Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Girls’ Category

The “Calais Jungle“, a decrepit third world outpost established in Calais, France by their traitorous elite and housing disgusting “””refugees”””, has a secret to divulge. (It’s not much of a secret to enlightened Chateau guests.)

Volunteers in the Calais Jungle have been accused of sexually exploiting refugees and even child migrants.

The Independent has discovered a serious row has broken out among some unpaid charity workers at the camp in northern France, with some believing forging sexual relationships with adult refugees is natural in such circumstances, while others say it breaches all usual codes of conduct.

Wait for the twist ending.

One man who raised the alarm was later subjected to a barrage of online abuse.

Have you guessed it yet?

The man wrote: “I have heard of boys, believed to be under the age of consent, having sex with volunteers. I have heard stories of men using the prostitutes in the Jungle too.

“I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day. And I know also, that I’m only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse.”

Sex with underage boys? Multiple migrant partners? Maybe you’re thinking this is a homosexual meeting place.

The man added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male refugees – which he claimed risked the objectification of women volunteering in the camp.

Bleeding heart (and bleeding bush) Frenchwomen are lining up to fuck the rapefugee dregs of humanity….in a romantic setting that looks like this:

calais-sex-camp

Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

PS LMFAO at this revealing betaboy blurt:

He wrote: “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex. This impression objectifies women in the camp and increases the risks.”

How cucked, craven, and pusillanimous do you have to be to reinterpret women’s freely choosing raw dog refugee sex as some nebulous patriarchal assault leaving an “impression” that “objectifies women”. NO DUH IT LEAVES AN IMPRESSION. Just not the impression that this micropeen of a male thinks it leaves.

His comments prompted accusations of sexism and misogyny from female members of the group. One commented on the post: “I find this attitude incredibly patronising and paternalistic with added sexism and racism.

“There is a serious point in here among all the moralistic bullshit but I find it very off-putting. I find the assertion that women choosing to have sex encourages rape quite frankly disturbing.”

She’s right, of course, but her rightness is self-damning.

Weak beta males have a studied aversion to placing any blame for women’s ill-conceived romantic choices on women themselves. To do so, in the beta male mind, would mean having their puritanical romantic idealism dashed against the rocks of the bitter reality of primal female desire. The weak beta male suffers his morbid prostration to the pussy pedestal gladly, and is loathe to have it detached from his pursed lips. For if the day comes that his precious pussy pedestal is gone from his life, he’ll have no celibate space to retreat to for self-pitying comfort, and will be forced to deal with women as they are, not as they materialize unsullied in the brainscape of his sentimental daydreams.

tl;dr it was a big mistake to give women the vote.

Read Full Post »

A couple of serial rapists are profiled by The Daily Fembeast because they had accounts on the Real Social Dynamics seduction arts forum. The bitter feminist cunts smelled chum in the water and are working double time to smear good-natured ladies’ men through guilt by remote association with a few random bad seeds (whom I’d never heard of until I read the article).

Since PUAs and consent are in the hivemind news, I figure this a good time to recap the Chateau crib sheet on what does and doesn’t qualify as sexual consent. Stripping out all romantic context (sometimes a woman’s breathlessly whispered “no” really is a surreptitious arousal-amplifying invitation to the man to continue resisting her coyness), the legalistic basics of hookup look like this:

If a girl is drunk and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.
If a girl is sober and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.

If a girl is sober and she says no- it is rape.
If a girl is drunk and she says no- it is rape.

Fleshing out the above basics to conform more closely to the reality on the ground that hookups take two to tango, here are the additional by-laws governing the validity of rape accusations should a sexual congress occur:

  • If the girl and man are sober and the girl angrily says “no”- it is rape. (the vast majority of (white) men can tell, and will heed, when a girl is sincerely uninterested in further intimacy)
  • If the girl is blackout drunk and the man is sober- it is rape, if the rape was initiated while the girl was unconscious.
  • If the girl is drunk but conscious and situationally aware and a willing participant, and the man is sober- it isn’t rape. (this is a not uncommon occurrence for the simple reason that it takes more drinks and a longer time for men to reach happy drunkenness; thus an early-evening sexual intimacy can start with the girl more drunk than the man but wind up a couple hours later with the man equally as drunk as the girl)
  • If the girl is so drunk she can’t give consent AND the man is so drunk he can’t know whether or not the girl consented- it isn’t rape. (sorry, femcunts, the drunkenness sword cuts both ways)
  • If the girl is sober and the man is too drunk to understand or give consent- how the fuck is his johnson working?? and why is she sticking around at his place when she could easily leave while he’s in a stupor on the floor?

The mythological rape culture that feminists secretly wish would come to fruition is actually a projection of their desire to see a world in which women are exempted from personal responsibility and men bear all the burden of any female regret for romantic trysts that don’t end in two kids and a house in the suburbs.

This is why feminists (of the lite or heavy genus) strive so mightily to protect women’s prerogatives to drink like Russian poets and slut it up like two dollar street whores. Feminists don’t want women to even THINK about the necessity of taking a modicum of personal responsibility for limiting their alcohol intake or curbing their skank signaling; to admit to that much would, in the feminist worldview, concede that the sexes are innately biologically different (they are regardless of heated denials to the contrary) and that men aren’t the only sex capable of transgressing moral norms. As CH previously wrote,

if you are a woman who is afraid your inner slut might escape to have sex under the influence with a man at a party who is also under the influence, it’s up to you to refrain from drinking a lot or attending that party. The responsibility to remain sober — or at least avoid getting lights out drunk — should not rest solely with the man.

If feminists are truly interested in not being treated like morally undeveloped children under the law, they will agree to my definition of rape. But since feminism is about power dynamics and not at all about fairness or justice, they will never agree.

In a female sexuality-liberated market it’s a secularist sin worthy of livelihood destruction to advise women to stop drinking like they’re fraternity pledges trying to prove something. But if feminists are truly interested in decreasing the incidence of late night drunkenness rape (aka morning after regret rape) they’ll counsel women to be careful how much they imbibe while out on the town. Since they don’t counsel that, and in fact advocate the opposite that women should be free to drink as much as they want in sexually charged public venues, it’s obvious feminists aren’t really interested in reducing rape rates.

The sticking point for feminists, of course, is that “stopping short of drinking to oblivion” and “dressing a little more modestly than a ghetto hooker” harkens the return of a “patriarchal” culture that “places demands” on women. Well, yes. Demands are placed. It’s called adulthood. Maybe feminists could live up to their female empowerment bloviating and leave the childishness of immunity from moral agency behind.

Read Full Post »

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

  1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
  2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
  3. Sluts are ascendant.
  4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
  5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.

Read Full Post »

Recall the Chateau Heartiste Fundamental Premise governing all human social dynamics.

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.

The Fundamental Premise essentially states that women are more reproductively valuable than are men, and that this inherent biological disparity in sex-based worth precipitates all sorts of double standards in social policy and cultural norms.

Aaaaaaand once again ¡SCIENCE!, with love in her heart and fire in her loins, administers a meticulous old-fashioned to my tumescent ego.

Moral decision making study finds men willing to sacrifice 3 hypothetical men for every woman of reproductive value.

***

Killing someone in order to save several lives seems more morally acceptable to men than to women. We suggest that this greater approbation of utilitarian killings may reflect gender differences in the tolerance to inflicting physical harm, which are partly the product of sexual selection. Based on this account, we predicted that men may be less utilitarian than women in other conditions. In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

The id-shiv is contained in that final bolded part. That, more than anything, proves the Fundamental Premise: women are coddled only when they still have REPRODUCTIVE VALUE. As women age into the dead ovary zone, men treat them same as they do other men: with utilitarian indifference.

This, too, explains more than anything the bitter man-hating rage that your typical aging feminist spinster is capable of uncorking on “the patriarchy”. She has lost her female privilege, a privilege that, unlike the mythological male privilege, has real world evidence (and, now, scientific evidence) proving its existence.

