Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.

Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?

CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.

The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.

CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:

Options = Instability.

A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).

Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.

From Dalrock:

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.

On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.

In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.

One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).

The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.

If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.

A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.

(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)

Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)

Read Full Post »

Any guesses what it might be?

Basement Gollum: “Muscles!”


Basement Gollum: “Looks!”


Basement Gollum: “Facial symmetry!”

Ah nope.


The game maestros are, yet again, correct in their worldview. ♂SCIENCE♂ clearly confirms the field observation that women are instantly and romantically curious about a man who is in the company of other women, especially if those women aren’t fat bluehair feminists.

[Female preselection] solves a more important adaptive problem for females than for males—getting information about a potential partner. Because men are often initially concerned with the attractiveness of a partner, they can look at a female and instantly discern a fair bit of mate-relevant information. That’s often less the case for women. […]

Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably. This was taken as evidence of how the company you keep seems to be important. […]

Because physical attractiveness is an important cue for female mate-value, the perceived quality of a man’s female partner can be determined to a large extent by how physically attractive she is. Due to positive assortative mating, this can have a bearing on a man’s own mate-value. Some studies have demonstrated that mate copying effects are stronger when the female partner of a man is physically attractive than if she is less attractive or perceived as unattractive. In some research I personally conducted, a man’s mate-value was elevated simply by having physically attractive female friends. […]

Based on the research presented above, a man looking to romantically attract women might do well to surround himself with beautiful women. And if one (or all) of them behaves favorably toward him, all the better.

CH has discussed this topic many times, because it is important. You can fast track your seduction successes by rigging the game with a powerful attraction-building shortcut: the presence of an (attractive) woman to cue other women that you are a HSMV man.

But be careful. Being seen with an ugly fatty will actually hurt your attractiveness to other women more than being seen alone! The ideal set-up is one in which your female company is a young, cute girl who acts a little too vajcurious with you. (Btw, older men can greatly increase their close rate with younger women through the application of this principle.)

Of course, getting that first cute babe to join you on your nightly poon expeditions isn’t a small feat. But once you have her, successive cute babes become easier to score. It’s like the stock market; you’ve gotta find the money to invest, but once you’ve got a steady return on investment you can let the magic of compound interest work and live off your dividends.

In the future, I will have a post about game specifically designed for ugly men (bottom 20% in physical appearance), and preselection will play a big part in the ugly man’s ability to extend his dating market victories beyond a few one-off flukes.

Read Full Post »

Mars and Venus“, by Antonio Canova.

Dat contrapposto. The old timers knew how an alpha male should stand (and how a woman should look when she’s ecstatically submitting to him).

Crucially, notice how Mars’ chest faces outward (while Venus’ entire body is devoted to him). His eyes pierce Venus’ soul with divine love, but his torso belies a longing in his heart for conquests and glory that are apart from her. See also: CH Poon Commandment III.


Compare and contrast with modern Western art:

It’s the elevation of ugliness all the way down.

Read Full Post »

Remember that Downs Syndrome “model” from the Beta of the Month post?

Friendzoned by a tard. Does it get worse than that?

“We are just friends”

:lol: She said it twice, for the nosebleeds.

As a reader put it, female hypergamy knows no bounds. Downygirl has a beta orbiter — a fellow tard — who looks like he was ready to hug her with the love of ten men. But, you know, she’s a “model”, and no ordinary provider Corky will do for her, even if he’s sporting a righteous clip-on tie.

I tell ya, a girl gets a taste of that sweet chromosomally correct manmeat, and she ain’t looking back!

Read Full Post »

Cool Statue

This is a single statue, sculpted with a demure woman in back and a confident man in front. The mirror allows the viewer to see both sides at once.

What I find interesting about this statue is how, despite the strange duality, the body languages of the man and woman halves seem so natural and normal. We expect feminine deference from a young pretty woman, and masculine stridency from a self-assured man, and that satisfied expectation balances our initial feelings of disorientation.

Read Full Post »

The Straw That Stirs the Drink taunts the feminist Hivemind.

I wonder how big the impact of women working alongside men during WW2 and the subsequent post war increase in urbanization contributed to unleashing hypergamy and the feminist movement…

How rascally! Push women into the workforce, push women into the arms of alpha men and away from the tepid hugs of ol’ beta reliables. You give a lady an inch (or nine) of romance and she takes a mile of Harlequin entitlement.

The causality arrow is up for debate. The Straw is saying that the necessity of working women during the war years (and the unforeseen *ahem* side benefits that accrued to women), plus the rise of anonymous, atomized urbanization, precipitated the feminist devolution.

Or, the feminism propaganda blitz and government/cultural incentives to get women into the workforce en masse came first, which undermined K-selected America and germinated r-selected America. The foul source in this analysis was the fulfillment of two wishes: The wish of the elite for mo’ money and less social cohesion among the majority culture, and the subconscious wish of women for greater fulfillment of their primal (read: not careerist) desires.

(Just as salient, perhaps, the drive to get all women out of the home and into the working world could be viewed as the temper tantrum of a whinority of butt ugly women who never had a shot at domestic tranquility and therefore felt it necessary to agitate for a sea change in how working women were perceived.)

Female hypergamy was with us long before the working girl devolution, but social shaming (and social extolling) campaigns can have a significant impact in how forcefully and frequently that hypergamy is expressed.

Read Full Post »

Eye contact from women is usually the first cue that men who aren’t cut out for cold approaches rely on when deciding whether to initiate a courtship salvo. The disadvantage of waiting for eye contact before making a move is, naturally, the waiting. You’ll never cross the finish line if the starter gun doesn’t go off. The advantage of relying on eye contact authorization from women is the efficiency of only chatting up girls who have ocularly indicated a willingness to be chatted up by you. Plus, eye contact is one of those proto-sexytime signals that can be deduced from a distance, and in various locales. You can catch a woman’s eye on the sidewalk as easily as at a bar or a boardroom.

If eye contact is a must before you’ll consider talking to a random girl, then this post will help you identify your choicest targets. Did you know that people have autonomic eye movements which operate at the subconscious level, and which differ according to contextual inputs?

The rules of eye contact are simple. After catching her eye:

  • If she looks down: She’s instantly attracted but shy.

Approach this girl, but go easy on the cocky jerkboy game. She’s a natural introvert, and a romantic at heart. Don’t come on too strong. A light touch will do, flirty and coy. She’ll just be happy you even had the balls to escort her from her dreamy inner sanctum.

  • If she looks to the side: She’s not instantly attracted.

You will have your work cut out for you on this girl. A side-looker is as good as (or bad as, depending on your perspective) a cold approach on a girl who hasn’t noticed you. The side-looker has a boyfriend, or she doesn’t like your look or your leer, or she’s a manjawed feminist who is constitutionally incapable of flirting with men without having an existential moral crisis. You can turn a girl like this around, but it will mean you have to be exceptionally bold and full of teasing and negs. An effective opener would be one that immediately disqualifies her, flips the script, and assumes the sale. For example, “I caught you checking me out. Don’t worry, even though it’s nothing new, I’m still flattered.”

  • If she holds eye contact intensely: She’s instantly attracted and slutty.

Weaker men wilt under the pressure of the hard-eye contact girl. She’s dripping sex from her limpid orbs, and only men made of sterner stuff will rise to her fightin’ iris challenge. Nothing much needed here but an open-faced “Hi” and a pretext to absolve her nascent feelings of aggressive sluttitude (such as asking her for directions if you cross her path on a street corner). A direct, “Hey, I noticed you from across the room, and had to come over and see what your deal is”, will work in any bar setting. Ovulating women are often intense eye contact machines, and will lock on any man who has the right “look” for her fired-up womb. (This look encompasses not just physical traits, but body language and fashion sense.)

Strangely, I have yet to make eye contact with a girl who reacted by looking upward. If I do, I’ll assume she’s a nun. Or already on her knees in front of me.


As readers have probably noticed, this post was mistakenly titled “An eye contact crib shit”. It has since been corrected. :lol: I keel myself!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,392 other followers

%d bloggers like this: