Science Can’t Stop Proving Me Right

I have contended that married women slowly come to find their husbands less sexually desirable because marriage tames men. Now a study shows that I have the cause and effect at least partially correct:

Researchers have long argued that marriage generally reduces illegal and aggressive behaviors in men. It remained unclear, however, if that association was a function of matrimony itself or whether less “antisocial” men were simply more likely to get married.

The answer, according to a new study led by a Michigan State University behavior geneticist, appears to be both.

In the December issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, online today, S. Alexandra Burt and colleagues found that less antisocial men were more likely to get married. Once they were wed, however, the marriage itself appeared to further inhibit antisocial behavior.

If you want to keep your marriage hot and heavy, maintain a dark triad edge: think highly of yourself, break the rules, and occasionally lie for the hell of it. She’ll swoon all over again.

******

Adding another piece to the ovulatory cycle puzzle, researchers have found that women with beta partners fantasize about masculine men when they’re fertile, but women with alpha partners do not.

When their romantic partners are not quintessentially masculine, women in their fertile phase are more likely to fantasize about masculine-looking men than are women paired with George Clooney types.

But women with masculine-looking partners do not necessarily become more attracted to their partners, a recent study co-authored by a University of Colorado at Boulder researcher concludes.

This supports the theory that alpha males can afford to slip up and act beta once in a while without suffering the same consequences that a diehard betaboy would. The infrequent beta backslide won’t help the alpha, but it won’t hurt him either. So if you are a beta, you had better ramp up your asshole game during your lover’s fertility window.

The same study shows that idiocracy is in full effect:

Meanwhile, a man’s intelligence has no effect on the extent to which fertile, female partners fantasize about others, the researchers found. They say the lack of an observed “fertility effect” related to intelligence is puzzling.

It should be no surprise to anyone who’s lived a day that a disconcertingly high number of naturals are also some of the dumbest men. Living outside your head like an animal running on instinct does wonders for your game.

******

As if feminism needed to be discredited even further:

Here, we present the first evidence of sex differences in use of play objects in a wild primate, in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We find that juveniles tend to carry sticks in a manner suggestive of rudimentary doll play and, as in children and captive monkeys, this behavior is more common in females than in males.

To be a self-proclaimed feminist today is akin to proudly announcing your membership in the Flat Earth Society. The rancid, dimwitted ideology fuels itself strictly on feel-good emotions.

******

Remember all that brouhaha about marriage being good for a man’s health? It’s bullshit.

Long relationships – not necessarily marriage – key to good health.

Men and women who are in relationships for longer than five years are less likely to be depressed, to consider or attempt suicide, or to be dependent on alcohol or drugs, it was found.

It is well known that people who are married lead healthier lives and live longer but it was not known if the effect was the same for those cohabiting.

The study in the British Journal of Psychiatry examined 1,000 people living in New Zealand by a team at University of Otago.

It was found that longer relationships were associated with lower rates of mental health problems.

Haters often stumble onto the Chateau grounds and run around in circles like headless chickens accusing the proprietors of advocating a pump and dump lifestyle. Their lack of reading comprehension, combined with their compulsion to wish the worst motives of their enemies, leads them into a patchwork of lies and self-deceit. Even a cursory reading of the posts here should tell them that no host at the Chateau denigrates LTRs. We save the denigration for marriage. While pump and dumps are excellent appetizers, the love and intimacy of a relationship is a pleasure unto itself.

******

Social constructivists and cultural hegemonists often engage in the logical fallacy of “where’s the gene?” missing link-ism. That is, they like to claim that since no one gene has yet been found to affect, say, intelligence, it must be the case that intelligence is not primarily genetically influenced. But evidence shows that multiple genes act in concert to produce single human traits.

As much as 90 percent of variation in adult height may be caused by genetic inheritance, but a multitude of genes are involved. Most of these have yet to be discovered.

Now a new meta-analysis of data from more than 100,000 people has identified variants in over two dozen genes that were not previously associated with height. The study also confirmed genetic associations in more than 30 previously known height genes.

If multiple synchronizing genes are needed to affect a relatively simple trait like height, it stands to reason that a veritable smorgasbord of genes influence brain architecture in ways we have barely begun to unravel. David Brooks wept.

******

Married women lose interest in sex because their husbands become — to put it succinctly — emasculated.

In this study, the authors conducted open-ended interviews with 19 married women who had lost desire in their marriage and asked what causal attributions they made for their loss of sexual desire and what barriers they perceived to be blocking its reinstatement. Three core themes emerged from the data, all of which represented forces dragging down on sexual desire in the present sample: (a) institutionalization of the relationship, (b) over-familiarity, and (c) the de-sexualization of roles in these relationships. Interpersonal and intrapersonal sexual dynamics featured more prominently than did relationship problems in women’s attributions.

Reread this study for the full implication. Decades of milquetoasty marriage counselor and couples therapist advice exposed for the feminist orthodoxy sham it is in a single blow! Luckily, since you are a reader of this esteemed blog dedicated to the pursuit of truth no matter how unsavory, you already know that the way to rescue a failing marriage is to learn and apply game the same as you would to girls if you were a single man on the prowl.

Chicks, married or not, dig gender polarity. They want you to be unpredictable, unavailable and untamed. Marriage by its nature works against those three alpha male traits, eventually robbing the wife of her id-oiled desire to consume her husband’s cock. Much like a wife who gets fat, a husband who does not actively push back against the emasculating tide of married life is increasing the odds she will pull a Cindy and lose all her love for him.

******

If being an alpha male is so great, why aren’t all men alpha? Probably because it shortens your life.

A study of chimpanzees has revealed that dominant animals with higher testosterone levels tend to suffer from an increased burden of parasites. Researchers writing in BioMed Central’s open access journal BioPsychoSocial Medicine observed the primates’ behavior and studied their droppings to draw the link between dominance and infection status.

Michael Muehlenbein from Indiana University and David Watts from Yale University, USA, carried out the study in 22 male animals at Kibale National Park, Uganda. According to Muehlenbein, “Acquisition and maintenance of high dominance rank often involves frequent aggression, and testosterone has been considered the quintessential physiological moderator of such behavior. However, testosterone also causes suppression of the immune system”.

If you had to choose between living a 50 year lifespan as an alpha male who beds hundreds of beautiful women and living a 200 year lifespan as a beta male who has one ten year LTR with a plain jane, which would you choose?

Same question to the ladies. 50 year lifespan hopping in and out of bed with hundreds of alpha males versus 200 year lifespan with one devoted beta in a, say, 20 year LTR. Reaction time is a factor.

******

Contra Robin Hanson, were foragers more or less violent than farmers? A tenet of the forager thesis is that foragers (read: cosmopolitan liberals) are less violent than their farmer (read: family values conservatives) counterparts. Evidence shows that our forager cousins were a very violent bunch of killers, indeed.

In a cave in Northern Spain, researchers have discovered clues to the identity of the victims of a mass murder committed 49,000 years ago. The butchered bones of 12 men, women, and children protruding from the floor may be the remains of an extended Neandertal family that were killed and eaten by their fellow Neandertals.

Today the liberal manifests his violent tendencies verbally, and in papier maché effigies. Strident advocacy for open borders is a form of soft genocide, so you could chalk that up to leftie violence as well.

******

Via Audacious E, women who get around before marriage continue getting around once married. From the General Social Survey:

Not surprisingly, women with high sex drives who got around a lot before they married are more likely to continue getting around after taking their vows. The same applies in non-marital relationships. If your girl has a lot of sexual history (and likes to talk about it), don’t go in desiring any kind of serious or long-term relationship. You’re in pump and dump territory.

If you were limited to reading only five posts from the Chateau blog, this post would have to be one of them. It may save you a costly divorce someday. Or it may show you the path to easier lays.

Read Full Post »

Why You Shouldn’t Support Your Girlfriend’s Goals

Mingus comments:

The drummer in a band I was in when I was younger thought it would be a good idea to buy his hot girlfriend a bass so they could “jam” and spend more time together, since he was always with us 4 nights a week. After a few months in the garage she got “okay” and decided to start her own band with some other hot chicks. They were terrible, but they were hot and dressed slutty – imagine a bad punk rock version of the bangles, but unlike the bangles they were all equally as hot as susanna hoffs (drummers GF kinda looked like her). Like an idiot he tried to help them out by starting to book shows with the “new hot chic band” opening up for us. We had a pretty good local draw, but after a few gigs the new hot chic band started to get more and more attention (duh) from the bookers because they could pack the joint….big surprise. Next thing you know hot chic band are headlining weekends and getting the calls to open for the bigger touring acts and he eventually becomes the over protective BF/roadie loading her ampeg 8×10 bass cab at each show and making sure no one tries to fuck her. Of course over time she dumps his sorry ass because of her new found rockstardom and his diminished higher value even though he was pretty much the reason she got there. Common hobbies=bad idea.

Hilarious. And I have similar horror stories I could tell about men I’ve known who bent over backwards to help their girlfriends realize their own dreams a little too successfully.

Helping to raise your girlfriend’s social status above your own is akin to a fat chick helping her equally fat boyfriend lose weight and learn game while she stays fat. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Every time you encounter one of these sanctimonious beta bitchboy turds crowing about the love and support he gives to his girlfriend or wife to, say, get through medical school, laugh in his face because he is in for a rude awakening when she starts boffing a doc during her late night residency shifts.

The crux of the matter is that women do not desire men of equal status. They desire men of higher status than themselves. It’s academic from where your status accrues; it could come from game, money, looks, wit, humor, artistic talent, popularity, social savviness or stone cold aloofness. As long as you are higher status than her on some important evolutionarily circumscribed metric, her veins will course with lust for your animal magnetism.

Maxim #1a: Women desire men of better quality than themselves.

When you think you are doing good by your woman to help her achieve career success or to lift up her social standing, you are in reality clumsily playing with the hellfires of the Underlord of Biomechanics. You do not fuck with the primal forces of female hypergamy without paying a steep price in consequences.

There are a few caveats.

If the realization of her goal won’t raise her status above yours, *and* it won’t put her in the company of a lot of high status men for long stretches of time, then feel free to support her. If she wants to be a day care operator, and you are a high flying salesman, earn brownie points by encouraging her to pursue her dream.

If her goals and dreams are precious little musings that you know she won’t see through to achieving, then feel free to support her.

If her goal is a threesome with you and a lithe young chick, support the shit out of her. But make it seem like you’re being dragged into participating.

Read Full Post »

Science Proves Me Right… Again

A while back, this Chateau post caused veins to bulge on the foreheads of haters. It was about instilling the dread of an impending breakup or loss of interest to promote a healthy relationship.

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you.

The key for the man is to adopt a posture of blase emotional distance alternated with loving tenderness. Too much of either and she’ll run off.

Oh, how the haters swooned with indignation over my helpful advice. “You’re such a jokester”, said the disbelievers, somewhat nervously. “That’s a good way to end a relationship prematurely”, said the dating advice columnists. “It only works on girls with low self esteem”, said the shibboleth spouters.

Well, well, welly welly well… look what we have here!

Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction.

This research qualifies a social psychological truism: that people like others who like them (the reciprocity principle). College women viewed the Facebook profiles of four male students who had previously seen their profiles. They were told that the men (a) liked them a lot, (b) liked them only an average amount, or (c) liked them either a lot or an average amount (uncertain condition). Comparison of the first two conditions yielded results consistent with the reciprocity principle. Participants were more attracted to men who liked them a lot than to men who liked them an average amount. Results for the uncertain condition, however, were consistent with research on the pleasures of uncertainty. Participants in the uncertain condition were most attracted to the men-even more attracted than were participants who were told that the men liked them a lot. Uncertain participants reported thinking about the men the most, and this increased their attraction toward the men.

This study’s results confirm the “Dread” post to the letter, although I used slightly more… ornamental… language to get the point across. (Consider my methods a social experiment  — a sort of crisis and observation — designed to get under the skin, with exquisite pain amplification, of those predisposed to hate the message here, and to observe how many of you can handle the truth when it is stripped of all its sugarcoating.)

I don’t need the science to certify what I can already see with my own two eyes, but it’s nice to have it so that I can do the happy Snoopy dance and throw it in the faces of the usual tard crew. Weep those tears of unfathomable sadness, femcunts and nancyboys.

Naturally, some skirt-twirling teacups will chime in and attempt to muddy the waters by caviling about how men are susceptible to uncertainty game as well, while neglecting to mention the difference in degree between the sexes. Sure, men can fall for the Chateau patented dread psy ops, but they don’t fall for it nearly as often, or with the same intensity, as do women. Vulnerability to dread game is predominantly a female phenomenon.

Chateau Motto (posted at the gate):
Come for the truth, stay for the mindfucking of your enemies.

Read Full Post »

How To Greet Like An Alpha Male

Posts about alpha body language always elicit titters of snarky gayness from the haters. “Stand contrapposto like an alpha.” “Don’t lean in.” “Face out toward the room.” The closed-minded can’t, or won’t, comprehend that certain actions — even seeming trivialities like the location of one’s feet on the floor — can increase or decrease a man’s attractiveness to women. Their ignorance stems from their refusal to acknowledge the premise that alpha males and beta males not only exist in reality, but that each group shares behaviors and attitudes that define them. People who believe we are all special little snowflakes have a particularly difficult time accepting the fact of our biomechanistic origins and how this translates into universally shared traits and mating behaviors. Few people, especially the religious and the equalists (one and the same, really), like to think we are slave to ancient shadow forces making a mockery of our concept of free will.

Here’s another body adjustment that will boost your alpha appeal to women: When you nonverbally greet people, toss your head up and then down, instead of nodding down then up. Via Delenda est Carthago:

Back in the early 80s when I was a freshman in high school, I noticed that some male students, when they greeted people, would give a little toss of their head.  This “reverse nod” (up, then down) was remarkable because it ran counter to my own habit of nodding (down, then up) to people when I greeted them.  I don’t know how it got to be a habit, but it’s probably what I saw the adults around me do, and adults in movies and TV do, rather than something that somebody told me I was supposed to do.

Because the toss was new, and because the upperclassmen did it, I associated it with being “cool”, and tried to emulate it.  I may have had a dim sense of the biomechanics, but I lacked the analytical tools and vocabulary to appreciate what was at stake.  But as much as I practiced the toss in front of a mirror, I almost never remembered to deploy it in an actual social situation, and eventually I gave up.

As I have moved from youth to adulthood, I have observed others using the toss with diminishing frequency, although this could be me just not paying attention anymore.  But it’s easy to see how the study cited above maps onto the implications of the head toss.

The “reverse nod” does map onto the research posted at this blog recently about women preferring to look up at men. When you start your nod on an upward trajectory, instead of in the downward direction that most people nod, you are mimicking that masculine backwards facial tilt which brings women such delight.

Try the reverse nod now. Nod up then down. Now try the usual way. Nod down then up. You don’t have to be nodding at anyone. This little experiment will work even if you are alone. What did you feel deep down in the pit of your animal soul? I guarantee that most of you men reading this felt “more alpha” doing the reverse nod. It was a nebulous, ill-formed feeling, but a real feeling nonetheless.

When you feel the alpha in you, you know that girls are noticing the alpha in you. A small adjustment in a trivial thing like nodding can redound to your attractiveness in bigger ways. To be sure, a nod will not get you laid. But you start adding up all these little changes intended to emphasize alpha male characteristics, and suddenly you’re cooking with gas.

Read Full Post »

Want Fewer Sex Crimes? Legalize Victimless Sexual Outlets

A year ago, a study came out that provided evidence for my assertion that legalizing prostitution would reduce the incidence of rape. I wrote about that study here. Feminists were OUTRAGED, naturally, because feminists wrongly believe rape is about power, not sex.

Now, on a not-so-loosely related matter, we have similarly unsettling evidence — to both feminists and family values traditionalists — from another scientific study that legalizing child porn will help reduce the rate of real life child sex abuse.

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country’s transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.

The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.

Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.

Yeah, correlation is not causation, but the correlation linking availability of child porn with an immediate decrease of reported child sex abuse is remarkably strong.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is so, (or, conversely, it takes a feminist to NOT see the bleeding obvious): Loser men and pedophiles with few consensual or legal sexual outlets to drain their balls will be more incentivized to seek relief with real victims. But throw an endless stream of porn at them — distasteful child porn (using graphical representations of kids rather than real images) or regular adult porn — and the daily ball self-drainage serves as an excellent demotivational technique against engaging in criminal sexual abuse.

Feminists who blather on idiotically and without a shred of evidence that porn and “female objectification” increases male sexual violence are completely discredited by the results from these actual scientific studies. But feminists were never big on the truth, especially when the truth gets in the way of shifting more social and state power to women’s advantage, especially ugly women’s advantage.

If shrieking femcunts knew the first thing about the workings of the male sex drive, they would know that men getting regular ball drainage with willing sexual partners are the kind of confident, no-sweat chaps they can’t help but love. It’s the involuntarily celibate omegas and psychologically skewed pedos and rapists with all their pent-up ball juice who cause trouble. Give them a legal sexual outlet with whores and porn and suddenly they’re not tottering on the precipice of intent to commit sexual abuse.

Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.

This is interesting. I was under the impression that all violent crime was down across the board since the early 90s, and that this trend was evident in a broad selection of countries. If true, this would add even more weight to the findings linking lower reported sex crimes with increased availability of virtual sexual outlets. I suppose men who are inclined to murder could blow off their psychotic steam playing Call of Duty. On the other hand, violent first person shooters may operate differently on male dopamine receptors than does porn; there is evidence that, as opposed to the pressure-valve releasing effect of porn, violent video games torque a man’s testosterone and make him more aggressive.

Read Full Post »

The Alpha Male Head Tilt, & Asstd.

“Hold your head high” and “chin up” aren’t just esteem-boosting slogans; they’re nonverbal indicators of the alphaness that women lurv:

Our research investigated if looking at the face from different perspectives as a result of the height differential between men and women influenced perceived masculinity or femininity. The research found the way we angle our faces affects our attractiveness to the opposite sex.”

Men, typically taller than women, view a woman’s face from above; and women view men’s faces from below. Through a series of simulations, the research tested whether the angle of view was an important determinant of masculinity/femininity and attractiveness.

The research found that female faces are judged to be more feminine and more attractive when tilted forwards (simulating viewing from above), and less feminine when tilted backwards (simulating viewing from below). Conversely, male faces are judged more masculine when tilted backwards and less masculine when tilted forwards.

Ya gotta love these traditionalist “real man” throwbacks leaving their drive-by comments at the Chateau castigating the players for their “black and white” view of the “false dichotomy” of alpha males and beta males, while a steady drumbeat of scientific studies flies in the face of their indignant assertions. Here is yet another one of those studies providing support for the view expounded at this blog that there really are objectively identifiable traits — physical, emotional and behavioral — that distinguish alphas from betas. And that you… yes, you the reader… can learn those alpha traits, apply them, and become alpha yourself.

Starting now, you need to hold your head up so that your chin is slightly elevated from parallel with the ground. This is especially critical for short men, who can mimic the alpha gravitas that naturally accompanies taller men by tilting their heads a bit upward. If you find your chin unconsciously returning to its basal beta level pointing at the ground, you can use mental tricks to realign your head tilt to the dominance position. Imagine you are a haughty snob looking down on all the insufferable SWPLs (or proles, season to taste) who live and work around you. Soon, your mind will associate the identification “haughty snob” and “insufferable SWPL” with the backward head tilt, your head will accordingly readjust, and pussy will flow to you like the Orinoco.

******

Evidence for group selection?

How well a person performs in a coalition is partly hereditary, according to a recent study.

Researchers found that how successfully an individual operates in a group is as much down to having the right genetic make-up as it is to having common cultural ties with fellow group members.

After assessing nearly 1000 pairs of adult twins, researchers at the University of Edinburgh found that strong genetic influences have a major influence on how loyal a person feels to their social group.

It also has a significant impact on how flexibly they can adapt group membership.

Can a cooperation gene that recognizes in-groups and out-groups evolve without some sort of group selection mechanism at work? Group selection is fascinating to a lot of thinkers because of its implications for the evolution of hard-wired racism in all human populations.

Religion may mitigate inborn xenophobia:

Family ties were less influential. Instead factors outside the family such as ethnicity and religion seem to account for the environmental influences that determine how successfully a group will operate.

To assess the influence of genetics, scientists asked the twins a series of questions about how important it was for them that people with whom they are affiliated share their religion, ethnicity or race.

They found that identical twins – who share all their genes – gave very similar responses, whereas non-identical twins were much more likely to differ in their answers.

Interestingly, they found that being part of a strong religious group made subjects less likely to emphasise ethnic and racial influence when deciding with which coalitions they become involved, regardless of genetics.

The insular, secular elites for whom religion is not needed to pursue successful life strategies need to come to grips with the fact that religion serves as a moral anchor for the lower classes, without which their tendency to flounder, regress and parasitize the provider classes would mushroom. Richard Dawkins wept.

******

Yet more evidence confirming the Chateau maxim that women are the biggest misogynists.

Employer callbacks to attractive men are significantly higher than to men with no picture and to plain-looking men, nearly doubling the latter group. Strikingly, attractive women do not enjoy the same beauty premium. In fact, women with no picture have a significantly higher rate of callbacks than attractive or plain-looking women. We explore a number of explanations and provide evidence that female jealousy of attractive women in the workplace is a primary reason for the punishment of attractive women.

Me-OW! Jizzabomb denizens wept.

But other research shows that hot babes receive higher raises than plain janes or fuglies.

Previous research, however, has found that good-looking female workers receive higher raises than their plain or ugly counterparts.

Easily explainable. HR women are the ones filtering potential hirees. Men in positions of power are the ones offering raises.

******

Women live longer than men because men are biologically expendable.

On average, women live five or six years longer than men. There are six 85-year-old women to four men of the same age, and by the age of 100 the ratio is greater than two to one. Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the greater longevity, but there is growing evidence for the disposable soma theory, which says males are genetically more disposable than females.

Maxim #200: Chicks dig guys willing to risk an early, gruesome death. Expendability is a DHV.

******

Straight men are becoming A-Ok with smooching their male buds. Chateau hosts called this. The feminization of the Western “man” continues apace. Is it the fuckin soy?

Researchers at the University of Bath have found that heterosexual male students are more comfortable kissing their friends than ever before.

Their research shows that university students now see nothing wrong with showing friendship to another man through a kiss on the lips.

Dr Eric Anderson, from the University’s Department of Education, found that 89 per cent of white undergraduate men at two UK universities and one sixth form college, said they were happy to kiss another man on the lips through friendship.

He found that 36 per cent of these men have also engaged in sustained kissing, initially for shock value, but now they occur just for “a laugh”.

Dr Anderson said: “Heterosexual men kissing each other in friendship is an offshoot of what happens when homophobia is reduced. At these universities, overt homophobia has reduced to near extinction, permitting those men to engage in behaviour that was once taboo.

“Men are kissing each other in university clubs and pubs, in front of their peers, and for many it serves as an occasional, exuberant greeting or banter when partying. The kiss is a sign of affection in student social spaces, a sign of victory on the pitch, or celebration at a nightclub but it does not have a sexual connotation in any of these spaces.

If it isn’t the soy, maybe it’s the fact that British women have turned into a waddling mass of warpigs.

“We noticed that more and more men were kissing each other in clubs or after scoring a goal as a form of celebration, and many would put pictures of themselves kissing their friends on Facebook. We then began our research and realised that the way men tell each other that one has made it into their circle of close friends is to kiss. In this respect men are catching up with women who regularly use a kiss as a sign of affection to a female friend.”

Too funny. I guess fist bumps aren’t cutting it anymore. Theory: As more Western women become cad-chasing, self-entitled solipsistic sluts, the men will respond by finding their affection fix in the arms of other, similarly situated, men. Or there’s something in the water.

Adi, who is heterosexual, added: “My first experience of kissing a man was at uni and I was bit taken aback, but now it feels like a normal act of friendship. It doesn’t feel that it threatens my masculinity or heterosexuality – instead it is becoming part of acceptable masculinity and heterosexuality.”

If you mention your masculinity enough times, Adi, maybe you’ll believe it. By the way, this is how the slippery slope to park bench masturbating and sheep sex starts.

******

Kissing other men isn’t the only alternative outlet available to underloved betas. There is always the green card whore option:

An upsurge in marriages between older Swedish men and young, underprivileged foreign women raises serious questions about gender equality, according to a new report.

In a new ‘migration by marriage’ study, experts at the University of St Andrews found that over a fifteen year period there has been a 44% increase in young women moving to Sweden from mainly poorer nations to marry.

The study also found that the poorer the country of birth of the migrant woman, the bigger the age gap between her and her Swedish partner – a finding that experts say raises serious concerns over such women’s freedom of choice.

Green card whores these foreign women may be, but I don’t fault Western men for pursuing this avenue to sexual and emotional fulfillment. No surprise this is happening in Sweden, land of the institutionalized überfeminist and castrated pissbucket boy. When your native women are egomaniac wide-load femcunts unworthy of your time or investment beyond a three month fling, the overseas alternative begins to look very appealing. Sure, it’s straight up barter, but betas getting the shaft end of the stick in the modern dating market might be inclined to overlook the crass exchange of sex for citizenship and dispense with their idealistic romanticism for the chance to steadily bang much younger, and typically more submissive, pussy. Who could blame them? Anything less would be… uncivilized.

And to the shibboleth spewing clackademic tards wringing their hands about “female freedom of choice”: No one’s slapping chains on these poor foreign babes and dragging them into relationships with relatively wealthy Western men. Just as no one’s forcing men at gunpoint to compete for the attention of young, slender chicks. Until these inane feminists come to terms with the fact that men and women have different reproductive goals and sexual desires, we will continue hearing them say the stupidest shit in so-called respectable academic journals.

******

Newsflash! It’s better to be born a winner than a loser. Tony Robbins wept.

Attractive people have it all. As babies they get less chastisement, more cuddles, and better presents.

At school they are more popular, have more friends and are less likely to be bullied. And as adults, they have more sexual partners, and are more likely to be married, have a good job, and earn a higher salary – around 10 per cent more than plain Joes and Janes. They are also perceived to be healthier, smarter, and more trustworthy, and if they go into politics they are more likely to be elected. But why are some people seen as attractive and others not? And why have we evolved to find some features attractive and others not?

According to new research, it may all be down to oxidative stress and antioxidants. Psychologists have discovered that men who were rated as the most physically attractive by women have the lowest levels of markers of oxidative stress. […]

Ten bilateral features of the men – ear width, ear height, wrist width, elbow width, lengths of four fingers, ankle breadth and foot breadth – were measured and compared. The men’s urine was measured for markers of oxidative stress and for hormones, and they were quizzed about any birth complications, such as late or premature birth, which can increase levels of oxidative stress. Finally, a group of women were asked to rate images of the men’s bodies and faces for physical attractiveness.

Results show that men who were rated as attractive by the women had significantly lower levels of oxidative stress. And men with more symmetrical bodies had lower levels and were rated as more attractive. Men who had experienced birth problems had higher levels of oxidative-stress markers. […]

Lesson: Ladykillers don’t sweat the small stuff.

Some studies have shown that men are especially attracted to women with a low hip ratio – small waists and large hips. Just why remains elusive, although suggestions have included better child-bearing abilities, improved health, and greater survival. One University of California study showed that women with larger hips perform better in intelligence tests, as do their children.

Body mass index, a measure of both height and weight, is another dimension that has attracted the attention of researchers. A ratio of 20.85 has been found to be most attractive in women, because, say researchers, it is seen by men as sign of good health and good reproductive potential.

The fat cows who lumber in here to moo that female BMIs of 25 are attractive (they use the euphemism “curvy”) are full of shit. Science once again confirms the validity of the Dating Market Test for Women that has been at the top of this blog for three years. Oh, and you gym rats stuff it. BMI is a reasonable measure of attractive body composition for women because most women are not muscle-bound meatheads.

In the same article, why do men prefer blondes? Answer: Handicap principle.

[A]ccording to research out of the University of California, the answer is that blonde hair, like the peacock’s tail or the rooster’s bright-red plumage, is a sign of fitness. The evolutionary reason why men are attracted to blondes is that the hair and skin colour make it easier to spot problems. Anaemia, jaundice, skin infections, cyanosis (a sign of heart disease) and some other conditions, are, these researchers say, much easier to detect in fair-skinned individuals than in brunettes.

So, in ancestral times when bugs and infections were thick on the ground, there was an evolutionary need to be able to pick a mate who would be healthy and have healthy offspring – hence the preference for blondes.

Prediction: this post was very painful to read for we-are-the-world equalists.

Read Full Post »

Polyamory Is Disguised Polygamy

The Man Who Was once wrote:

The basic problem with the Sex at Dawn thesis is that I just don’t see how it gets around two problems. First, men who get more than their share of sex and who exclude other men will pass on more of their genes. Second, women who only mate with the top males will get higher quality genes for their offspring which means they are more likely to survive and reproduce. Given those Darwinian incentives I don’t see how polyamoury is anything other than a disguised version of polygamy.

To get around this problem one would have to posit some kind of group selection, but that opens up a whole thorny nest of problems. While I find some of the group selectionist ideas of D.S. Wilson rather intriguing, especially as regards religion, I remain extremely skeptical, as the objections to group selection put forward by George Williams and others are really quite devastating. There would have to be some sort of really strong mechanism for punishing cheaters and equally distributing the sex for it to work and I just haven’t seen any evidence put forward of such a mechanism in our evolutionary past.

I’ve cast a jaundiced eye at the Sex at Dawn thesis in this post. The commenter above is onto something. Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy. Multitudinously and concurrently. Polyamory cheerleaders, like Christopher Ryan, note the shape of our penis heads and go on to weave a happy utopia of free love where all the men and all the women get their rocks off whenever and however they wish, like the bonobos (who, by the way, are territorially squeezed compared to their more prodigiously successful chimp cousins). But he has to ignore female hypergamous mate choice and male jealousy to concoct this vision of a peaceful hedonist paradise.

The reality would be considerably darker; women would still want to bang the alpha, leaving the beta male out in the cold, clawing and scratching for rode-worn scraps, but now shackled with the obligation to help provide for kids that are likely not his own. What then happens is a complete breakdown in male investment in women and families. Men spend their working hours battling it out in vast, unproductive “Who’s the Sexiest?” competitions for privileged access to a veritable harem of vaj. If you think this is a recipe for creating and sustaining an advanced modern society filled with creature comforts, I have a grass hut somewhere in the Congo to sell you.

How, in a polyamorous society, are you going to arrange things so that women dispense their pussy equitably among high and low status men? As noted by the commenter, this would require some major group selection modulated behavior to be workable; a woman would fuck for the survival of the tribe, instead of the survival of her offspring. That would be awfully magnanimous of her! It’s like arranging a society where men are happy to boff fat, old and ugly chicks with equal attention to romantic detail that they give the hot young babes.

If anything, a culturally endorsed polyamorous dating market that virtually guaranteed a steady provider payout for disloyal, promiscuous women and their bastard spawn would help resolve the female tension for male commitment and good male genes in favor of the latter. Betas would be sexually shunned even more than they are now. LJBFing and undignified platonic beta orbiting would reach epic proportions. This blog would be classified as treason against the state and an incitement to rebellion and be shut down.

A happy hippie free love egalitarian commune it would not be. Widespread polyamorous practice where childrearing is done by the village and all men, uncertain of paternity, contribute resources to the well-being of the single moms and their unholy bastard squirtage, will not convince women to equally distribute their sexual favors among the men. Just the opposite; it would liberate women to single-mindedly pursue the few alphas in their purview, knowing full well that a beta blood-latticed safety net exists to protect them from destitution. In other words, socially-sanctioned and state-supported polyamory lets women have their cake and eat it, too. The only trade-off is that they will have to share scarce high value lovers with other women. Yet as any tour of a college campus will demonstrate, most women in their prime would prefer to share an alpha stud than extract commitment from a beta schlub. Until the wall looms, that is. Heh.

But why speculate? We now have evidence of what happened to polyamorous early human ancestors in the distant past — they went extinct.

The team found that the fossil finger ratios of Neanderthals, and early members of the human species, were lower than most living humans, which suggests that they had been exposed to high levels of prenatal androgens. This indicates that early humans were likely to be more competitive and promiscuous than people today. […]

Emma Nelson, from the University of Liverpool’s School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, explains: “It is believed that prenatal androgens affect the genes responsible for the development of fingers, toes and the reproductive system. We have recently shown that promiscuous primate species have low index to ring finger ratios, while monogamous species have high ratios. We used this information to estimate the social behaviour of extinct apes and hominins. Although the fossil record is limited for this period, and more fossils are needed to confirm our findings, this method could prove to be an exciting new way of understanding how our social behaviour has evolved.”

Until we can reengineer hypergamy out of women’s hindbrains, advocacy for unconstrained polyamory in all but the most backward societies is DOA.

So what does nonviolent, consensual polyamory look like in modern real life when it’s purposefully tried? (No, it’s not SWPL. Even in that hothouse culture the chicks swarm to the top hipsters.) Think aging beta boomers milking their last ounce of testosterone by swapping barren hag wives. It’s best summed up in the following Chateau maxim:

Maxim #109: Consensual polyamory is a contrived hookup service for undesirable sexual market rejects.

Read Full Post »