White Knighting and Pussy Pedestaling is baked in the braincake, so to speak. As is the disposability of men. Remember all this the next time some whackjob feminist is screeching about the poor poor wymyn suffering under the boot heel of male privilege. She is constructing a semantic fantasy world and deluding herself that she lives in it. Her lying theatrics are a balm for the fear that she’s discovering what it’s really like to live as a man in what is in reality a woman’s world.

Read Full Post »

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

Read Full Post »

Once again, SCIENCE! affirms Chateau Heartiste maxims and squats lumply on feminist mythology while unloading a phallus-shaped deuce. A deep state study finds that there’s a neuroanatomical basis for the observed sex-based difference in emotion regulation.

As expected, males significantly scored higher in emotion regulation ability than females did. More importantly, we found the sex differences in the neuroanatomical basis of emotion regulation ability. Males showed a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, females demonstrated a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and rGMV in an anatomical cluster that extends from the left brainstem to the left hippocampus, the left amygdala and the insular cortex. The present study provides the first empirical evidence regarding the sex-linked neuroanatomical correlates of emotion regulation ability. These findings may help understand why there is a higher prevalence of affective disorders in females and maladaptive behaviors in males.

SCIENCE! and CH: dancing the duet of fated lovers. This study literally discovers neurological proof for the truefact stereotype that women are more hysterical than are men. State control…it’s a man thing. You women just wouldn’t understand.

I gotta wonder how self-deluded feminist are gonna spin this latest out-take from the HARDASFUCK sciences?

RANDOM MANJAW: “well, you see, that’s just the patriarchal culture influencing female fetuses and changing their brain wiring.”

THE SHIV OF PRIVILEGE: “is the patriarchal culture also influencing female fetuses to become raving lunatic feminists?”

PS The last line in that study abstract is lethal thoughtcrime (literally). Mood (affective) disorders largely afflict women because their brain structure provides a more fertile (heh) environment for hysteria and related emotional malfunctions to flourish. Men, in contrast, have a sex-specific brain architecture that predisposes them to the opposite: emotion-less disorders that characterize ailments like autism, psychopathy, and anti-social behavior.

PPS The Game relevance should be evident. Tap into a women’s roller coaster emotions and you can guide her to expressing herself in the way that matters most to *your* emotional needs.

Read Full Post »

Via Shiv Maester chris, a study that puts hard numbers to women’s sexual (and thus romantic) worth.

This gives us data showing that late teens to early twenties women are twice the value of a 30 year old women, and the 30 year old woman is twice the value of a 40 year old woman.

Women who leave settling down till they have finished college and started a career/paid off college debts are screwing themselves over when it comes to capitalising on their attractiveness to secure a high value long term mate.

By examining what men are willing to pay for sex, Professor Sohn provides a new window onto this issue of fertility and attraction. Men do not have unrestrained choice in whom they marry or date, but they do get to choose whether or not to pay a prostitute for sex, and the amount they are willing to pay reveals something about what they most prefer. Economists call this “revealed preferences,” assuming that the amount we are willing to pay for any commodity gives a good index of how much we value it.

womensvalue

That is some stone cold id-vivisecting truth right there. Am I a sadist for pressing this news above the fold? Sure. But I am also a giver. A humanitarian, even, whose message, if heeded, will save the love lives of many, many post-America wayward women.

A 40-year-old woman is worth (sexually) half of a 30-year-old woman, who is worth half of a 20-year-old vixen. These incontestable facts about the nature of the sexual market matter, and matter in big ways, to women’s romantic fortunes.

PS Despite the age-related radical decrease in prostitute’s earnings, it is funny to note that a 40-year-old actual whore still makes more than an established 40-year-old corporate whore. Even bad sex is more valuable to men than a paper pushing HR schoolmarm.

PeePeeEss Big swinging stones to the first shivlord who sports a tee with that hourly earnings graphic above on it, and swaggers into daylight to hit on girls while wearing it.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: