Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Comment Winners’ Category

Biomechanical sex differences extend to the infamous “notch count”. A man’s notch is not the same in style nor substance as a girl’s notch. Psychologically, girls record their “notches” in a limbic language that would befuddle men.

From williamk, our COTW winner:

A general rule is once a girl knows she could sleep with you, that’s her “notch”.

Once your thirst is telegraphed, actually having sex is superfluous to the woman. She’s already validated… why take on the potential risks of sex with some dude she barely knows?

Now, its a case by case basis. Her sluttiness, horniness (often cycle dependent), drunkenness also play a role. But in general, most girls worth laying (read: White girls) are perfectly happy to just play goalie and make out, allowing boob feels and giving no nookie.

It makes her feel good, wanted.

To go further with a girl, she needs to think she has to win you over because you’ll walk away if she doesn’t.

Well stated. For women, actual sex, rather than telegraphed sexual interest, is an additional risk that adds little to nothing to her need to be validated as a desirable object. Yes, OBJECT. Objectively speaking. Because that’s what it all cums down to: the human race survives when men look at women’s sexy bodies and faces and are compelled by the power of the Lord to seed their wombs with His gestational image.

This isn’t to say women don’t need and want sex. They love to fuck, but fucking isn’t necessary to fluff their self-conceptions. The man whom a woman WILL fuck is he who arouses her so completely that his flirtatious interest isn’t enough to satisfy her. She needs to complete the soliciting-dicking cycle.

A man’s sexual interest is necessary but not sufficient to pump a woman’s ego to bursting with fertile flavor, IF the man can successfully communicate a “take or leave her” attitude and redirect his sexual interest to other women without suffering some existential crisis of identity.

williamk’s last line gets to the heart of Game and seduction of women. Eagerly flirting with a girl and never pulling back or challenging her — i.e., exhibiting not an abundance mentality but an outcome dependent beta thirstiness — is handing the win to the girl. It’s giving her the trophy before she’s crossed the finish line. That’s the Girl Notch. (Or Thot Notch if you prefer a Current Year lexical rhyme.)

The nature of the Girl Notch is such that a thin girl in her plunderable prime will collect daily and even hourly affirmations of her sexual worth. This indiscriminate frequency means that the Girl Notch is lass valuable than the Man Notch (given that notch value is partly measured by difficulty of acquiring it), but more readily available for ego-stroking when the mood for a personal boost strikes. The Girl Notch doesn’t have the raw power of the Man Notch, but what it lacks in intensity it makes up for in volume. This is why girls often look happy if not ecstatic at all hours of the day, while men tend to evince alternating emotions of ecstasy and despondency.

The Man Notch — which traditionally and properly is simply known as the Notch — is meaningless without a finish line crossing. No man ever earned a notch with hours of foreplay and then a night spent spooning the girl through her jeans as his blue balls weighed heavily with unreleased pressure. For men, ego gratification is the rope of validation unleashed by PIV. Anything less than a Final Coition has the opposite effect on his ego, deflating it from a precoital high; though kissing and a gentle rebuff at the decisive moment is not nearly as ego-shattering as outright rejection on the approach, it is a fact that men feel a twinge of failure, as if they let themselves down, if they can’t close the deal when all the signs were pointing to vajhalla.

So what kind of man does a girl feel unsatisfied receiving his mere flirtatious interest and nothing more? What kind of man does a girl recruit to top her Girl Notch with her popped cherry? Very broadly, two kinds of men:

  • The preselected masculine chad who, as williamk noted, trips her radar while she’s ovulating
  • The man with alpha attitude and force of personality who flips the script and gets girls chasing him

This is the skeleton key to opening pussy: You’re the prize, and she has to win you over. Every man who can be called a beta male forgets this lesson, or disregards it out of spite and an addiction to noble losing and daydreaming about what could have been. Betas appease, alphas tease.

A girl knows a beta male is a sure thing, and that sucks all the tension and excitement out of her interest in him. But the alpha male leaves her wondering if he’s really that into her or if she’s up to his standards, and this will compel her to work harder to please him and earn his affection.

To wrest the real notch from a girl, you have to deny her the Girl Notch. And that means taunting her ego with the idea that uncertainty is the rule and validation is the exception.

***

Related to the subject of this post, LeShitlourde writes about the different motivations for male and female cheating, and why the existence of the Girl Notch hints that female cheating isn’t entirely, or even substantially, about fulfilling sexual desire:

Cheating for women is saying “I want out of this relationship”.

Some betas out there rationalize their woman cheating as a “momentary slip up” or some sort of heat-of-the-moment mistake.

But he’s projecting his psychology onto women. Men’s appetite for variety is insatiable, and even if a man is perfectly happy with his girlfriend, side pussy is a constant temptation. Even if a man’s wife is a 10, he’ll happily be banging 7s or 8s on the side. There is no female analogue to this, because women hardly ever have any sort of compulsion to bang men less alpha than their boyfriend or husband.

But if a woman cheats, it is communicating something different entirely. Women cheat as a way to express their lack of respect for you and to take out her anger at your weakness. And if you choose to stay, she will lose all respect for you, throttle the sex to zero, and metaphorically wipe her ass with you for money and support for as long as she can get away with.

The Girl Notch is SMV validation without the sex. It is particularly suited for women because men are less sexually continent, thus there’s no equivalent Girl Notch for men. Women know men will have sex with them as soon as they have indicated their interest, but men don’t know the same about women. It is often the case that many men receive positive signals from girls but then fumble somewhere along the way and lose the shot at sex. This affliction hits greater beta males the hardest.

Tangentially, what this means is that when women cheat they are doing so for reasons that extend beyond ego and loin gratification. Sexual fulfillment is part of that (alpha fux, beta bux) but a bigger part is what Le Shitlourde mentioned: women cheat to lash out at their domesticate men. If cheating was solely about stroking her ego, she’d get her kicks flirting with strange men but not taking it farther than that. This is why a man must immediately ditch a GF or wife who cheats on him; she has crossed a line that indicates a commitment to a larger disloyalty than that which would follow from mere “momentary passion”.

Reader Cracker adds that men’s apocalyptic reactions to female cheating are indirect proof that different standards for the sexes are evolved responses that accurately reflect the differing size of the impact that cheating has on each sex,

exactly right

there is no recovery after a girl cheats and the relationship will only get worse.

i get trying to stick by your obligations especially if kids are involved but there is no happy ending if you decide to stay. and it’s bad for the kids.

even if they aren’t told about the cheating, they will see and feel that something is wrong with the two of you. they will lose respect for you as a man.

son will grow up to be a pussy who gets used and abused by women and daughter will grow up to be a whore like mommy. best way to prevent that is to teach them a good lesson. show them strong men don’t tolerate cheating. leave and get a better woman so they can see how things are supposed to be. that’s the only way.

besides that, getting over the fact that she was with another man was something i couldn’t get over. i don’t know how any man could. i had a girl cheat who i was head over heels for. i would have done anything for her. full blown oneitis.

but after she cheated, i couldn’t stand the thought of touching her again. going where another man had been. leaving her was the best thing i ever did in my life. after her was when my life really began.

It’s a fact that men experienced in the world of women learn early on: women can get over male cheating quicker and more thoroughly than men can get over female cheating. Women often run right back to cheating men, if they love those men; and though the wound of betrayal never fully heals she is happy to have him back in her arms again, because the grief of losing him would cut her deeper. Men, by contrast, and unless they are LSMV losers with no other options or hope of options, are less eager to take back a cheating woman. As Cracker said, there is often an accompanying disgust that prevents a man from ever again touching a woman who has cheated on him. It’s as if the invasive cock left a foul odor or slimy sheen on her skin, and now she is an object to be tolerated at best, disposed of at worst, for whom his affection can find no purchase.

Read Full Post »

COTW winner Days of Broken Arrows unloads a gauzebomb of nostalgia porn on the CH collective, reminding us that virgins (of hooch and heart) vanish as quickly as they appear.

Thanks for spotlighting my comment about ground floor girls.

In case there are younger guys reading, I want to (re)tell the story about what got me to think about this subject (I’ve written this before elsewhere). One of the sad aspects of growing old is that when you look back at your life, people and things that once seemed trivial become more important than you realized in retrospect.

The first time I ever set foot on college campus, at Freshman Orientation, I met a sweet, very inexperienced girl from a small town. Within hours we were “together.” That night at the sleepover in the dorms we kissed — which I practically had to teach her to do.

But she was “cute” and not sexy or beautiful. She also looked about 12 years old and had no sense of style. All of this and her “small town-ness” put me off. I wanted the hot chick(s).

Which I did get. When I returned home after orientation I started dating a high school hottie I’d been after for a while. I also blew off Orientation Girl without a second thought and without any apparent guilt (until now, ironically enough).

I had a lot of fun in college and dated the aforementioned high school girl as we went through college. But she left for California after graduation. After that I was thrown into the early ’20s dating market. And by then you start to get jaded and meet people who are even more jaded: The women with multiple abortions, countless partners, strange diseases and habits, etc.

Decades later, I was able to track Freshman Orientation Girl down on Facebook. She got married and stayed married (to someone who is a lot like me, funny enough). She looked too young back in college, which was bad. Now that quality is good.

My advice to any young guy reading this is that you probably already know the woman who would make a great wife, but you’re passing her up to ride the male version of the carousel. Unless women like these become young widows, you won’t have the chance to meet them again because they get pulled off the market and stay off the market. Forever.

The fact that age of first marriage and total marriage rate have been rising and falling respectively for at least the last twenty years, it’s less likely now than it used to be that the inexperienced ground floors girls leave the market early and stay off for the duration (unto death). What’s happening now is the innocent and pure of heart girls are being left high and dry by men OR are seduced by the urban slutstyle and get caught in a hamster wheel of endless dating, breaking up, and blossoming bitterness. So you as a man are less likely to later “miss out” on those special ho-flakes if you don’t nab them before college….however, you will miss out on monopolizing their pure-of-pussy hearts.

That’s not a trivial consideration. All it takes is two partners (read: cocks) for a woman’s risk of divorcing you to skyrocket.

DoBA’s wistful jaunt through his lass-shaped past reminds me of something else; a sort of quasi-ephebophilia (love for younger women in the (legal) 18-22 age range) is the natural sexual state for men past high school. That girlish-looking 18-year-old girl may be insufficiently womanly for horndog 22 year old men, but when those men hit their late 20s-early 40s stride, those neotenous women they once spurned now look like prized poon compared to the cows surrounding them. Neoteny ages well on women. It’s related to the concept of residual reproductive value: older men who are ready to build a family empire have a natural instinct to lock down very young (or young-looking) women because those women will age better and provide many more enjoyable years of bedroom intimacy. Female youthfulness is THE leading indicator of maximum remaining fertility.

Read Full Post »

From Popcorn Out, a quip which has earned him the coveted COTW.

A good canned line to use when pointing out the ridiculousness of feminism to the girls in your life:

‘Feminism is the idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.’

It’s not if, but to whom, women will devote their hearts. And it’s better if they devote it to the presumptive father of their children instead of the Corporatocracy, an anti-human entity which is a father to no one but itself and a lover of nothing but untethered power.

Read Full Post »

Comment of the Week winner Days of Broken Arrows, writing from the perspective of a former insider to the print magazine world, has an excellent summary of what drives a lot of the magazine and newspaper poz that is nearly reaching saturation point in America.

I used to write for magazines and newspapers and, in fact, wrote for a former Teen Vogue editor at one of the newspapers. And I can tell you this: In the mags, close to 100 percent of what’s written is advertiser-driven.

Those “outrageous” articles on anal sex and subjects like that aren’t so outrageous when you learn that the makers of K-Y Jelly (or some other such company) has bought full-page ads and that’s why the articles are being written. And all those other oh-so-wild “boundary-breaking” teen sex articles? Check the ads for contraceptives. There’s big money there. Mags don’t get that kind of advertising revenue writing about nice flowers or coffee tables.

Advertising didn’t always drive content. Once upon a time there was “a wall” that separated the ad division and the editorial division. The reason for this was so that the editorial side could operate independent of influences and be objective. But by the mid-1990s, fewer people were buying newspapers and magazines, so out of desperation, editors started to “tear down the wall” and grudgingly accepted some influence from advertisers.

But then came the massive influence of the Internet, which no newspapers could foresee (because editors lived in a bubble and didn’t heed warning of writers like myself). The Internet decimated newspaper and magazine circulation. Craigslist alone destroyed classified sections, which kept many a newspaper’s cash flowing.

The Web’s popularity caused advertisers to run from print and ran to the Web. So, to keep the revenue coming in, editors willingly tore down that advertising/content wall. They then let the ad execs march into the newsroom to give marching orders (metaphorically speaking).

And this brings me to my main point. Liberals/Democrats are now gloating about how it’s so wonderful that “the revolution is being led by Teen Vogue and Cosmo.” It isn’t. It’s being led by the big corporations that buy the ads that keep those mags in business.

So, once again, we see that the so-called “independent thinkers” are pawns of the corporate state. What they think is liberating is basically Big Pharma forcing the hand of editors to assign articles that will help them sell The Pill, the Morning After Pill, and whatever else women are taking these days.

I hope it’s not too bad a surprise for shitlibs when the curtain is pulled back and they’re forced to realize that the “leaders” they’re following aren’t Ivy League writers but Merck and Johnson & Johnson.

Gullible shitlibs suck the cock of corporate fat cats and praise poz-pushing greedy CEOs as “the moral conscience of America”, not realizing that they are utter dupes of “the Man” and the machine that they used to rage against but now enrich with their virtue sniveling support.

Interestingly, the wall between advertising and editorializing that is now crumbled to the ground corrupts not just editorial content, but the hiring process at these pozpaganda factories. If Merck or Amazon are running the editorial boards and deciding the content of our esteemed newspapers and glam mags of record, then those essentially corporate PR organs will gradually attract into their hiring pools the kinds of typists and pundits who sincerely believe in the degenerate, lying, fake crap that corporate America wants them to write to better push their products.

So I think gaystream media shitlib writers are more than just useful idiots scammed by the capitalist pigs they once hated; they are true believers. And the corporatocracy loves nothing more than a phalanx of faithful poz-dealers who don’t have to be bribed for their services. They’ll just show up with a smile and a thesaurus of snarky lib phrases, ready and eager to do the fat cats’ bidding.

Read Full Post »

The title of this post is lifted from a comment by mendo, who wins COTW for it.

Regression towards the latrine (a pun on the genetic hatefact “regression towards the mean”) is a succinct, clarifying statement on the reigning ethos of our time, which is the Harrison Bergeronian ideology that demands the destruction and deconstruction of all hierarchies, aesthetic and transcendent, so that the degenerate freak mafia may feel the equal of their betters.

Oliver Elkington writes,

Everything is beautiful according to these freaks, cancer, facial disfigurements, vomit, camel droppings. To be honest it is virtually impossible to reason with them, the best one can do is try to stop them having unlimited airtime.

mendo adds,

The idea behind that is that once everything is “beautiful” then nothing will be.

The Antiwhite and Antibeauty Left, if given unchecked power, inevitably ends in one place: the latrine. For it’s only in the cesspit of the latrine that the Left can finally claim victory and realization of their vision for humanity: Nothing to admire nor aspire to, all envies pacified, all ambitions mollified, all behaviors sanctified, all filth normalized.

The Equalist Ideology is, in sum, the doctrine of the garbage dump.

Read Full Post »

COTW winner Jack Ragnar does a 180 on cuckventional wisdom and as a result grazes a deep and abiding truth about the sexes.

I had a conversation about flirting with my sister. This came up. Women at their core want to find out who the better man is. They would by default go with the winner of “you and him fight”. However men are not all on board with this idea. Such games are anti-civilization, and the costs are high. If men refuse, and choose to work out their differences in a more civilized and subtle way, women have to gain the information about men in a more covert fashion. So we get shit-tests, status seeking, etc.

Women are literally anti-civilizational. Their instincts if left unchecked (ala modern women), will bring out the most violent aspects of men. Men despite their capability for violence and destruction are not on average destructive. Women, if left to their devices would have us living in grass huts.

The white kight/cuck aphorism they love to cling to is that women are the civilizers of men, by dint of being the gatekeepers to sex and therefore having the leverage to demand men behave themselves.

But what if the civilizing force runs the other way? Any man who has experience with women has seen that the fair sex can entertain malice and destructiveness the equal of any man, but without the sensationalist physical violence that grabs headlines and puts the spotlight on male wickedness. There’s a better case to make that men are the sex with the drive to civilize, and that women, constrained as their sex is by the hypergamous need to identify the strongest man in the tribe, exert de-civilizing forces on the sexual market that if left unregulated can and do lead to cultural collapse.

Jack is onto something yuge, and we here at CH have toyed with the same idea of unrestricted female sexuality as a herald of national decline. The entire story may be more nuanced than this, but it’s a necessary and useful widening of the discourse to at least begin to cast suspicion on the shibboleth that women civilize men and not the other way around. When all is said and done, CH will have pushed open the Ovaton Window so wide the sunlight will scorch dying feminist wombs from Berkeley to Bonn.

Read Full Post »

COTW is awarded to chris, one of my favorite commenters.

why reason, words and facts does not work on the left.

if a hookworm could talk, do you think you could ever reason it out of infesting your intestinal track and feeding off your body? or would the hookworm always somehow find a way to argue that it’s actions are virtuous or righteous and that it is a victim and not you?

a parasite will never agree to not being a parasite because that is how it lives. not being a parasite will end it. thus you can never reason one into not being a parasite.

this is the left. they are the hookworm of society. burying itself further and further in, all the while exclaiming it is the victim as it feeds on its host.

The parasites of the Leftoid Equalist petri dish will only be defeated by weaponized emotions. That means, in practice, relentless mockery of their hypocrisy and delusions, and personal attacks on their grotesque phsyiognomies. The bullies who dished out pain to lefty freaks were right. They were always right. If the weak and degenerate aren’t occasionally reminded of their weakness and degeneracy with public shamings, they get uppity. And uppity neomaxizimdweebies with too much power are a bloodsucking blight on civilized society.

In the war to subvert and discredit a decaying culture overrun by leftoids, your realtalk logic and reason should serve to support your psy ops shivs, not the other way around.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: