Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

What kind of economy do women prop up, and propagate? A reader forwards an unintentionally funny, and portentous, chart.

Women in their 20s, 30s, and beyond flock to nonprofits for work. There are three reasons for this:

1. Women are psychologically much different than men and have a sex-based preference for work in the “helping” and “schoolmarm” industries. If a woman gets to tell you what to do, and also gets to enjoy a sanctimonious glow from the thought that she’s bettering the world, she is a happy clam.

2. Nonprofits are post-scarcity economy work that appeals to people who want to “self-actualize”, the preponderance of these people being women. Profit maximizing and corporate ladder climbing are icky to women, unless that greed and self-aggrandizement occurs in the context of a do-goodism NGO.

3. Nonprofit work requires little to no UGH MATH CLASS IS HARD education or skills. Women have both less mathematical acumen than men (on the whole), and less desire to do work which involves the rigors of logic and maths.

A job that lets a white woman write jargony word salad all day, get paid for it, AND status whore about uplifting Africa’s women and children (men? what men?)? Hole-y twat tingles, sign her up!

Most nonprofits are a waste of human capital. 99% of them do nothing for their causes, or actively harm their clients and the donors duped into believing the equalist PR. The growth of nonprofits — and the rush of women into their ranks — is a hallmark of a pre-implosion empire.

You may think, “Aren’t nonprofits a luxury, and therefore proof that the society which can accommodate them is a wealthy and self-confident society able to afford a grandiose (and futile) amount of charitable giving?”

Yes, but no. Nonprofits are a luxury, but luxuries often foretell coming hardships. Pride cometh before the fall, and so do nonprofits. A tired, self-doubting, enervated culture will, contrary conventional liberal wisdom, often turn en masse to helping outsiders because, one, it has lost the will to enrich itself materially and spiritually and two, turning one’s energies outward can serve as a psychological balm for personal failings. Nonprofit work functions as a kind of palimpsest, underneath the veneer of which we spy scribblings of social unrest.

UPDATE

Reader YIH adds his .01 cents.

Here’s what that $1 you give to ”help the starving children of Africa” (or other
charity) does:
.80 – Fundraising: The phone banks and all those ads (What? You didn’t know those were paid for? LOL)
.10 – Administration: The lawyer (on staff, comes in handy), Accountant (gotta document what comes in and what goes out don’cha know) and the guy (or gal) in the suit behind the desk.
.09 – The costs to transport the ‘aid’ and the ‘aid workers’ plus all needed supplies as well as round-the-clock armed security for them. Not to mention the spokesperson and the cameraman – those ads don’t make themselves y’know!
,01 – That’s how much ‘Starvin’ Marvin’ gets – plus those nice t-shirts telling them that the Seahawks just won their second Super Bowl.

Liberals just have to learn to accept that inequality is a part of the human condition — perhaps a necessary and beneficial part — and…

Read Full Post »

Steve Sailer contemplates the riddle of women and their whoring for handbag status. It’s a worthy topic, because handbags appear to confer no sexual market advantage to women, and yet women spend inordinate time and money acquiring the latest trendy makeup container. “Hey, sexy mama, I noticed your Birkin handbag, and it is turning me on!”… said no straight man ever.

“But, CH…” you ask, “if, as you claim, the sexual market is the one market to rule them all, how do you explain women and handbags?”

Easy there, brosephus. I think the best explanation is the one Steve gave: Women use handbags as a signal they can carry with them everywhere to advertise the alpha male-ness of their husbands/lovers, and the women’s ability to secure commitment from their alpha men. Since most people will presume the burn money for the handbag came from a soulmate wealthy male donor, the pricey handbag serves as a relatively inoffensive proxy for a woman’s own SMV.

Why the connection between alpha males and HSMV women? Because we subconsciously know in our ape-shaped brains that the more attractive a woman, the better able she will be to land herself a high status man who, himself, will have the options open to him to capture the interest of beautiful women.

Why doesn’t the kept woman just flaunt her pretty face and sexy body to send the same signal more directly? Because in the world of alpha males with sexual market options and the women who circle them like hawks, that is a little too threatening to other HSMV women in her social milieu. She risks total social ostracism from other women if she sluts it up beyond the acceptable norm for her group.

I have another theory about women and handbags that parsimoniously bridges their behavior to the primary demands of the sexual market: Handbags are a sort of runaway sexual selection module gone haywire, similar to brawn on men, a secondary sexual display in men that is still attractive to Western women despite the environmental conditions having radically changed so that male muscularity is no longer needed for survival. But some men take it too far, bulking up in the gym well beyond the point of usefulness, and most women don’t have any special preference for men with bloated roid muscles.

The handbag, under the female inverse of this theory, is just an extension of a sexy, hip-hugging cocktail dress and beautifying makeup. The former do increase a woman’s sexual appeal to men, and women, knowing this on a deep limbic level, have evolved to maximize their efforts at improving their appearance. This evolution for female self-beautification has “spun out of orbit”, resulting in the modern predilection for collecting and showcasing feminine accessories like handbags, despite male indifference to them.

***

Philomathean adds some heft to the sexual market primacy theory of female handbag collection,

Handbagism is a signal of aggression females employ to communicate the accumulation of tangible and intangible resources.

This is a good point. Women can be aggressive with one another, but their particular brand of aggression doesn’t make headlines or rouse moral umbrage because it isn’t delivered through fists and projectile weapons. “Handbagism” is aggressive signaling to other women who could be potential poachers of husbands and boyfriends. An expensive handbag is one way a woman intimidates her competition from entering the arena. It says, “Hey, my man is fully committed to me, and deeply in love with me, as you can see by all the stuff he lavishes me with, so you’d be wasting your time trying to seduce him away from me.”

Remember, sexual infidelity is a man’s worst fear, while love and resource infidelity are a woman’s worst fear.

Read Full Post »

It’s biomechanical feedback loops all the way down.

Reader chris forwards a study that examined the relationship between testosterone levels and mating success.

Fulfilling desire: Evidence for negative feedback between men’s testosterone, sociosexual psychology, and sexual partner number

Men who achieve what, for them, represents a successful pattern of mating, whether through committed relationships or uncommitted sex, should lower these costs by decreasing T production. The present results thus point to negative feedback in which T promotes copulatory success, and copulatory success in turn down-regulates T production.

So I’m guessing the inference from this is that abstaining from mating while still desiring to mate produces highest testosterone levels.

Testosterone must be costly to the male to produce and sustain at high levels, otherwise the body-brain axis wouldn’t shift to down-regulating T production once reproductive success was achieved. And note that the use of contraception wouldn’t attenuate this down-regulation: The brain-endocrine system has not evolved to keep up with modern procreation-thwarting technologies. (Evolution never takes a break, so it’s possible people, and particularly secular Westerners, are presently evolving in unforeseen ways to accommodate the reality of cheap, widely available contraception.)

This study jives with Mangan’s writings on hormesis — the idea that low level stresses (e.g., weightlifting and eating mildly toxic vegetables like broccoli) on the body and brain promote the health of an organism — as it would seem copulatory denial causes a man’s body to ramp up testosterone production, resulting in more vigor and initiative. Temporary bouts of incel may, in fact, do a man’s body good.

So maybe the No-Fappers are onto something. Hardcore porn may trick the male brain into recognizing that solitary onanistic spurt arced over the flicker of a sexy 2D babe as the culmination of a real life reproductive success. Hardcore porn, like the Pill and condom, is an evolutionary shock for which the human brain and its underlying genetic imperative are ill-equipped to make sense of. Relative to the timeline of human evolution, Tab 31 may as well be a Toba event.

And when we look around at American men, especially Millennials raised on a diet of internet porn (and high fructose corn), we behold a ghastly churn of manboobs, psychological faggotry, poz, and Scalzied male feminists bleating like tender lambs about their daughters’ ability to bench press more than they can.

What does this all mean for the inveterate player? Getting into a relationship with one of your plates will make you soft, figuratively and literally. So you’d better choose wisely which girl you allow to tame you.

Finally, if you’re looking for a way around this T down-regulation caused by the curse of your own sexual success, take up weightlifting. It’s been shown to increase resting testosterone in both the short- and long-terms.

UPDATE

Commenter Anti-Citizen demurs,

Meh, I just know that if I don’t fap for 3 days I start considering banging fat chicks. Not worth it.

There are two legit pro-fap arguments to be made. This one, and the idea that a pre-date fap will relax and imbue a man with that aloof and indifferent alpha male aura chicks dig (as explored in Something About Mary).

Although, tbh, fat chicks are so visually and pungently disgusting to the majority of (white and asian) men that even a semen backup of Hoover Dam proportions wouldn’t convince them to do a triple lindy into the deep end of the back boobs.

Read Full Post »

CH answered this post title’s question already in the seminal “Dating Market Value for Women” at-home quiz, and in this post defining the qualifications of the “alpha female”, but feminists and male feminists continue to insist against the bleedingly obvious real world evidence that men desire smarts in women over and above all other mate value considerations. For instance, the latest garbage study purporting a strong male desire for female IQ is about as flawed as a self-report sex survey can get.

Instead of writing a draining exegesis on why smarts don’t matter much to women’s romantic fortunes —

executive summary: a woman’s IQ has little impact on her short- OR long-term desirability to men unless she’s beyond the comfort zone of intelligence compatibility with the man she’s dating; i.e. around 15 or more IQ points above or below the man’s IQ

— I’ll just reprint a Telegraph commenter’s witty response on the topic.

awesome research – it validates the view that porn has no future on the internet

So much feminist-friendly “””research””” has upon later inspection turned out to traffic in horribly flawed premises and methodology that it’s a good bet to prejudice any social science study issuing from an Anglo university with at least one Scandinavian- or Eskimo-sounding female name in the author list as worthless.

UPDATE

Commenter Arbiter does the hard work debunking this feminist study that I wasn’t willing to do.

All right, let’s take apart the Telegraph article:

1. Journalist Sarah Knapton has talked to a Professor David Bainbridge. So you would expect some strong scientific research to back up his claim, right? No. “Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for.” You don’t even get to see the surveys. Nor do you get any mention of the fact that what people say in a survey doesn’t mean it’s true, especially not in a leftist climate that pressures them to ignore nature.

2. Bainbridge sets up a strawman to attack: it’s “large breasts and long legs” vs. intelligence. This is even in the title. He knocks large knockers by saying it’s not big breasts men want but symmetrical breasts, and he knocks long legs by saying it is straight legs men want, not long ones.

Ergo, men value intelligence instead of looks! Right? If you ignore the little fact that he just mentioned physical traits that men desire: symmetrical breasts and legs that are not crooked.

Far down in the article we also get this: “However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips..” So the “men really look for intelligence, not beauty” theme that the article starts with is nonsense, even by the writer’s own admission. But this comes far down in the story.

3. The real “proof” to grab people’s attention is George Clooney. The article begins with a picture of him and Lebanese wifey Amal Alamuddin. Sarah Knapton writes under the picture: “Despite dating a string of attractive women George Clooney settled down with human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin”. They are mentioned again farther down in the article, and Alamuddin’s picture appears again.

No longer do you need to study thousands of people, you only need to look at one person’s choice. If you are the science editor at The Telegraph.

But not even this one example proves anything: Alamuddin doesn’t look bad for her age. She also no doubt shares Clooney’s socialist preferences, and his anti-White ideology served well by marrying a non-White. So looks, check, and compatible personalities, check. Furthermore, that she is a “human rights barrister” doesn’t mean she would be brimming with intelligence for Clooney to lust for. Probably she just has enough intelligence to be close to him on the scale.

Alamuddin is one of the worst exhibits the feminists could use to buttress their “men love SMRT women!” psychological projection. She’s hotter than 90% of women her age. And, lest the fact escape anyone, she’s also 17? years younger than Clooney.

Read Full Post »

The Thirst is a Red Pillian term for sex-starved beta and omega males who fawn, notably online, over LSMV (low sexual market value) women, artificially inflating the self-perceived price of those women.

The enfant realtalkers who decry The Thirst on grounds of making their romantic journeys more perilous consider themselves enlightened to the bitter realities of the sexual marketplace. As a working theory for how the sexes interact sociosexually, the notion of The Thirst is more right than wrong. Women are, reproductively, the more valuable sex (during their youthful primes), and this inherent, biologically grounded sex value skew translates into all sorts of organic, cognitively discordant social phenomena, such as the factual observation that the average early 20s girl receives a lot more unwarranted sexual attention than the average man receives warranted sexual attention of any age.

Upon closer inspection, though, The Thirst falls short of a truly 360º panoramic view of the sexual market. I’ll explain its shortcomings as a Guide For The Good Life, and why I’ve come to see loudmouthed publicists for the SMV-bending beaver magic of The Thirst as little different than their distaff doppelgängers, the “Dick is abundant and low value” feminist crank trolls.

Why a Theory of The Thirst is flawed

1. Low value women don’t get sex (or, especially, love) as easily as prettier women.

Aggro MGTOWs find this hard to believe, but it’s true. Real life, and studies, clearly show that the uglier, older, and/or fatter the woman, the more time she’s gonna spend in involuntary celibacy purgatory. Granted, a LSMV woman won’t serve quite as long an incel sentence as a LSMV man, but she will serve some time before a sufficiently LSMV dick falls in her lap pretending to love her. If she’s lucky.

Have you ever noticed that one girl in your social group who has a history of showing up to parties or happy hours alone? She’s often representative of one of two kinds of girls: The sexy slutty ingenue who plays the field (usually by free choice that she comes to regret later), and the homely girl everyone feels sorry for. Why do we feel sorry for the latter and not the former? Because we know, in our subconscious moral calculus, that the homely girl is sexually isolated through no fault of her own. Unless she’s fat. In which case, we feel pity, which is a form of contempt.

2. Women don’t value sexual attention as much as men value it.

What happens when you expect to receive a certain type of social reward? You value that social reward less when, predictably, you get it.

So it goes with women, even the less attractive ones. Spreading their legs for a horndog who won’t call them the next day is no accomplishment for most women with working ovaries. (Say it with me: Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.) Despite the phony crowing of pump&dumped bitterbitches, sex is simply not something that, by itself, pumps women full of pride and happiness like sexual conquest does men. Men who claim otherwise are projecting their own desire for sexual attention onto women. (Projection… it’s not just a woman thing!)

So The Thirst is not blowing up the egos of fat/ugly chicks as much as its resentful advocates fervently believe.

Yes, a constant barrage of online flattery, no matter the quality of the sources or the wit of the pitch, will, in time and for short duration bursts, play head games with fug girls who get zero likewise attention offline. Yes, some of these fugs may temporarily come to perceive themselves, unreasonably, as more attractive to high value avatars men than they are in fleshy reality. But they will quickly be disabused of their false pride the second they step out the door and once again notice all the men walking past them as if they were invisible. So whatever ego-boosting ASCII effect The Thirst exerts on a fug, it evaporates the moment she enters the field where the plunger splits the ho.

3. Women instinctively know online male flattery is a low investment, mass targeting strategy worth absolutely nothing.

When a fatty gets propositioned by the 200th random pussy solicitor channeling Lord Byron… you dtf?… you really think she takes that sexual come-on to the id bank as a deposit put toward her accumulating romantic worth account?

Yeah, sure, if cornered by a sadistic interlocutor, she’ll lie and brag about all the love thrown her way on Tinder, but in the quiet of her thoughts she’ll know the flattery is as empty as her ice cream bucket.

4. Sexual attention is worse than being ignored when it’s from depressingly low value men.

If The Thirst was such an all-powerful force for NB1 ego inflation, why do the unattractive girls who receive cat calls, on- or offline, from the dregs of malehood feel worse for the flattery?

As a man about town, you likely know the same feeling. Dressed to the nines, confidence sky high, charm dialed in, prêt-a-poon slay, a chubby plain girl approaches you and smiles, introducing herself as someone very interested in getting to know you. All at once, the air is let out of your scrotal balloon. The weaker sort of men who experience this unfortunate courtship stillbirth spend the rest of the night beating themselves up. “Are these the only kinds of girls I can ever get?? Fuck, here I am at my best and only the ugly girls come up to me!”

Well, that hideous feeling is the same feeling girls have when miserable wretches come onto them. So what if 1,000 omega males hit on a fatty in chat over the course of a month? It’s still 1,000 omega males, and that makes all the difference.

When you’re ignored by the opposite sex, you can at least mentally masturbate to the hope that you’re attractive to them in their thoughts.

5. Women value commitment, relationships and love, which are much harder to acquire from men than are men’s sexual favors.

The Thirst, as it’s understood by most of the bitterati, applies primarily to sexual desperation; that is, men heaping transparently shallow compliments and favors on women in hopes of sexual reciprocation.

(There is a variant of The Thirst that involves relationship mongering, but this is much rarer among men, the sex for whom getting into relationships is not nearly as difficult as it is for women, nor as desired as getting into panties.)

This is really the biggest flaw in the theory of The Thirst: Thirsty sexual come-ons from horny men are no substitute for the romantic fulfillment of long-term love to women. Women grow up dreaming of their wedding day; they don’t grow up dreaming of all the cock they can squeeze into their hymenically-unsealed snatches.

Women fear insol a lot more than they fear incel. Lesson: If you want to properly shiv a feminist, ask her how long it’s been since a man stayed with her for longer than three months.

6. Women lie.

Finally, one contributing factor for a widely held belief in The Thirst is simply that women lie about their attractiveness to men. In fact, women lie more than men do about all things related to sex and romance. Are you sitting next to that fat chick as she stares at her flickering phone screen? No? Then don’t take her assertion that she gets “tons of attention” from men as the gospel truth.

***

This balls-deep CH analysis proves that the Red Pill concept of The Thirst is an overblown interpretation of a sexual market reality that, nevertheless, contains some useful truth value as a general map of intersexual relations.

The part of The Thirst that is true:

Women generally do receive more sexual solicitations than do their peer group men.

The parts of The Thirst that are false:

Fat, ugly, or old women can get desirable sexual attention, and convert it into actual sex, any time they want. There is a scourge of desperate beta and omega males banging down the doors of fatties and fugs. Online flattery gives ugly women long-lasting ego boosts. Women appreciate sexual attention as much as men appreciate it. An epidemic of thirsty beta males is making pickup much more difficult for charming players.

Even the true part of The Thirst is subject to circumspection. There is a wild swing in sexual attention skew when we compare women and men at different points on the SMV scale. For instance, an HB9 and a male 9 won’t be as far apart in sexual attention received by the opposite sex as will an HB7 and a male 7. Nor, paradoxically, will a female 1 and a male 1. At the extremes of sexual repulsiveness and sexual attractiveness the male-female difference in ability to incite the opposite sex to romantic exclusion or abandon narrows a bit.

It’s in the middle of the SMV belle curve where we discover that the sex attention skew — The Thirst Ratio — dramatically widens among the mediocre masses. A female 5 will receive, and particularly online where face-to-face rejection isn’t a threat, a lot more manipulative flattery from low value men than a male 5 will receive from low value women. This sex difference could be on the order of 100-to-1, or worse.

The sexual market is intrinsically unfair, so much so that it makes mockery of equalist pretensions. Beta males who are new to the teachings of Game and struggling to find romantic success bemoan this unfairness, but it’s better to accept it as an immutable part of the natural order and do what it takes to leverage the blessings, and attenuate the curses, of that order.

tl;dr

“He’s just not *that* into you.”

Read Full Post »

Here’s a choice quote from Sheryl Sandberg (h/t commenter Derzu Uzala) on the occasion of her husband’s death:

Dave was my rock. When I got upset, he stayed calm. When I was worried, he said it would be ok. When I wasn’t sure what to do, he figured it out.

That doesn’t sound very feminist. It sounds, instead, a lot like she loved a man who adhered to Chateau Heartiste Poon Commandment XV:

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

Lean in? More like Sheryl “leaned on” her husband when she was having emotional swings, as is the wont of the female human.

Dirty leetle secret: Raging feminist soldierettes are often the women who fall hardest for men who have some game. It’s almost as if their caustic man-hating is a subconscious cry for an alpha male who isn’t a supplicating yes-beta.

Update

GBFM reveals the secret Sandberg tapes,

“While Dave was my rock, da GBFM was my cock. When I got upset, he stayed hard. When I was worried, he splooooooged in my facsccaeaz. When I wasn’t sure what to do, he figured it out in da gina hozlzlzolzozo.”

Read Full Post »

Recalling that feminist “””social experiment””” video which triggered millions of androgynous Millennials to ecstatic retweeting, commenter “anonymous” hit upon the primary design flaw which renders the feminist-friendly result absolutely worthless:

Experimenter bias

In social science, especially in an experiment like this, the experimenter interacting with subjects should be blind to the hypothesis being tested.

The 1989 Clark and Hatfield study mentioned in the page linked to had it right. Asking a random sample of unwitting subjects to proposition other random subjects of the opposite sex. 70 percent seems about right to me with that methodology.

With what was done in this video, the experimenter can give all kinds of subtle cues pushing the guys to give the answer they want. In addition they can exhibit selection bias- choosing guys that seem likely to give the answer they want. You should notice there were more yes answers in the beginning and more no answers later. She gradually got better at getting the answer she wanted later. (The video seemed to be in chronological order). I skipped around and didn’t watch the whole thing, but I also noticed a larger proportion of guys saying they were gay (or that came across as really obviously gay without saying it) than exist in the general population. To me that is a red flag as to the biases (either conscious or not) of those making the video. By the way the real proportion of gays is between 2 and 3 percent; the 10% number that gets repeated a lot is bullshit.

In a nutshell, if they wanted an answer of 0/100 or an answer of 100/100 she (and the people working with her) could “discover” whatever they wanted to discover. It’s not science with this methodology.

She looks good by the way. I would sleep with her. As a woman of course that’s the only thing she’s here on this planet for. Just a reminder

There were, in fact, multiple biases at work in that “girl asks men for sex” femcunt troll job, but experimenter bias is… as a mewling ankle-biter might say… the most “problematic”. Read the CH commenters to learn which other biases corrupted the 30% result.

(Another problem with the experiment design was what I call the “incredulity factor”. The girl gradually learned to deliberately hit on the kinds of men who are least likely to garner the attention of young attractive women, and these men probably surmised as a result that she was part of an underage solicitation sting operation, or she was taking the piss with them.)

Men and women are so completely different in the realm of sexual psychology that it’s not much of a surprise to discover that some men, when openly propositioned by a semi-cute stranger, will immediately doubt her motives. The real surprise is how many men are willing to cast aside their rational doubts and throw caution to the wind; that’s a powerful demonstration of a serious sex difference in predilection for the pleasures of casual sex; men are simply wired to want it, and to avail themselves of it, far more often and with more intensity than are women. But of course, your grandma would be able to tell you this without a stack of social science studies to back her up.

It won’t be long before we’ll have to amend that last clause to specify “great-grandma”, with the way this country is accelerating past timeless truths.

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

Her approach induces a mass raising of red flags, it’s sooooo fake. Her body language is not that of a horny chick, quite the contrary (look for crossed arms, backward leaning, etc): it oozes revulsion. Her voice tonality is also incongruent with the message. No sane woman proposes directly and that fast (compare how often did your fuckbuddy/girlfriend /wife do that?). A horny girl would compliment first, chit chat for a minute at least and then would propose to look for an intimate location with a BS pretext, the subject of sex would at best be alluded to.

Most of the men refusing her offer could tell she was insincere. The 30% figure is thus looking like an incredibly high number of positive responses given all the negative body language signals she was sending out.

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,265 other followers

%d bloggers like this: