Men Cheat More Than Women Because Men Have Stronger Sex Drives

When feminists aren’t happily asserting that women cheat just as much as men do, they’re raging that cheating men are insecure chauvinist pigs who are afraid of strong, independent women. As per usual with the human emojis known as feminists, trying to square their internal contradictions is an exercise in infinitely recursive futility.

Which is why it’s so much fun just to stick the hot shiv in their flabby hides and watch them squeal in pain. Courtesy of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥science♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, a study found that men cheat more not because they have weaker self-control than women, but because men have stronger sex drives that compel them to cheat.

A recently published study strongly suggests men succumb to sexual temptations more than women—for example, cheating on a partner—because they experience strong sexual impulses, not because they have weak self-control.

Previous research has shown that men are more likely than women to pursue romantic partners that are “off limits.” However, until now, the explanation for this sex difference was largely unexplored.

One possible explanation for this effect is that men experience stronger sexual impulses than women do. A second possibility is that women have better self-control than men. The current study’s results support the former explanation and provide new insight into humans’ evolutionary origins.

Let’s tally up the scorecard and see how many losses feminists and their equalist paymasters suffered from this one single study:

1. Men have stronger sex drives than women.

Reality: 1, Feminists: 0.

2. Women don’t have more sexual self-control than men; they just have relatively weaker sex drives that reduce their compulsion to cheat.

Reality: 2, Feminists: 0.

3. Men have evolved different sexual strategies than women, and a higher male sex drive is one manifestation of that evolved sex difference.

Reality: 3, Feminists: 0.

4. Any sexual temptation is harder for men to deny than it is for women to deny, because men have more innately powerful sex drives that they must suppress.

Reality: 4, Feminists: 0.

5. Feminists are stoopid. It’s self-evident.

Reality: 5, Feminists: 0.

There’s a dearly held belief by feminists and their beta male suck-ups that women are the more “moral” sex. But virtue is empty braggadocio if it isn’t tested by vice. The fact that men need to expend greater efforts of self-control than are required of women to refuse the temptation of sexual infidelity is proof that, at least along this spectrum of virtuous behavior, men are the more moral sex.

Read Full Post »

It’s Happening… Intelligence Gene Discovered

The Lost Ark of the human sciences, intelligence genes, has been found and opened, and the faces of Universalist Equalists are melting into a bloody pulp. Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence.

Researchers have found that teenagers who had a highly functioning NPTN gene performed better in intelligence tests.

It is thought the NPTN gene indirectly affects how the brain cells communicate and may control the formation of the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the human brain, also known as ‘grey matter.’ […]

Teens with an underperforming NPTN gene did less well in intelligence tests. […]

They found that, on average, teenagers carrying a particular gene variant had a thinner cortex in the left cerebral hemisphere, particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes, and performed less well on tests for intellectual ability.

The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots. Soon, very soon, they will have nowhere to hide nor any shadowed mental crevice left to dissemble. They will be faced with a stark choice: Capitulate, or self-deliver on the altar of their monstrous, deformed egos.

I foresee an end to the current Leftoid Regime playing out as one of two scenarios: Whole-hearted (and back-rationalized) embrace of eugenics and anti-dysgenic policies, or further retreat into smaller and smaller technologically and economically gated safe spaces where their hedonism can carry them gently to the eternal darkness, as a fetid tide of decivilization rises.

Will it be Gattaca or Attica? Is there a third way, less tyrannical but still wise and sensible? More importantly, is it too late to make these choices?

Addendum:
In Houellebecq’s novel The Elementary Particles, the protagonist, Michel, discovers a molecular process that launches the age of genetic engineering. Michel is loveless and sad, a numberless victim of a ruthless modern sexual market, and in the end… [SPOILER]… he walks into the ocean and disappears. He lived his personal Gattaca, and it was no savior to him. Was his death a warning of what he unleashed, or a fitting tribute to the end of humanity as we know it?

Read Full Post »

Sex Differences In Seduction Behaviors

An interesting study, with findings that won’t surprise regular CH readers,

This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses [ed: KINO!]. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain.

To put it in LAYman’s terms: Women seduce men with their bodies, men seduce women with their nimble tongues (aka game).

Women require plausible deniability in matters of the tingle. Ambiguity is, to women, the essence of seduction. Hints and innuendo, “does he or doesn’t he?” mental calisthenics, and dramatic reversals and forward movements all contribute to heightening a woman’s sexual arousal.

Men need none of this. A pretty woman could present her naked body for the taking, and the man will take it, no (sincere) questions asked. Men abide the nuanced female view of seduction because women hold the key to sex; men who don’t abide women’s unspoken romantic predilections tend to go home alone. To bed a woman, a man must find a way to oscillate on her tingle frequency, and then to amplify that frequency. This tingle amplification needn’t be permanent; short bursts of wavelength alignment are often enough to do the job, because most men hardly come close to hurdling that low bar.

The best male seducers are those who relish the inherently feminine nature of seduction. These are men who not only understand the rules of the game, they are overjoyed to apply them, and in so doing come to master them.

So women use coy facial expressions and sexy displays of their bodies to entrance men, while men use words and subtle touch to entrance women. In other words, each sex PLAYS BY THE RULES OF THE OTHER SEX. Women give men what men want (visually stimulating sexiness and lip-licking promise) and men give women what women want (a torrent of seductive, pregnant words anchored with erotic, escalating touches).

Somewhere, right now, a weirdo omega hater is shrieking about GAMEBOYZ DANCING TO WOMEN’S TUNE. It shrieks alone tonight.

Read Full Post »

When The Wall Comes Rising Into View

A sad woman left the following comment (scroll down) to a post about an OkCupid experiment in dating profiles which CH covered in detail here.

An even more insightful “study” would be to do the same thing but use people of similar attractiveness but different ages. I am in my 40’s and I receive virtually no messages. I did the Match thing for six months and sent over 200 messages, all of which were “custom” to the guy I was contacting. I can’t stand cut and paste emails, not to mention they’re obviously cut and paste. I got fewer than 10 responses. In six months. What I have taken away from this whole experience is if you’re female and your age starts with a number equal to or higher than 4 (I’m 45) it is not going to be a great experience. And if, like me, you’re tall (5’11″) it’s going to be even worse.

Dating sites exist to make a profit, and that means by necessity and in accord with the nature of their market and consumer sentiment they must push a silo full of pretty lies. If they were to come out and say “ugly, fat and older women and boring, poor and loser men need not apply”, that would cut into revenues. And probably provoke an idiotic discrimination lawsuit which serves the betterment of absolutely nothing.

So dating sites package their pretty lies in pabulum like “customization” and “29 dimensions of compatibility to find your perfect match” that specifically ping the hopefulness radars of lovelorn women and the men who follow where those women go. Keep hope alive, because when you can’t find a date in the real world, hope is all you have left.

Never are the inherent limitations of online dating sites more apparent than when the eFallacy marketing fluff meets the massive edifice of the Wall. The Splat Protocol is that event horizon when aging beauties become like the beta males they ignored in their youth, now reduced to spending hours and hours working feverishly on their arid, online dating profiles only to be rewarded with crumbs of lackluster attention from those very same men.

The lesson here is that cultural leverage in whatever form has to be brought to bear on the inflated egos and runaway narcissism of American women to guide them to wise life decisions. This wisdom would include reminders to settle down young while they still have the glow of natural rosiness in the cheeks, and warnings against imagining internet dating is some kind of reprieve from the merciless judgment of the God of Biomechanics.

when the wall… comes rising into view
when the wall… comes closing in on you
when the wall… is looming all arouuuund
– Jane “Cougar” Mellentramp

UPDATE

Commenter Wrecked ‘Em (rectum? I nearly wrecked em!) writes,

And on the flip side, 50 y.o. friend changed his match profile to imply that he looks younger than his age, has younger friends, that women his age can’t hang, and finally listed his real income, which is over match’s top spot of $150k/yr… then dropped his minimum age on “looking for” to 28.

He then proceeded to like photos and favorite plenty of women in the 28-32 age range, wholly ignoring what age of man they were supposedly interested in. Based on the response he’s seen thus far his new theory is that the hotter the girl is the more likely she’ll respond. He’s swimming in it after only a week of this.

Given compensatory attributes (game, wealth, looks, overconfidence, preselection by younger women/friends), a man can easily date women significantly younger than himself. Women, in contrast, have little ability to compensate for their aging.

The Wall comes to all, but men have the option to outflank it for a while. Women can only watch in horror as it bears down on them.

Read Full Post »

Picky Men

The alt-internet is a strange land where you can find people who appear to have lived in a hermetically sealed Tyvek bubble since birth, and have escaped all interaction with reality. A recent example of this reality-cushioned subspecies is the obligate sperg — male or female — who believes, with absolutely no supporting evidence beside the whispers her hamster breathes into her brain ear, that men exercise no discretion when choosing a mate.

You’ll see this type litter comment sections of blogs whenever the discussion turns, however tangentially, to the horrifying and bowel-shaking notion that men actually prefer to bang and commit to prettier women at the expense of uglier women, and that this preference likely contributed to the evolution of beauty in women, particularly the women of certain races. On the Ugly Truth scale, mentioning that in medicated company is the equivalent of casually noting the vast (and increasingly puzzling, based on current performance) overrepresentation in elite institutions of 2% of the population.

But as anyone who has lived a day in his life knows, men are choosy. (I’m looking at you, Satoshi Kanazawa.) Go to a bar or a nightclub and AMAZE YOURSELF at the sight of so many men gunning for the attention of best in show, and how that best in show as judged by men are, PECULIARLY, often the same three girls. And then notice to your UTTER STUPEFACTION how so many men ignore the overtures of the less attractive girls, even at closing time when, legend has it, men become sex-hungry dogs incapable of controlling their impulses.

No, men are not dogs. Men are discerning dogs. Yes, men like to hump, but they do so with an eye for quality. Male choosiness is real, and while it’s not the equivalent of female choosiness in breadth or intensity, it exists, and it has likely shaped who we are today, and how our women look today. Intriguingly, there have been environments in the distant past when the sex ratio was so skewed by premature male deaths that the few lucky men left alive had a bounty of mate options that would seem incomprehensible to most men alive today, save for the über famous or obscenely wealthy. And since men, almost to the exclusion of all other considerations, prefer sex with hotter women to sex with plainer women, it’s a small logical leap to infer that, given favorable sexual market conditions, men will choose to fuck more often, and more vigorously, the prettiest of women from among all the women. And from that, men will choose to invest their resources in those prettier women, ensuring that their children have a survival advantage over the children of uglier women.

Rinse with sperm and repeat for a thousand years, and you’ve got a race of women who look as if they’ve been touched by the chisel of God.

And the male impulse toward polygyny needn’t be dismissed out of hand for this to work. Simply impose environmental constraints on the amount of resources any one man can amass and thus distribute among multiple women, and he will be nudged in the direction of favoring with his cooperation and sexual gift only those women who most stiffen his splitter. Even a small nudge in this direction can produce massive long-term generational change in the looks of women. An alpha male in possession of a few extra furs and stores of winter grain, who services, say, four women, will plow harder, and plow more often, the best looking of his harem. Over time, and patterned similarly among other men like him, this targeted ardor will lead to differentials in reproductive fitness between the women.

But enough of the theorizing. You don’t need computational geneticists to prove to you what your own eyes can see any night in a crowded bar. So get the hell out of your lala land, internet sperg, and join the human race. You might learn a thing or two.

Read Full Post »

The CH Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy To Reduce Income Inequality, Increase Fertility, And Reinvigorate National Pride

Your lovable overlord CH is on record advocating the “Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy” (BoSSS) to reduce income inequality and increase the fertility rate among the better classes.

Fisher agress with the CH diagnosis of the postmodern West that the end days of a civilization are characterized by an exaltation of deviancy (equalism) and a debasement of normalcy (sophism). We in the West long ago abandoned our barbarian ethos. In return for this “moral progress”, we have limitless pleasures of the flesh and material comforts. But we also have complacency, self-annihilating moral universalism, and infertility. Perhaps a return to barbarian values is just the medicine to save the West from a long walk in the shadow of the valley of death.

The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women. Call it the CH boss-secretary sexual strategy to renew Western vitality. This will increase fertility, increase total happiness, and decrease the degenerate SWPL culture monolith that is at the lead of decivilizing and ethnically cleansing great Western nations.

Silly reader, you thought it was a self-amusing exercise in hyperbole. Oh no.

Has there been an increase in positive assortative mating? Does assortative mating contribute to household income inequality? Data from the United States Census Bureau suggests there has been a rise in assortative mating. Additionally, assortative mating affects household income inequality. In particular, if matching in 2005 between husbands and wives had been random, instead of the pattern observed in the data, then the Gini coefficient would have fallen from the observed 0.43 to 0.34, so that income inequality would be smaller. Thus, assortative mating is important for income inequality. The high level of married female labor-force participation in 2005 is important for this result.

Science and CH… ♥♥♥ together!

Assortative mating is creating an Eloi-Morlock, or Elf-Orc, social stratification. People are forming credential-based blocs and seceding economically and socially if not yet politically. This cultural secession is reinforcing mutual ignorance, dampening mutual sympathies, and hollowing the natural fellow-feeling that is the bedrock foundation — the first principle — of any nation that wishes to carry forward in prosperity for the benefit of its posterity. Explosive diversity amplifies the stratification, and may have even been the fission reaction that set this immolation aflame and hardened hearts in its crucible of crisis.

The deadly chain of assortative mating must be broken for Western civilization to have a rebirth of greatness. The way to do this is the BoSSS system. BoSSS men will marry pretty secretaries or other occupationally “lowly” women instead of acquiescing to the hitch of convenience with multiple-degreed lawyercunts. The result of a generation of BoSSS is an end to the reign of meritocratic lovelessness, cognitive and geographic cocooning, and class-fueled hatred. An end to late-in-life spergs borne of the desiccated wombs of overeducated cougars. An end to the swarm of communications graduates with nothing to offer in a modern tech-centric economy. An end to… dare my heart speak it!… feminism and equalism as mass delusions rationalizing a world tearing apart.

There will be those who protest that BoSSS is dysgenic. But they operate under a misconception about how exactly women’s value in the mating market is calculated. A woman’s mate worth is not measured by her years toiling in grad school, or by her achievements, or by her ambition, or by her social connections or her business acumen. It is measured by her beauty, her femininity, and her compassion. The secretary with the blazing blue eyes, hourglass figure, and heart of gold is worth, in the abacus of men’s desire, more than a thousand meticulously credentialed globalist form factors. She is true beauty to the ascendent ugliness looming around her.

And she needn’t be dumb, either. Many sweet, charming “lower class” women are sharp as tacks, despite their mortal sin of having not willingly endured 52 years of academic mind meld to the equalist borg.

CH said it once, and says it again: It’s time to return to the old, true ways. To a courtship arena that paired established men with pretty young assistants full of adoration and admiration. It is the natural order of things, the divine prescription, when the starry-eyed lovely, already gazing in welcome submission, completes the act of her surrender to the powerful man above her. And in so doing, circles back to the wisdom of the ancients, and casts to the everlasting darkness the jackal harridans of the globo-femcunt credentialist collective.

I tell you now, break these assortative mating chains! Free! Free! Free at last! Thank God Almighty you are free at last to pursue love with a cute, worshipful underling and be a happy man again!

PS: There are plenty of reasons why CH rails against the obesity epidemic so passionately, but one is that it’s easier for high status men to date “occupationally lower” women if those women still have their exquisite figures.

Read Full Post »

Why Are Women More Liberal Than Men?

It’s hardly a secret that women vote more liberal and Democrat than do men. Even married women, while voting less liberal than their unmarried cohort, retain the sex disparity in vote preference. A study has found that suffrage moved the country inexorably to the left, and it hasn’t stopped moving in the degenerate direction since.

CH proposed a biological mechanism that follows from an understanding of the sexual market to explain the greater liberalism of women. As the resource-exploiting sex, women are neurally charged to extract support and transfer provisions from men to themselves to see them through the tough times of pregnancy and the raising of small children. To aid them in this purpose, women have evolved an innate (if subtly shifting) warmth for men who can provide for them and who show it through romantic displays of fidelity.

But when women become self-supporting, either by their own financial independence or via government largesse (which is in practice the redistribution of beta male resources to women), then the limbic impulses that help them connect with beta providers become short-circuited and redirected to charming cads and government growth. The cad serves the pile driver need while the sugar daddio big government serves the provider need. Under this arrangement, women can indeed “have it all”, (except for long-term commitment from men, which loses its incentive structure in this beta-bypass system).

Therefore, the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.

All’s fair in souls and shivs, but this may be only part of the story of women’s infantile harm-based liberalism. The political and economic liberalism of women coexists with a greater female tendency to collectivism and religious feeling. Oddly, women appear to be both more liberal and more conservative than men, at least when the metrics used for comparison are sliced thinner. (And the hamster went wheeee….)

Researchers have (re)discovered that boys are slugs and snails and puppy dogs’ tails and girls are sugar and spice and everything nice.

Can disgust sensitivity help explain why women tend to be more collectivistic?

The researchers sought to examine why women are more likely than men to endorse the socially conservative attitudes of collectivism and religious fundamentalism. Both attitudes encourage cooperation with one’s own social group and the shunning of outsiders.

Women on average tend to adhere to social and religious norms, and practice within-group reciprocity more than their male counterparts.

So… women are conformist lemmings who get the vapors when someone dissents from the party line. Never woulda guessed.

“Females are more likely to exhibit forms of social conservatism that involve ingroup cohesion and outgroup avoidance (e.g., collectivism)…”

White women, in particular, are assiduous about dating within their race. SWPL chicks may chant kumbaya, but their revealed dating preferences say “white is right”.

Across four separate studies, the researcher found that those who were more easily disgusted and more afraid of contamination were more likely to be both female and socially conservative. The four studies were comprised of 980 undergraduate students in total.

WEIRD alert.

The link between disgust and conservativism is bolstered by previous studies. […]

But why do women tend to be more easily disgusted than men? The researchers think this can be attributed to evolution.

Men and women are both vulnerable to pathogens in the environment. However, the sexes face a distinct imbalance when it comes to reproduction. Women must bear approximately 9 months of pregnancy, while men’s “initial investment can be as little as the amount of time that it takes for copulation,” the researcher explained.

Women therefore have more to lose from mating with a bad partner. They also need to avoid exposing their gestating offspring to pathogens. Women with heightened feelings of disgust would have been more likely to avoid sickly mates and keep their fetus healthy, and consequentially more likely to pass on their genes.

Makes sense. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, pathogens were a much greater threat than they are today in the age of penicillin and indoor plumbing. Disgust and its concomitant moral rationale evolved because it increased the chances of one’s survival, and the survival of one’s children.

Women’s heightened feeling of disgust also explains the quickness with which they resort to labeling men they don’t want to have sex with as “creeps”.

Disgust, in turn, encourages “the preference of ingroup members over outgroup members, because outgroup members pose a greater disease threat,” the researchers wrote. This preference towards members of one’s own group manifests itself as socially conservative attitudes, like religious fundamentalism.

“In other words, disgust sensitivity prepares individuals to have a negative perception of others who may be a source of contamination and to avoid them.”

If women feel more disgust, why do they vote more liberal? The conundrum is solved if you don’t conflate “collectivism” and “conservatism”. The two are very different moral outlooks. Collectivists have strong liberal tendencies, such as wealth redistribution and PC policing. Conformism, too, is today more a trait of liberals than of non-liberals.

What about social liberalism? Aren’t women on the whole more socially liberal than men? First, SWPL women are not all women. For example, support for abortion restrictions runs about dead even between men and women nationally, but I’m sure you’d find that in the baby-less blue cities, pro-abortion is the default position among women.

Second, social liberalism can accommodate collectivism (or vice versa). If the prevailing view of “your tribe” is that gay marriage is doubleplusgood, then you’ll happily parrot newspeak if it means strengthening in-group cohesion. And you’ll do this even if your sex possesses a lower disgust threshold.

Jonathan Haidt has theorized that disgust/sanctity is one of five moral foundations, of which ideological conservatives weigh more heavily than do liberals. I think there is evidence based on women’s greater propensity to feel disgust to question Haidt’s categorization. The disgust reflex apparently acts to amplify women’s social liberalism, possibly by providing emotional justification for repurposing feelings of disgust against ideological outsiders. If this is happening, as I suspect it is, then natural female disgust is, in the modern context, less a behavioral adaptation to infectious disease than it is protection against “infectious ideological opponents”.

The analysis gets more complicated when race is added to the mix. Black women are liberal, but their liberalism is driven by different moral and self-interested motivations than that which drives white women. The question left unanswered is whether the disgust reflex is universally higher among women or if it varies in intensity between the races.

Finally, we can predict that liberalism is ascendent and will continue its cultural ascent in lockstep with generationally decreasing testosterone levels, because lower testosterone among men putatively translates to stronger feelings of (ideological) disgust in men (akin to what women feel), and a stronger predilection toward feminine collectivism and equalist conformism.

In other words, the world is becoming more womanly and scalzied. Those who hope for a return to reason and common sense may first need to figure a way to re-inflate the sad shriveled sacks of the manlets of the West.

Read Full Post »