It’s Not Erectile Dysfunction, It’s Erectile Discrimination

Feminists and their obese manpug lapdogs are fond of sniggering at old men with erectile dysfunction, but they would not be so sneering if they understood that at least half of ED cases are actually caused by a lack of sufficiently attractive women to inspire rock hardiness, rather than by an inherent physiological condition brought on by aging.

A CH reader with a blog writes,

A recent study examined the sex lives of men and women in the Czech Republic aged 35-65. The individuals provided their age, waist size, and their partner’s age. Amongst other things, they answered the widely used 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5).

Under a multiple regression model, 24% of erectile function could be accounted for by the man’s age, 16% by his partner’s age, and 10% by the partner’s waist size (the effect of the man’s waist size was not statistically significant). In other words, the woman’s age and waist size were as important as the man’s age in determining erectile function.

It would be out of character for the vainglorious viscounts of CH to neglect to mention that the Chateau was on top of this study first, correctly noting that HOTTER WOMEN = BETTER SEX for men. And, going back further in time, before science even stepped in to offer its seal of validation, the Chateau exposed this real-world phenomenon using nothing but the powers of open-eyed observation.

Executive summary: It’s not erectile dysfunction, it’s erectile discrimination. Men’s penii are discriminating — with their discriminatory powers becoming more finely-tuned as the incoherent compulsion of teenage horniness subsides — and will more quickly rise to the occasion when a physically attractive, young woman with a high Residual Reproductive Value is the object of love.

So, dear cackling femcunts, supplicating manboobs and dumpy doughgrrls casting about for explanations, true or not, that will most spare your fragile egos…

It’s not a man’s flagging boner that’s the problem; it’s your flagging bodies.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the titter of a mischief maker and 10 being TNT in the belly of the Cathedral, how would you rate today’s ugly truth revelation?

Read Full Post »

Why Are Men With Dark Triad Personalities So Irresistible To Women?

It’s a scientific fact that women are attracted to men with the suite of personality traits known as the “dark triad”: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; aka the stuff of which jerks, assholes and badboys are made.

Any man who’s lived a day in his life knows that chicks dig jerks, but now we have the imprimatur of science to confirm what we can all see with our own eyes. The connection to game should be obvious. Many game concepts are essentially retrofitted Dark Triad traits and associated behaviors, allowing the practitioner of the charismatic arts to capture for himself some of the cryptic allure that men naturally blessed with badboy personality possess.

Explanations for the appeal to women of the male Dark Triad have been discussed before, within the hallowed halls of Le Chateau, but usually from esoteric evolutionary theory. Perhaps there are other, more immediate and practical, reasons why men who score high in the Dark Triad do so well with women? Let’s look at the definitions for each of the three relevant traits:

Narcissism

Narcissism is an egotistical preoccupation with self. Because of all their experience with maintaining their self image, people who score high for narcissism will often appear charming but their narcissism will later lead to extreme difficulty in developing close relationships.

Narcissistic men will be better at building an attractive identity, crafting an alluring image, dressing themselves for maximum impact, and comporting themselves with the utmost self-regard. Women love all these characteristics in men, even if these traits are not societally beneficial in numbers exceeding a tiny percentage of men. A man who is full of himself is a man who is full of women’s love.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is a tendency to be manipulative and deceitful. It usually stems from a lack of respect or disillusionment for others.

You cannot properly seduce women if you harbor illusions about their nature. A Machiavellian Man, owing to his willingness to engage in personally, and oftentimes mutually, advantageous deceits, is a skilled hand in the subtle feints of flirting. No seduction will take full flight without recourse to innuendo and barely concealed intent. The tacitly adversarial quality of seduction emanates from the fundamental premise that the reproductive goals of men and women are at odds, and the Machiavellian is the man best equipped to leverage that sweet antagonism to his ends.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy reflects shallow emotional responses. The relative lack of emotions results in high stress tolerance, low empathy, little guilt and leads them to seek extremely stimulating activities, resulting in impusivity and a disposition towards interpersonal conflict.

The darkest of the three traits. It’s a short neural skip from mostly benign, promiscuous psychopath to Hannibal Lector. What is it about psychopaths that women can’t get thoughts of them out of their heads? Besides their evocation of high status shamans and warriors of EEA yore, psychopaths bring one big advantage to the mating arena that quickly propels them to the top — fearlessness. That dead zone in their prefrontal gray matter means that psychopaths don’t feel much when women reject them. No hurt, no guilt, no shame, no doubt, no anger, no nothing. Imagine the power at your fingertips if you had the ice cold stones to approach thousands of women nonstop without suffering even the slightest ding to your emotional state from any rejections. Imagine that, coupled with this exotic imperviousness, you impulsively hit on any woman who piqued your interest. I don’t think you’ll need a calculator to figure out how fast your notch count would rise given these personality priors. Chicks dig a go-getter.

While the average self-deprecating beta male will find it nearly impossible to reconfigure his emotions and thought patterns to match that of the natural born narcissist, Machiavellian, and psychopath, he has now at his disposal tools and concepts — which fly under the banner of “game” — to inch himself closer to Dark Triad triumph. A small adjustment here, a studied mimickry there, and that invisible boring beta male is suddenly finding that the veldt of vagina open to his predations has expanded in every direction.

The above quotes were taken from the online Dark Triad Personality Test, which you can try for yourselves here. If you think you have an unusually low score, don’t fret; participants are likely self-selected narcissists boosting the scoring curve. After all, who but a narcissist would be happy to take this test?

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks: When Quantity Is Its Own Quality Edition

Piles of evidence already exist that women are a distinct species characterized to varying degree by their predilection for scampering after the love of badboys, jerks, assholes and, on occasion, imprisoned drug lords, murderers, serial killers and terrorists. So there’s no need to continue vindicating the Chateau worldview by adding yet another sordid story of pussy perfidy to the heap. At this point, noticing it is just depressing.

But the latest confirmation of the corrupted, careless nature of unleashed female sexuality offers a chance to examine a common refrain heard from those who in good faith contest the scope of the theory that chicks dig jerks. From the “Why the hell are we letting women become guards in male prisons?” file,

Thirteen female corrections officers essentially handed over control of a Baltimore jail to gang leaders, prosecutors said. The officers were charged Tuesday in a federal racketeering indictment.

Sex, drugs and prisoners were all involved in this recent FBI sting. The Washington Post’s Ann Marimow explains what was happening behind the prison walls.

The indictment described a jailhouse seemingly out of control. Four corrections officers became pregnant by one inmate. Two of them got tattoos of the inmate’s first name, Tavon — one on her neck, the other on a wrist. […]

According to an affidavit for search warrants for the homes of the prison guards, who were arrested Tuesday, gang leaders strategically recruited female officers who they thought had “low self-esteem and insecurities.”

Ya give the ladies the keys to the clink, and they turn it into a concubinage. Good job, beneficiaries of feminism! So who was the Big Man who ruled over his armed and willing sex slaves who were supposed to rule over him?

 “the ringleader of it all, according to the indictment, is Tavon White, a four-year inmate charged with attempted murder. He reportedly made $16,000 in one month off the smuggled contraband. Four corrections officers–Jennifer Owens, Katera Stevenson, Chania Brooks and Tiffany Linder, [ed: ruh roh, a couple of those names sound like white wimmenz!] who are also facing charges — allegedly became impregnated by White since he’s been in jail. Charging documents reveal Owens had ‘Tavon’ tattooed on her neck and Stevenson had ‘Tavon’ tattooed on her wrist.”

“But he was really a nice guy! I could see that in him.”

So much for the conventional wisdom that female prison guards are boxy dykes. Or maybe they were lesbians, but the overwhelming musky aroma of the alpha male prisoners converted them back into the hetero fold. Another possibility: All the lezbo guards work in female prisons. Zip it up, Grandmaster Fap. If you’ve seen female prisoners you’d know that the reality doesn’t come close to meeting the porno fantasy.

It would be understandable if you were to inquire about the quality of the women that upstanding citizen Tavon was banging and roping into his prison crime syndicate on the strength of his irresistible ghetto charms. While photos haven’t been forthcoming, odds are fairly good these women were less than stellar specimens of female beauty and femininity.

Obviously, female quality matters when judging a man’s alphaness. A man who pulls one hot babe is more alpha than a man who pulls fifty biodiesel dirigibles.

However, within the confines of some peculiar arrangements, and past a certain proportionality, quantity is its own quality. So how alpha was Tavon? First, he was working with a restricted (and self-selected) pool of candidates. On the streets, who knows for certain what quality of women he could get, but given his proven skill at seducing female prison guards to do his bidding, it’s a good bet he was probably pulling better quality outside than his available selection within prison.

Second, Tavon managed to convince four of the women to get pregnant by him (or convince them to not worry so much about protection). That shows he’s got the game to take it to the next level.

Third, even if Tavon was boffing ugly women, that’s still thirteen ugly women who decided to pass on loving, intimate relationships with omega or even lesser beta freemen for illicit harem duty with an attempted murderer in jail. No matter how ugly the woman, there’s gonna be some desperate omega male playing by the rules and clocking in at his nine to five who could’ve used that ugly woman’s company to rescue him from total loneliness.

But, poor omegas and betas… they’re not just competing with free alphas, they’re competing with alphas ostensibly removed from societal circulation.

There’s really nothing to learn from this story beyond that which we already know:

1. Chicks love dominant men.
2. Women in love with assholes will rationalize anything.
3. A core concept of game is asserting your dominance over women by displaying higher status and/or undermining a woman’s relative status.
4. A charming, violent inmate will leave more descendants to suckle on the state teat than a diligent, law-abiding beta male will leave to contribute to the state teat.

With this swirl of good news, perhaps now is a time to remind each other of the beautiful, inclusive, and downright revolutionary history of the season we call Spring, when girlie tops get sheerer and skirts get shorter. Go forth, happy hour imps, and be the asshole women adore!

Read Full Post »

Do Masculine Women Prefer Even More Masculine Men?

In this post, we discussed a study which showed that women with longer legs appear more attractive to men. (and men with relatively shorter legs and longer torsos are more attractive to women).

A reader speculates about what that sex difference could mean for men seeking to efficiently scour the mating market for effortless bangs.

Just as a strong jaw is masculine, short legs in a woman is also masculine (http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio).

You can easily see in those pictures short legs are masculine and long legs are feminine, and this true for both sexes. This is probably comparable to facial width and finger digit ratio as a “nurture neutral” indication of masculinity.

Women with longer legs prefer alpha males too, but apparently have greater beta male tolerance. If you look at supermodels, and other women with extremely long legs, you’ll see most don’t automatically swoon for bad boys, although they have access to them. A lot of them have photographer, artist and otherwise effeminate boyfriends. However, you rarely see a short stripper type with anything less than a standard bad boy.

I guess I’m saying a heterosexual masculine woman will have a stronger preference for masculine men, or that she has masculine men in her ancestry. The question then becomes, do her masculine genetics increase her attraction to alpha males?

Examples:
Cameron Russell (supermodel) with her boyfriend Andrew Elliott (photographer)
http://www.twylah.com/CameronCRussell/topics/andrew
http://www.fashionfreude.com/2012/11/06/victorias-secret-show-2012/vs/

Bibi Jones (porn star, stripper, etc) with Rob Gronkowski
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/19/rob-gronkowski-porn-star/70000681/1
http://wickedimproper.com/2011/11/now-wait-just-a-god-damn-minute/

As you can see from the full-length photos, Cameron is 50% legs to body whereas Bibi is 40% or less.

This reader is touching on something real. While studies are sparse (nonexistent?), it does appear to be the case that, anecdotally and observationally, masculine women tend to go for very masculine men. (Recall that “masculine” does not necessarily mean “alpha“, as we can see by the fact that many effeminate artist types do quite well with cute women.)

So the rule generally expressed is as follows:
Given the axiom that most women prefer men more phenotypically and behaviorally masculine than themselves:

a. Masculine women will prefer very masculine men and avoid feminine men, and

b. Feminine women will prefer men of average to slightly higher than average masculinity and tolerate feminine men.

As a rule, this makes some sense. Sexual polarity is the cosmic force that breathes life into all other psychodynamic human motivations. When the sexual polarity is weak, or reversed (i.e., wimpy, soft men with hard-charging, hard-edged women), any nascent attraction is incapable of being sustained, and any relationship that results from such unions will have more obstacles to overcome and higher risk of infidelities than relationships that are sufficiently polarized by conventional male and female attributes.

Therefore, women will want to choose masculine men to retain that all-important polarity, but the degree of male masculinity required to reach a suitable level of polarity will vary based upon the woman’s own inherent masculinity.

This rule of what I will call “Shifted Female Masculinity Preference” — that is, the idea that the preference of women for masculine men is shifted to greater masculinity in men relative to the women’s own masculine attributes and psychological traits — has plenty of exceptions, and so I would not set my watch to it, nor should you, the efficient pursuer of women, rely on it exclusively to streamline your seduction operations. It’s a loose rule you can use to winnow a lot of prospects to a manageable number.

For instance, if you are a brooding emo WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIFT, you should focus your attention on long-legged women, but never dismiss short-legged women outright. Mesomorphs and “act first, think later” types should tune their radars for short-legged chicks with a twinkle of mischief in their eyes.

Another potential flaw in the rule (besides its lack of robust predictive power) rests in its premise: Are shorter legs and longer torsos really indicative of greater masculinity in women? Manjaws certainly are, but lots of short-legged women have very feminine faces. One way to resolve this issue is to determine if manjaws and short legs correlate in women.

If the rule is accurate and indicative of broad sexual market mating outcomes, we can expect to see greater masculinity in the children of short-legged women, and greater femininity in the children of long-legged women. And, inferring from Satoshi Kanazawa’s (unproven) theory that feminine couples produce more daughters, the former will bear more sons (and perhaps shorter sons) and the latter more (and perhaps taller) daughters.

One other thing we can infer is that less masculine men who date feminine women will compensate for their lower aggression and muscularity by being more psychologically dominant. And in fact one does find that the artist lovers of model chicks tend to be masters in the art of emotional manipulation. The more physically masculine men rely on their presence to assert dominance, but are often weak in the arena of subtle mental persuasion, and have a habit of ostentatiously mate guarding their women, leaving them susceptible to female machinations. This is why more masculine men get used as cat’s-paws by their girlfriends while more feminine — in both body and mind — men are tougher to manipulate. This imperviousness in some men to female manipulation is attractive to many women, and helps create an impression of dominance that fuels the necessary sexual polarity.

Read Full Post »

One Blessing Of Outbreeding

The Boston Marathon Muslim bombers (see what I did there?) were identified and corralled relatively quickly. The reason for the quickness is this: Outbreeding.

To put it more conventionally, a cultural-cum-genetic predisposition toward love-based monogamous marriage that strengthens outbreeding and restricts inbreeding is what helped authorities identify and track the bomber suspects.

By limiting inbreeding, a phenomenon which usually occurs via cousin marriage, the circle of trust is widened. When police ask for tips, this built-in higher level of trust is effectively an enlarged witness pool, ready to jump in with assistance.

Clannish societies, like Chechnya, are more inbred societies. People there look out for family first, the general public good a distant second. Had the Chechen Muslim brothers (see what I did there again?) committed their murderous act in Chechnya, where clan blood is thick and civic-mindedness is thin, it is likely that they would be on the run for a long time, because family members, 2nd, 3rd, or 10th removed, would be all omertá and the cops, such as they are, would get nothing but cold leads.

America has, until lately, been an outbred society (but still mostly inbred as a continental race). White Americans are mutts of mixed Northwest European ancestry. The circle of trust is generally huge in Anglo nations, and that’s why cops can do their jobs there. Family is still important, but there’s a greater degree of cooperativeness and fellow-feeling than would be found in places like, say, Iraq.

That of course, is all ending now. Diversity and the resentful enclaves spawned in its wake are destroying fellow-feeling. Clannish people are setting up shop in the most American of towns. Cognitive and cultural stratification as described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart is further contributing to the shrinking circle of trust.

Soon now, very soon, the day is coming when future Tsarnaev brothers will get to enjoy a life on the lam in America for many, many years, protected by inner circle insiders who don’t give a shit about the fate of America as a cohesive nation.

PS One curse of outbreeding: Pathological altruism. The kumbaya genes spread out of control until wishful thinking, instead of reality-based thinking, push the stricken population into self-destructiveness.

Read Full Post »

She’s Got Legs And She Knows How To Use Them

The website Feminine Beauty is where the “beauty is subjective” lie goes to get sledgehammered into gooey paste. It’s a warehouse of studies and analysis that utterly shreds the pretty lie that prettiness is in the eye of the beholder, and for doing Baal’s work, I thank them. There are only so many hours in a day to take a huge steaming dump on the platitude pushers, so assistance is always appreciated.

There’s an interesting post in their archives that examines how leg length in men and women correlates with attractiveness. Drawings of five male and female models were altered so that their legs and torsos were lengthened or shortened. The results of the study were unambiguous:

For a given height, the judges preferred longer legs in women and shorter legs in men.

For the same height, women tend to have longer legs.  Hence this study reported a preference for exaggerated sexual dimorphism.

The author of the post notes that this would explain why women wear high heels: they make women’s legs appear relatively longer. So much for the hamster reasoning of that indignant ex who once insisted, when I innocently asked why she wore make-up and heels, that she does it “for myself”. No sweet cheeks, you do it, subconsciously or knowingly, to make yourself look more appealing to men. Coincidentally, in a faraway basement hovel, a troll who believes that any effort to woo the opposite sex is a sign of low value wept into its cheeto-stained triple chin.

But the study is not without its limitations, especially regarding the effect of leg length on men’s attractiveness.

In the line drawings, the authors achieved longer legs by stretching the legs in the photo editor, making them thinner in the process, but thinner legs will count against the appeal of men.  So it is possible that a better study will show a similar find, but not that the shortest legs shown in the line drawings are optimally preferred in men.

There is probably some truth to this caveat, however the male body type women most prefer (at least when they are ovulating) — mesomorphic — tends to be more proportional between torso and leg length. Ectomorphs are the ones with really long legs.

This study corroborates real world observation and cultural allusions. Men do seem to prefer long luscious legs on women. This preference is likely — no, it most definitely is, let’s just say it outright — innate, and immune to feminist scum social intervention propaganda efforts to change it.

Does a male preference for long legs mean men like really tall women? No.

The authors cited some literature to argue that men most strongly prefer women with average height, but the correct interpretation is that over a very broad height range, men do not really care how tall a woman is.  As one approaches the extremes of height, it becomes more difficult for women to find men, and hence women closer to average height will be more successful with men than women who are much shorter or much taller, but this isn’t the same as an optimal preference for average height in women.

Where it gets confusing is reconciling the fact of male preference for long-legged women with the evidence that short women are more reproductively successful than tall women. (Keep in mind that “reproductively successful” does not necessarily mean “sexually successful” or “romantically successful” in the contraceptively-wrapped, Pill-popping secular world.) So perhaps the ideal mate for the typical man is a shorter than average woman with longer than average legs for her height. Three huzzahs for a spinner with long helicopter blades.

In a future post, we will discuss whether women with short legs prefer very masculine alpha men.

Read Full Post »

The Fundamental Premise

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

It is what it is, and it will never change so long as humans are a sexually reproducing species. All the laws in the world can at best only paper over the very primal compulsion of people to value the life of the average woman more than the life of the average man, and sympathize accordingly. Railing against it is akin to shaking a fist at sunspots and gamma rays. It’s therefore folly or self-serving disingenuousness to act like there’s some moral high ground to stake out by imparting culpable agency to an indifferent, organically emergent biomechanical phenomenon. Rationalizing favoritism toward women as some sort of payback for male privilege, or refusing to acknowledge this favoritism altogether, is an example of the cognitive calisthenics and evasive sophistry most people will indulge to avoid grappling with the cold, black void of an uncaring evolutionary replication machine.

If you are a man, know that the moment you were born the universe had it in for you. The deck was stacked. The deal was raw. Your expendability was programmed into your wet code before you gained self-awareness. The worldscape of genes can rebuild with the seed of one man should catastrophe strike, but each woman lost is a lethal blow to the repopulation project.

In sober moments free of maudlin introspection, you will understand there is no other game to play save this one. This is why to live as a man is to TAKE what you want. Not to wait for it to be given to you. Because it will never be given. Not to anticipate the empathy of the overseers. Because they will never empathize. Not to expect the coddling of the crowd. Because they will never coddle. Not to assume the wagon circling of kindreds. Because they will never circle for you. You got the short stick, now what? Do you contemplate it and hope for a longer one? No.

You sharpen it and jab it into the heart of every obstacle that sets itself in your way.

Read Full Post »