Thought Experiment

Commenter jack rips a page from Heartistian dark magic texts and presents his own mischievous thought experiment.

I posed this question to my blue pill friends.

Let’s say you’re going to die tomorrow. (Your wife/gf) doesn’t exist. You can have sex with one girl tonight as a grand finale to your life, but she will be random and the ONLY thing you can choose about her is her age.

Nobody picked an age higher than 19.

I said 16.

The interesting thing about jack’s question is that it left the issue of the woman’s beauty unresolved. If you as a man have no idea how a girl will look, you’ll pick a younger girl because you know that whatever a woman’s looks relative to other women, she herself will never look better (read: more fuckable) than when she’s in her late teens. That’s the way to bet.

The law can come down hard, feminists and their manboob flipfloplickers can howl with indignation, white knights can insist to the contrary while steadfastly ignoring the boner putting the lie to their words, but the biological facts of male desire will go on unchanged and irrevocable.

Now, if the question had been posed with the hypothetical girl’s beauty added as a variable, the answers men give would be different:

“a hot 17 year old”

Read Full Post »

The Difference Between Men And Women In Two Charts

An OkCupid SWPL, Christian Rudder, who is handy with database cross-referencing, is publishing a book soon about findings gleaned from OkCupid luser data. Two graphs in particular, which “disturbed” a DroneFeed editor (do these fruit cups ever let up on the faux outrage?), are, to CH eyes, unsurprising and starkly humorous.

The first is a graph plotting age of the women who ostensibly have active OkCupid accounts against the age of the men who “look best to her”:

male SMV window of attractiveness

As you can see, women have a shifting perception of men’s physical attractiveness that skews older along with women’s increasing age. Cougar glorification agit-prop to the contrary notwithstanding, women are not keen on dating men younger than themselves.

Now we turn to the second graph, which is the same, except with the sexes swapped:

female SMV window of attractiveness

Better humor through simplicity.

Men, no matter what age they are, converge on a female attractiveness ideal. And that ideal is a 20-year-old tart. A college bro and a middle-aged suburban domesticate want to screw the same dewy susie. Oh sure, the older married guy will never admit it in polite aka judgmental company, but you can bet he’s feeling it. Remember that, you older wives. And keep your hubbies away from cheerleader practices and college orientations.

Men have always been simpler to analyze from a sexual market perspective. Female youth+beauty = high fertility, which men dig. Or, more precisely, which men’s genetic directive digs. And, given the option and a guarantee of little or no blowback, most older men would happily and hungrily gnaw at some tender shoots.

Women’s biologically conditioned sexuality is more interesting, because women are attracted to a whole suite of male mate value cues that include but are by no means limited to men’s physical attributes. Social status, wealth, confidence, creativity, and charm are examples of male sexual signaling traits that women love. And, many of these male mating cues don’t fully ripen until later in life. This explains why women can legitimately find older men physically attractive. The women are attracted to a host of age-neutral male traits which they associate with easily perceived cues such as facial looks.

The male span of redeemable sexual attractiveness is, on average, 20 to 30 years longer than the female span of sexual attractiveness. This isn’t to claim that the typical 50-year-old man will arouse the typical 20-year-old woman. But it is accurate to say that that 50-year-old man has a lot more options for love than would his 50-year-old female peer. He can genuinely drive a younger woman to ecstasy, whereas a 25-year-old woman is already starting to sexually bore her man.

Read Full Post »

Women Want To Be A Man’s Afterthought

Reader Alif Male passes along an excerpt from an Agatha Christie book.

From “Dumb Witness” Agatha Christie, (1937) Chapter 2

============================================================
“But this feeling of hers for Rex Donaldson was different, it went deeper. She felt instinctively that here there would be no passing on…. Her need of him was simple and profound. Everything about him fascinated her. His calmness and detachment, so different from her own hectic, grasping life, the clear, logical coldness of his scientific mind, and something else, imperfectly understood, a secret force in the man masked by his unassuming slightly pedantic manner, but which she nevertheless felt and sensed instinctively.

In Rex Donaldson there was genius – and the fact that his profession was the main preoccupation of his life and that she was only a part – though a necessary part -of existence to him only heightened his attraction for her. She found herself for the first time in her selfish pleasure-loving life content to take second place. The prospect fascinated her. For Rex she would do anything – anything!”
============================================================

A crime-writer’s outline sketch of one character written 77 years ago tells more truth about women than the last thousand editions of Cosmopolitan and the entire output of Jezebel put together.

The purpose of glam mags and feminist websites is not the telling of truth; it is the propagation of ego-assuaging pretty lies. Assemblages of words are merely scaffolding women use to scale and repair their crumbling self-conceptions.

Of what does the above excerpt remind you?

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

CH never read “Dumb Witness” by Agatha Christie, but as the royal they say, great, and honest, minds think alike.

Women come to despise men who spend their lives placating them. Leave the placating to women. It’s the role to which they are suited, and to which they naturally hew.

Read Full Post »

When Evolution Fails

Can evolution fail? I offer the following thought experiment as evidence that there are circumstances in which evolution proceeds along a path that violates its own precepts.

A high SMV (sexual market value) man who likes the idea of being an anonymous father but not a real father, donates to a sperm bank. One thousand low SMV (fat and/or ugly) women get impregnated by his sperm and have one son each. Will this de facto harem leader’s sons grow up to be

a. more attracted or

b. less attracted

to fat or ugly women?

As commenter Arch Hades put it,

Higher quality male peckers have evolutionarily evolved to not want to impregnate fatties.

But what happens when a high quality male pecker makes a contribution to the wombs of low quality females via an aesthetically neutral conduit like a sperm bank? The intrinsic desire of the man for slender, beautiful women will still be passed onto his one thousand sons, despite the fact that, from his genes’ point of view, he willingly plunged the portals of a lot of gross women. He didn’t start with a predilection for fat or ugly women, so whatever genetic code he passes on through the sperm bank women won’t appear in any of his male progeny as an increased attraction for ugly women.

In this instance, the ironclad law of evolution has been overturned. The “attraction for ugly women” genes that would increase in a state of nature where men with those innate predilections seek out ugly mates and pass their predilection onto future generations does not increase in this scenario of the sperm bank acting as middleman.

Now one could say the sperm bank is unnatural and thus the laws of evolution don’t apply, but anything created by humans must be natural in the sense that culture and its appurtenances are manifestations of genetic architecture previously selected for. The sperm bank is as much a part of the evolutionary biofeedback loop as is the stick that a chimp uses to flush out termites.

What does it say then about evolutionary theory that a sperm bank can essentially sever the connection between reproductive fitness and sexually selected traits? What about contraceptives? In a sense, condoms and the pill act like individually owned and operated sperm banks, altering the ancient equation between female (and male) sexual choice and what kind of children they eventually bear (or not bear).

All this is to say we as a species are entering uncharted territory. Anyone who thinks there won’t be awesome consequences lacks the requisite imagination.

Interestingly, you can sort of see the outlines of the above ugly female client sperm bank scenario playing out in real time in the bars and clubs across America. Just substitute “ugly female client sperm bank” with “fat women”, and the picture crystallizes. Like the man contributing to a sperm bank patronized by ugly women who would otherwise only have sex with attractive women, a nontrivial number of men are crossing their lower bound of acceptable female sexual attractiveness to rut with fatties out of necessity and fear of unwilling celibacy. As upwards of 70% of all American women are heavier than their ideal weight, it’s simply a matter of insufficient suitable mate availability driving an evolutionary trend that is at odds with actual reproductive fitness or male sexual attraction predilection.

The future, should my attempts to clear the SMV fog prove prescient, looks like a horror show of gargantuan beastwomen and sexually and romantically unfulfilled men drifting in and out of each others’ lives in a loveless nihilistic melancholy.

***

PS On a related “Is evolution failing?” note, the buzzy AmRen article titled “Confessions of a Public Defender” is a harrowing read, and provokes some illicit thought about where we are heading demographically. The impression one gets from this titillating exposure to the minds and values of the zoo animal underclass is that the moral senses… fairness, reciprocity, empathy, guilt, even a basic conception of right and wrong… may very well be unevenly distributed not only among members of the same race but between the races in general. If you quake at the idea that average IQ varies by race, how badly will your bowels shake if it’s discovered that some races are more, or less, morally evolved?

CH has gone out on limbs before that have proven to be supported by trunks of strong empirical oak, and we’ll go out on a limb again, one so far up the tree that few if any will have the balls to venture out with us. Morality and empathy are evolved traits, and like many human traits they will be found in varying degrees and complexities of expression among the world’s races. Given this, the civilized nations would do well to consider that their jurisprudence systems are incapable of impartially subsuming the less morally evolved in a manner that suits their own elevated moral sense. If you cannot or are unwilling to grasp that the defendant sitting across from you is closer in temperament and moral evolution to a feral beast than to your kin, you will forever be stricken with crippling doubt about the nature of your race’s achievements and philosophies.

Demographically, then, it becomes imperative that advanced peoples act to limit the fecundity of relative moral degenerates in their midst, or barring that to erect barriers against the incorporation of the upwardly moral and the downwardly amoral. And yet the exact opposite appears to be the rule of the land currently. Evolution is failing, thanks to a warped altruistic impulse that has provided and sustains a fitness advantage for morally infantile, and thus exceedingly dangerous, humans. Again, like the sperm bank scenario above, the state of nature has been upturned and bifurcated by a middleman — in this case, misplaced leftoid equalist generosity towards lesser people who would impulsively kill them without losing a wink of sleep — and traits that would normally get culled due to the dual pressures of sexual and natural selection become instead numerous and widespread.

Deus ex machina has become hominis ex machina.

PPS This post is supameta, and readers will find it hard to resist pointing out the impossibility of evolution “failing” in a system that is part of the natural universe, but as humans we have also evolved a disposition to employ value judgments that maximize our Darwinian fitness, which is a jargony way of saying that an impersonal natural process can indeed fail if it results in the failure of the one species which has proven capable of identifying that process.

Read Full Post »

The Misery Of The Househusband

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”

 

Read Full Post »

Predictors Of Marital Infidelity Among Kenyan Women

Study of the Year material here. You’ll laugh, you’ll nod knowingly, you’ll thank god you weren’t born in Kenya.

The prevalence of extra-marital partnerships among women was 6.2% within a reference time of six months. Factors that were independently associated with increased likelihood of extra-marital partnerships were domestic violence (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI 1.09–1.92), women reporting being denied a preferred sex position (aOR, 3.34; 95% CI 1.26–8.84) and spouse longer erect penis (aOR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.00–1.78). Conversely, women’s age – more than 24years (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI 0.14–0.78) and women’s increased sexual satisfaction (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.96) were associated with reduced likelihood of extra-marital partnerships.

Domestic violence, denial of a preferred sex positions, longer erect penis, younger age and increased sexual satisfaction were the main predictors of women’s involvement in extra-marital partnerships. Integration of sex education, counselling and life skills training in couple HIV prevention programs might help in risk reduction.

The first positive predictor of cheating whoredom — domestic violence — is likely mixing up cause and effect. Husbands who think they’ve been cuckolded by slutty wives are more likely to lash out violently to keep them in line. The rest are both predictable and hilarious. Women not getting off with their husbands cheat more. No surprise. Younger women with more sexual market options cheat more. Again, no surprise to any guest of Le Chateau.

The longer penis association with wifely infidelity is way out of left field. Apparently, penile enlargement remedies are a big thing (heh) in Kenya. But their women canna only take so much, captain!

“…some penis may be large yet my vagina is small, when he tries to insert it inside, it hurts so much that I will have to look for another man who has a smaller one [penis] and can do it in a way I can enjoy”

Are monster dicks more of a visual turn-on for women than a tactile turn-on? (Personal CH experience wielding the boomstick says both.) Or are black women as tight as Chinese finger trap?

The study also points up the importance of keeping your wife sexually satisfied if you don’t want her dreaming of trysts in the tall brown bush (heh!).

“Some [men] just take a minute and leaves you there when you are still ‘hanging’… You cannot even tell if this thing is over or still continuing. Sometime we aren‘t satisfied yet we can‘t explain it [to our partners]. However, when we get men who can satisfy us, we do not waste such chances. For a woman to be ready and get sexual satisfaction usually takes time. Yet he has some high sexual desire and can just finish very fast before you understand how. We are left wondering and can be very happy if we can get someone who can do it better and makes you feel that your body is satisfied. I can just continue with him because his sex is sweet and your husband can then do it on short time basis”

So much for the myth of black male sexual prowess. To be fair, Kenyans are only one type of black. Maybe West Africans can go all night. Gotta love that wife’s rationalization for her cheating: “My lover has a slow hand, which gives me many orgasms so that I’m spent and don’t feel like demanding too much from my two-pumps-and-done husband.”

AIDS is rife in Kenya. Not coincidentally, 6.2% of Kenyan wives cheated within the study’s time span of six months. That’s actually a formidable number when you consider that Kenyan men are world-class cheaters. Add up all the dalliances and condom refusals and it’s no wonder Africa is getting the HIV shiv.

Read Full Post »

Social Distrust Is Way Up Among Millennials

As reported by NPR (I’m sure with gritted teeth), a Pew Study finds

that the milliennial generation has a low level of social trust. There are several possible causes for this distrust, including a skewed social media culture and a faltering economy. […]

One explanation for this, the study suggests, is growing racial diversity – 43 percent of millennial adults are non-white, making this the most diverse generation in America.

Holy macaroni! Is the SPWL stronghold of NPR about to grapple with the CH aphorism “diversity + proximity = war“?

She says, minority groups have long had low levels of social trust.

CAMILLE LEAK: I think that, ultimately, it stems from their history of having to deal with persecution and discrimination, whether in their personal lives or within the business setting. […]

Leak suggests that the Internet itself is another reason millennials are so distrustful.

LEAK: I mean, there’s a reason why catfish is now a verb.

Ah, no. This being NPR, leftoid headquarters, the bleeding obvious escapes them. Social distrust can’t be up because diversity is making the full court press and severing ethnocentric communal bonds. No no, it has to be white privilege, persecution, or the internet. Hey guess what? I’ll add another theory to the mix that’s no less nebulous and unfalsifiable than the catch-all assertion of white privilege: Dissembling media leftoids are causing the rise in social distrust.

So who’s the one in five that says, yeah, people can be trusted? Sara Bakken’s one of them. She lives in South Dakota. She says, if she were to meet someone on the street, chances are, she could trust them.

South Dakota is 84% white, 21% higher than the national average.

Camille Leak says, low levels of social trust shouldn’t be mistaken for a pessimistic world view.

LEAK: It’s just being savvy and being realistic, and I think that’s what it is for a lot of millennials. It’s not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It’s about being realistic.

Do Millennials strike you as hard-headed realists? Maybe they are when they aren’t whining about microaggressions or the patriarchy or extolling the artistry of anime.

Despite this lack of trust, the study says, the millennial generation is the most upbeat about the future of the country.

“The basis of optimism is sheer terror.”
– Oscar Wilde

There was one other interesting tidbit to come out of the study:

Within the millennial generation in particular, multicultural consumers have a much higher level of influence on their non-Hispanic white counterparts. So we’re seeing that even outside of areas like trust, non-Hispanic white millennials have begun to adopt certain multicultural [sic] behaviors or characteristics.

Translation: A drop of wine into sewage makes sewage. A drop of sewage into wine makes sewage.

Diversity + proximity = war. Keep saying it leftoids, until your heads explode scanners-style.

Read Full Post »