singer/song writer , ex–party girl with alcohol problems.

She wrote an interesting song, [Fair Game], which outline everything you have described at The Château.

I put in bold the interesting parts.

You terrify me
Cause you’re a man- you’re not a boy
You’ve got some power
And I can’t treat you like a toy
The road less…Traveled by a little girl
You disregard the mess
While I try to control the world
Don’t leave me
Stay here and frighten me
Don’t leave me
Come now enlighten me
Give me all you got
Give me your wallet and your watch
Give me your first born
Give me the rainbow and the-
So go on and challenge me
Take the reigns and the seat
Watch me squirm baby
But you are just what I need
And I’ve never played a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
Yeah I want to play a fair game
Yeah I want to play a fair game

You terrify me
We’ve still not kissed
And yet I’ve cried
You got too close in
I pushed and pushed
Opened your bites
So I could run run
And then I did betray the dust
You saw those teeth marks
They weren’t all yours
You had been trusted to a history
That had not worked for me
Into a history from which I could not face
So go on and shake me
Shake until I give it up
When I am in doubt baby
I know that we could make some love

So go on challenge me
Take the reigns and the seat
Watch me squirm baby
But you’re just what I need
And I’ve never played a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
Yeah I want to play a fair game
Yeah I want to play a fair game
And I never played a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
Yeah I want to play a fair game
Yeah I want to play a fair game

I’ve always had the upper hand
But what good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
I want to play a fair game
Oh, I want to play a fair game
I’ve always had the upper hand
What good is intellect and nerve if
I can’t respect any man
I want to play a fair game

Sia is a 39-year-old Australian singer who’s experiencing something of a career resurgence right now. Most of you would recognize her current hit song “Chandelier”. It’s catchy, visually arresting, and vaguely pedophilic.

Her gimmick of late has been wearing a veil covering her face from view during performances. She’s been quoted in interviews as saying the veil is a feminist protest against the objectification of blah blah trail of hamster pellets. A less charitable observer might say that 39yo Sia has suffered her first contact with the Wall and the veil is radical wrinkle-remover and career-extender.

But enough of that. Clearly, Sia loves her incorrigible badboys. Sia later, betaboys!

From the beginning, women have been singing the praises of badboys. What’s more interesting, from a sociological perspective, is any noteworthy change in frequency of badboy odes, and in how those female singers opt to stylize their lyrical meanderings. Are the musical paeans to the allure of badboys prideful boasts, seeming almost like taunts aimed at the crushed hearts of lame-o betas? Or are female singers disguising their love for badboys under layers of obfuscating wordplay?

Tuning my ear snare to the pop starlet zeitgeist, I do think barely-concealed confessions of cravings for badboys have been on the increase recently. The weird thing is that this badboy exaltation is occurring simultaneously with a muddled feminist empowerment pop culture fad (think Katy Perry singing “you’re gonna hear me roar”). It’s as if women singers can’t make up their minds whether they want to be mistresses of the universe or just bound and gagged mistresses of a ZeroFucksGiven jerkboy.

If there is a social trend toward women freely expressing their deepest desires for hounds and heartbreakers, this reinvigorated female lust on public display may owe itself to the context within which pop singers, and their fans, circulate. As CH explained, a society that is bottom heavy with mewling, supplicating beta males would push women into the aloof and indifferent arms of alpha jerks. And when the bottled-up pussy pressure becomes too much to bear, even Wall-impact cougars like Sia can’t help but throw their natural romantic constituency — older, defeated, weak beta males ready to settle down with any old slutty cow — under the bus.

Women’s love for challenging jerks never dies, it just wistfully succumbs to a slow awareness of SMV self-depreciation.

Read Full Post »

Short Man Game

Short men, like ugly women, through no fault of their own got a raw deal when the cosmic abyss spit them into existence. Short men, all else equal, have it rougher in the dating market. However, unlike ugly women, short men have means at their disposal to improve the quality of their prospects.

Life is unfair, and it’s better to make peace with that fact than rail futilely against it for a magical intervention that will eradicate the unfairness. This should help: Understand that as a short man you can still find happiness and pleasure despite unfavorable starting odds.

In that spirit, here’s Reservoir Tip with an excellent piece of game advice for short men,

Side tip, if you’re a short guy (like me), and a girl observes that she’s taller than you, this is obviously a shit test. The German girl, and other girls in the past have thrown this test at me. I’ve found a good reply to be,

“I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m six feet tall.”

All with a straight face of course. It’s a solid, simple reframe.

Elegant. It works because it follows an elemental precept governing the functioning of the sexual market: A man’s overconfidence — to the point of irrationality and possibly beyond it — is attractive to women. Impenetrable egotism will assist a man in his quest for high quality poon as assuredly as beauty will assist a woman in her quest for an alpha male.

UPDATE

Reader theasdgamer adds a witty riposte to the short man game repertoire.

I grow seven inches in bed.

I don’t know if this qualifies as airtight game, but it is funny. Any normal girl will laugh along with it.

***

Reader farmlegend has some short(ish) man observations,

A few random observations from decades at an altitude of 5’8″ –

1. Because women’s initial hindbrain reaction to short guys is that they are less manly, it is important that short men adopt as masculine a frame as possible – hit the gym, develop uber alpha body language, speak slowly and deeply, make solid eye contact, etc. These are all good things to develop in general for all men, but it is especially critical for short guys.
2. Develop day game. It is very hard for short men to DHV in noisy settings like night clubs. Back in the day, I never did well in bars. Hypergamy makes you physically invisible amongst all the taller dudes in those places.
3. For whatever reason, I always found that the most difficult targets were short attractive women. It is as if they are subconsciously bound and determined not to have short children, and they have the greatest preference for tall guys (I’m the product of such a pairing, between a 5’1″ italian spinner and a 6’2″ three sport college athlete). I came to have greater confidence of success with women in the 5’5″ – 5’7″ range.

My thoughts:

1. Given a cost-free choice (no negative side-effects) to grow six inches, I’m certain most short men, even those who have tight game, would take it. It’s human nature to travel the path of least resistance, and if a short man can get the pussy with less effort, he would be weird not to abide. That said, shortness isn’t a pickup killer; it just makes the job harder. I’d bet short PUAs, on average, have better game than taller PUAs because the former have been through the equivalent of trials by fire.

(The human desire to take the path of least resistance is also a major reason why late-stage decadent civilizations implode. So you could say short men are practitioners of individual civilizing progress.)

2. Yes to this. Day game is essential for less physically imposing men.

3. CH is on record supporting the idea that short men can improve their odds by targeting women shorter than themselves (under the theory that the female preference for male height is relative to female height). However, farmlegend makes an astute point about the notable predilection for *some* very short women to prefer much taller men, and there may be an evolutionary reason for that. So, perhaps it’s better advice for short men to target *slightly* shorter women than themselves, rather than significantly shorter women.

Read Full Post »

What do women really want?, Steve Sailer asks. One of his readers, a possible CH mole, supplies an answer that’s closer to the truth than a thousand Ross Douthat NYBTimes columns on sex and love.

What do women want? Let’s look at their sexual fantasies. In my long years, I’ve known large numbers of women with drawers and e-readers full of “romance novels”. The story lines and characterizations are generally all the same. They are the Cinderella story recast:

There are one and more women between Cinderella and the Prince, who is handsome, charming, and has lots of money, status, and power. Cinderella acts to remove the female competition between her and the Prince so that she can take her rightful place as the Princess of the realm. The story line is generally consumed by scenes of females going at each other as they compete for the Alpha Male. The “bodice ripping” at the end of the chapters are thinly veiled rape fantasies. The Prince eventually finds Cinderella so “hot” that he cannot control himself. His lack of control excites her … because, it represents her final victory over the female competition who are unable to drive the Prince to sexual frenzy.

The CH tentacles reach everywhere.

I’m gladdened that Steve and some of his readers are coming around to the Heartistian worldview. I’d imagine it was a tough road to illumination for them, given the demographic quadrant I’ll safely assume most of them occupy — traditionalist conservatives who believe in marriage and kids and not screwing around (much). These are well-meaning folk, but their limited breadth of experience in the mating trenches constrains their observational power.

In a similarly themed iSteve post, a few feminists dug their heads out of the sand to assert the opposite of the available evidence.

Just because people read something fictional it does not mean that they do actually want to experience that in real life.

This is a common “””argument””” from those who can’t bear the retinal scorching from viewing female sexual nature head on, and it’s bullshit. If fantasy were not a reflection of true desire, then we wouldn’t see a near-universal preference among women for a particular type of sexual fantasy. We would instead see a million women have a million different fantasies completely severed from any actual feelings of lustful desire, and shlock like Twilight or 50 Shades which conform very closely to one or two specific female fantasy archetypes wouldn’t sell hundreds of millions of copy.

Or, to put it more poetically, a random female fantasy generator disconnected from real world desire should turn up at least a few instances of women fantasizing about being taken by Bob the beta accountant. Yet, in all the pulp romance ever written, scarcely any pursue that theme.

PS In completely unrelated news, female prison guards keep having sex with inmates. That genderless feminist utopia is really working out as intended. Heh.

PPS Smart urbane chicks are into the 50 Shades crap too. This isn’t a prolefemme phenomenon.

PPPS A young CH once spent a few weeks perusing pulp romance books for inside info about what turns on women. He figured, if girls were reading this stuff by the truckload, there must be something in there that could give a man an edge over other men in the hunt for shiny, glossy poosy. He was right.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: