The Average Female Face Of Different Countries

Although the source and scientific rigor of this graphic can’t be verified by crack CH gumshoes, it is interesting enough even in its vagueness and limitations to spur charmingly adolescent discussion about female beauty and its correlation with race and ethnicity. Take it for what it is, and assume some bias in the photo selection process that produced these averages of female faces from various nations. (No doubt the bias alluded is the surmise that the photoshopper is a white SWPL nerd deliberately choosing photo samples that minimize any uncomfortable racial disparities. Let’s face it (heh), it’s the way to bet nowadays.)

A few passing thoughts. First, for your social circuit approved elucidation, the Cathedral-sanitized thoughts are presented:

The sky is blue. Global warming is really bad. All women are beautiful the world over. There’s no such thing as absolute morality. Aren’t Republicans evil?

And now the unfiltered candor that fills the cheap seats is presented:

– As perhaps has been noted before on this blog and by numerous others, averaging the faces of multiple women appears to improve the looks of the final amalgam. The softening of asymmetrical protuberances and the converging toward the Golden Ratio can explain much of this phenomenon. However…

– The degrees of symmetry, softening and feminization in the female amalgams are not distributed equally among all population groups. While most of these women meet the minimum bangableness threshold for all but the most discerning (or Pointy Elbow Syndrome suffering) men, some clearly stand out as superior specimens of stiffy inspiration. As it seems is the usual in these international pulchritude comparisons, Ukraine, Russia and the Mediterranean minxes come out looking the best.

– In the general, the white women (where dey at? disappearing fast) have the edge over their historically geographically distant competition, but racial bias (a healthy and normal evolved human inclination which wouldn’t be so universally possessed were it not reproductively fitness enhancing, as the Peter Stone Cold Frosts of the world might quip) most certainly clouds accurate cross-racial comparison. Within the kernel of the seed of us men (and women) surely resides an incomprehensible, and barely comprehended, favoring for close encounters of the kin kind. It’s genetic continuity all the way down. That is, until a white woman is air-lifted into District 9. Then it’s a genetic hybridization orgy.

– The Dutch fused filly is mega hot. Those eyes, those eyes. They megaphonically telegraph “I am thinking about your rock hard cock driving itself into the chassis of my high church Nordic womb. The merest graze of my eddied upper lip on your proud exclamation will send you to spasms of molten release.” What her eyes do not say: “I bet you’re intimidated by my Masters in Third World Rebranding and my Tier 15 law school credential.” American women, take note.

– Asian chicks are overrated. But, they’e thin. And that’s where they close the gap with white women vis a vis the lustful longings of white men.

– The black African women outperform expectations. But, if most men had to choose…

– Sadly, no amount of averaging will rescue the Samoan girl from looking like an ugly ladyboy with a tribble on her head.

– A keen-eyed cad might mention that the averages of the women look epidermally lighter-toned than the everyday street versions he encounters on his travels around the globe. The South Indian girl, for instance, is a few color charts lighter skinned than the ones seen in photos of her countrywomen obliviously washing clothes in a fetid river transporting cow and human carcasses to their tenth lives as ants.

– French women may not be the world’s most beautiful, but CH proclaims them in the running for the world’s sexiest. Ween, ween, monsieur.

– What the graphic doesn’t tell us: The length of the tails of the beauty distribution for each represented country. Is the cute British girl, for example, close to the appearance of a randomly chosen young British woman, or is she the fuse of a lot of ugly Brit chicks averaged with a few super hot Moneypennys?

– Would have loved to see an Australian aboriginal average face included in this graphic. For the yuks, (entendre intended).

– The American woman amalgam is not represented. The frame was simply too small to fit her.

– The Brazil chick looks like every dirty porn star on the internet. Brazil should just rename itself to Pornistasia.

– Argentina is sitting on a Yankee candle.

– Peru has been wanting to get married since she was five.

– Burma: pedophile charges. Upside: you’ll always feel like you’re deflowering a virgin.

– Sweden is what too much feminism does to a woman’s looks.

– That Mexico chick? Yeah, 99.9999999% of Mexican border jumpers don’t look like her. So settle down open borders nutjobs.

– Irish girl is missing, which is too bad. Too bad for science, of course. One wonders (well, one with a juvenile curiosity wonders) if averaging would eliminate the famed jutting chin of the Emerald Isle lass.

– Who the hell does a female reader have to blow to get a !Kung woman represented in these beauty contests?

Read Full Post »

The Beauty Ratio

Take a look at this series of photos. Which woman, left or right, is more beautiful?

How elusive is the concept of beauty? Apparently, not very. With a few microtweaks of geometric proportions, a woman’s face can turn from plain to pulchritudinous. The Marquardt Beauty Mask uses the pentagon and decagon as a foundation that, when a face is aligned to the mask, objectively proves that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder (beyond the trivial biological fact that a visual processing center in the brain must apprehend beauty), but rather is a definable and universal constant of formulaic precision that can be replicated and duplicated to achieve the identical hornytoad response in men the world over.

Nihilism and cynicism are perfectly justified when the timeless mysteries of human wonder yield to the investigative scalpel of cold numerical analysis.

Read Full Post »

Why Men Don’t Have BFFs

Watch this video of a man and a woman, respectively, dropping a mickey in their dates’ drinks.

When the man attempts to drug his date, a mongrel horde of white knights descends upon him to break him on the wheel. But when the woman does the same to her date… crickets. Not a stir among the white knight brigade to defend from bodily harm the man who is the victim of her mickey. Only one person — a woman — steps up to tell the guy that his date put a pill in his drink.

This is all unsurprising to Chateau regulars who are familiar with the fundamental premise governing human sociosexual dynamics.

Interestingly, this reluctance to come to a man’s aid (relative to the eagerness to do so for women) is why men’s same-sex friendships are so much deeper and more meaningful than women’s same-sex friendships. When a man has earned another man’s true friendship, their loyalty can last for decades, through the worst tribulations. Women’s friendships are, by way of contrast, quite a bit more… how shall we say?… gossipy and fickle.

This is the reason why women invent terms like “BFF”, (Best Friend Forever). When you can’t really count on your friends to be there, you artificially pump the value of your friendships with branding exercises that allow you and them to think the relationship is more profound than it is. Men have no need for such verbal calisthenics, because a man’s close friends have earned their place in his world by their action, not by their word. His loyal male friends are presumed BFFs. No marketing or product branding required.

Read Full Post »

Study: Women Really Are Becoming More Like Men

And, to a lesser extent, men more like women, at least in an outpost of the West.

Facial structure of men and women has become more similar over time. […]

Researchers found that craniofacial differences between contemporary men and women are less pronounced than they were in the 16th century. The researchers also found that, while craniofacial features for both sexes in Spain have changed over time, the changes have been particularly significant in females. For example, the facial structure of modern Spanish females is much larger than the structure of 16th century females. This difference may stem from improved nutrition or other environmental factors.

The manjaw is not a figment of the imaginations of CH scene observers. Western women really are looking less feminine and, likely, becoming more psychologically man-like because personality traits and physiology correlate.

So this is the world the West is hurtling toward: A steaming mass of lantern-jawed, hairy forearmed, gratingly obnoxious feminist witches. A world of Amanda Marcottes. What could be a worse sexually unimorph combo than the entitlement and irrationality of women hitched to the aggro posturing and striver pretensions of men?

The study doesn’t say how much of the masculinization of women is genetic versus environmental, but the distinction is academic, since once a woman has taken on male traits it’s nigh impossible to re-feminize her within the window of her fifteen year peak sexual marketability.

Whether it’s more calories, better (or worse) nutrition, or sexual selection favoring self-sufficient careerist shrikes, the path to divinely inspired and exquisitely vulnerable female beauty appears to have hit a thicket of brambles. And who are the biggest losers in this manjawed milieu? Beta provider males. What do they bring to the marketplace of ids that a go-getter bitch with her own pursestrings doesn’t already have? A cuckold victim promissory note?

Read Full Post »

That Which Doesn’t Kill You, Makes You More Seductive

There is a concept in biology known as “hormesis“, which describes the process of an organism becoming stronger when exposed to low levels of stressors. An example of this process would be taking tiny amounts of cobra venom over a long period of time so as to develop an immunity against cobra bites.

An Army study (the link to which is now broken, unfortunately) found evidence that the physiological damage from sustained stress can be mitigated by hormetic intervention. Via reader Retrophoebia,

Prolonged stress cripples the hippocampus, which is full of cortisol receptors and therefore highly responsive to stress signals. It particularly degrades executive function, motor skills and declarative memory processes. The excess cortisol of sustained stress degrades hippocampal plasticity (capacity for continuous alteration of neural pathways) and hippocampal dendritic morphology (disconnects neural networks by decreasing the number of apical dendrite branch points).

Prolonged stress causes real, deleterious physical effects.

Men who received the SIT [stress innoculation training] appraised stimulants as less stressful, displayed higher coping competence and had a reduced cortisol response compared with the control group. These findings suggest that stress inoculation training will attenuate soldiers’ combat stress response.

Stress inoculation training = hormesis. The men who received the training became better at withstanding higher levels of sustained stress. The mild pain of lower stresses made them stronger against greater stresses.

Retrophoebia asks the relevant question,

Think that has any Game applications? I do.

Agreed. The first thought is that “game hormesis” is accomplished by the simple act of making approaches. The more women with whom you interact, the easier each future interaction will become, and the better you’ll be able to brush off any rejections. And this matters, because occasionally you’ll have an interaction that goes wrong, and you’ll want your biosystems to be resilient so you can handle the stressful situation competently. You want your hippocampus working for you, not against you.

It also follows from the study that your newbie approaches should be with girls who meet your minimal attractiveness standards, but who aren’t much hotter than that. The key to extracting hormetic benefits is to introduce the inoculating stress in tiny amounts. A hard 10 is not a tiny amount of stress for most men. However, an easy-on-the-eyes 6 is a low level stress.So there is wisdom in the pickup artist injunction to start with less physically intimidating girls and build your way up to hitting on hotter babes.

A final thought is that men who have been hormetically inured to sociosexual stressors are more attractive to women. Chicks dig a man who exhibits grace under pressure. It’s why chicks drop shit tests like Walter White drops potential informants. A woman won’t know if you have the requisite grace unless she applies some pressure to coax it out of you. If you can withstand her onslaught, (whether by way of her transfixing beauty or her staggering psy ops), and parry with the measured self-assurance of a man who’s been through plenty of tense courtship situations before, then her regard and her desire for you will increase.

Read Full Post »

Monthly Cycle Game: A Teaser

CH taunted and teased you ladies with hints of forthcoming posts on Monthly Cycle Game.

[T]here are two distinct schools of game every man should use: One tailored to women during the one week they’re ovulating and demanding of more dominance signals, and one tailored to women during the three weeks they prefer more signals of attainability and commitment. How will you know when to use each? Stay tuned.

Here’s a little pleaser teaser to get you started on your road to mastering MCG, the art of adjusting your game to women’s cycles. A reader passed along the following study.

Synopsis ad paraphrase:  That the most fertile women have a 29.5 day cycle, and their menstration tends to be during full moon. While the most infertile women tend to bleed a week after full moon.

File this baby under “wow, just wow”. Do you enjoy the pleasures of exceedingly fertile women with exquisite hourglass figures who look like they could birth a small village? Then you’ll want to ramp up your aloof alpha cockiness when they’re ovulating, which appears to be, according to this study, [correction: two weeks before] full moons. So look up at the night sky, find that love-lit orb shining its arrogant fullest, wait two weeks, and confidently neg that hard 10 knowing she’ll never be more receptive to your jerkboy charms than right at that moment.

In future posts dedicated to the concept of Monthly Cycle Game, CH will examine the ovulatory “tells” that betray maximally fertile women; tells which men with a trained eye will be able to pick up and exploit to their end-of-civilization advantage.

Read Full Post »

Are Antidepressants Ruining American Women?

Think about the ecumenical change in society that, intuitively, must be happening with the widespread use of various hindbrain altering drugs, like the Pill and antidepressants. This is a change in biochemistry unparalleled in human evolutionary history. It’d be a miracle of serendipity if there weren’t blowback.

A reader surmises,

Great site. Good advice. But …

There is something to be said for all the anti-depressants/mood stabilizers/whatevers that women are taking these days. And I mean, a LOT of women on are on these psych drugs. You’re asking me so what, right? Well …

A lot of a man’s behavior toward women rests on the presumption (truth) that women are insecure and may get depressed at times, and when they do, they choose a man that has been solid for them. They either choose one, confide in the one they “love” or return to one. BUT, with these drugs, I think a lot of their negative feelings are prevented, making them less vulnerable.

It’s something I’ve noticed among professional women. Sure, maybe my game isn’t what it was, but I think it’s worth addressing. Women’s drugs are changing the game a little bit.

An interesting hypothesis we have here, and one that may go a ways to explaining why there is a growing impression among American men that their women are becoming manlier, sluttier, present-time oriented, and all-around less provocatively charming.

Here’s a lovefact sure to torque a feminist’s fat hamster into a tailspin:

Maxim #27: Beyond beauty, a woman’s attractiveness to men is partly a function of her feminine vulnerability, or her ability to mimic feminine vulnerability.

Corollary to Maxim #27: Men are turned off by overconfident, assertive, proudly self-sufficient women.

Yep, despite the delusional claptrap that feminists want the world to believe, men don’t swoon for women who act like men. Non-manboobed men with hanging testicles don’t, at any rate. Invulnerability is not sexy on women.

Men, at least K-selected men from the frigid Northlands where the cold winds blow and nothing grows for six months, are hard-wired with a protection instinct. We want to guard the carriers of our kingly posterity.

Evolution, therefore, has ensured that men respond viscerally to beautiful, weak women needing protection. A woman in need rallies a man’s ready seed.

Enter antidepressants. Suddenly women all over the sub-veneer tribal landscape are feeling invincible, unstoppable, and perfectly capable on their own. “No means no, creeper!” The manly protective (beta) instinct which warms the hearts of biochemically natural women leaves SSRI drugged-up simulacra of women feeling indifferent, even antagonistic, to the same signals of stoically masculine benefaction.

Multiply this effect a hundredfold in the homeland of the SWPL: The big blue whitening cities of the coasts, where every vibrantly atomized lawyercunt and her bovine cockblock are hopped up on happy happy happy pills. No joke, I’d bet 80% of Obama Country college-grad white chicks are dazed and confused with the help of Big Father Pharma. That percentage jumps to 99% when you expand the age range to include spinsters with two or more cats aka alpha male substitutes.

All successful game requires, in lesser or greater dose, the deployment, consciously or otherwise, of psychological tactics which raise the man’s relative status, lower the woman’s relative status, or both. This is a fact of the nature of the sexes, and it exists because the lifeblood of lust is fed to men and women by different veins. What excites a woman — the challenging company of a higher value, dominant man — is different than what excites a man — the company of a coy, vulnerable, pretty woman. You can rail to the ends of the earth about this fallen state of humanity, but you will never change it, not as long as there are two sexes evolved with differing reproductive goals.

It makes sense, then, that drugs which create a disturbance in the sexual polarity force would also have a downstream effect on courtship, both the traditional and the modern game styles of mate acquisition. A less vulnerable-feeling woman is a woman less receptive to beta provider game, and — this is getting deep into CH theory of modern dating dynamics territory — more receptive to sexy alpha bounder game.

An artificially happy and confident woman is, in short, a no-game-having beta male’s worst nightmare.

(A few of you wags might say that SSRIs are helping turn the US from a Euro mating market to an African mating market, where sky high self-esteem absent any supporting evidence is the norm.)

As a visionary acolyte of Le Chateau, you want to know how to make this new social reality work for you. (Some of you want to change it back to where it was before it turned wicked, but that is a concern for wise old men with rerouted energies.) A good start is dread game, which is the seducer’s answer to invulnerable women.

Some other proto-men, like the scalzied followers of male feminists, take the opposite tack, and submit themselves completely to the whim of Tsarina Bombas, in hopes, apparently, that their utter prostration would excite in women the pity fuck compulsion before it triggers their active repulsion reflex.

A specific skill of modern seduction, as channeled through game, will therefore need to be (sadly from a certain perspective) the ability to evoke, in pinprick psychological jabs, sadness, fear, worry and self-doubt in the Happy Harlots of Late Hour America. If you lack this skill, you’ll find more cynical men stealing your lamb meat off your white linened table.

Or, you could just wait out the coming collapse in your Galtian gulch, and watch the feckless loverboys starve in the streets live-streamed, as the newly vulnerable women rediscover the value of your warm hearth. But by that time, you’ll have stuccoed the entirety of your masturbatorium.

The antidepressant ruination of American women is a theory worth investigating, particularly in light of observational evidence in favor. Perhaps enterprising readers will unearth studies which connect the dots. Or perhaps they’ll just say “what the fuck”, and give the Supergirls a double dose of ego-smashing sexytime.

Read Full Post »