Archive for the ‘Girls’ Category

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.


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 »

I have remarked that one will see far more fat man-slender cutie couples than the inverse. This REALTRUE observation perfectly accords with sexual market theory: specifically, men place primary importance on women’s looks and women place primary importance on men’s social status and personality (or, less pointedly, holistic importance on each facet of a man’s character).

But libido-projecting male readers remain astounded: how could it be so?

Instead of a dry exegesis on the mechanics of the dating field and women’s evolved romantic preferences, I’ll paraphrase a pithily revealing convo I had with a girl when this subject came up.

SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: You know [fat guy X]. His girlfriend is so cute. And thin! He must bring something to the table.


SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: {Faux curiosity} Oh yeah?


SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: {faux prying} And that makes up for the uncinematic sex?

EXPERIMENTAL GIRL SUBJECT: *laughs* I bet the sex is hot. He probably throws her around like a rag doll.

Yes, for anyone, man or woman, it’s better to be lean than fat. No one of sound mind would argue otherwise. But a fat man with an out-sized personality and bloated self-confidence will easily compensate for his extra pounds. (A fat woman has no such option, because men aren’t wired to see past her blubber to the beauty within.)

Girls have an amazing ability to overlook or rationalize a man’s physical demerits if he has equal or surpassing merits in his non-physical traits. Nothing further needs saying on this topic.

Read Full Post »

How rare is female beauty? The answer to this question has yuge implications for the functioning of the sexual market and the average man’s odds of landing himself a cutie-pie. Reader Wrecked ‘Em tries to get a handle on the raw numbers, and cleverly draws a connection to the normal distribution of IQ among humans:

If you take the HB10 scale to generally mean a normal distribution with mean = 5 and standard deviation = 1, it works out reasonably well.

7 = 1 woman in 44
8 = 1 woman in 741
9 = 1 woman in 31,574

With a global female population of 3.52 billion there would be 1,009 “10s” in the world. That’s a reasonable definition of an HB10: “one of the 1,000 most beautiful women in the world”.

Makes an interesting comparison to IQ…

7 = IQ 130
8 = IQ 145 (low bound for “genius”)
9 = IQ 160

Like IQs above 150, at some point it becomes difficult to “test” since IQ and beauty aren’t like horsepower — better to get them together and sort them into a closed-order ranking based on their own opinion of each other.

Let’s assume (justifiably) that the 1-to-10 scale of female beauty predominately applies to under-35 women. Aging has such a deleterious effect on women’s looks that the 1-10 ranking no longer sufficiently captures the over-35 woman’s negative contribution to the normal distribution curve of female beauty. There are so few 7s, let alone 9s and 10s, among women older than 40 that to include them in the data set would dramatically skew the beauty curve to the left side, where the has-beens reside.

Given the above age-adjusted correction, there is still a problem with Wrecked ‘Em’s statistical premise. To wit: If you live in a region with lots of under-30 women who haven’t let themselves bloat into lardasses, you might be surprised to learn that only 1 out of 44 of them qualify as an HB7 (or higher). The reality is different than a normal distribution of female beauty would suggest; there are way more bangable 7s strolling around our urban fertility sinks than 1-in-44. I’d say the number of 7s or higher in any given population of White, under-30, slender* girls is closer to 1-in-5.

What gives? Well, I propose that the female beauty curve for prime fertility women (ages 15 to 25) is right-skewed. That is, if excess adiposity is avoided, a larger share of fertile young women than is inferred under a normal distribution are cute enough to impregnate.

That right skew in fertile female beauty is hard to quantify, but readers are welcome to take a shiv at it. Now you can argue that one man’s 7 is another man’s 5, but the real world evidence refutes you; most men pretty much agree on which women are 7s, which are 9s, and which are LSMV pawns in your master plan to womanize the fuck out of this gay earth.

So we’re left with the problem of graphing the distribution of a primally fertile female sub-population that has more 6s, 7s and 8s in it than a normal distribution would predict. (Although perhaps not many more 9s and 10s; extreme right or left tail rarity isn’t budged that much by an overall skew in the entire demographic.) My guess is that between the ages of 15 and 25, the representation of HB7s is triple what you would find in a perfectly normal distribution of female beauty.

What about the left side of the female beauty curve? Meh, WGAF. But for shits and giggles, gross obesity (but I repeat myself) has clearly increased the ranks of women in the unfuckable 1-3 categories. Regular, height-weight proportionate unattractive girls (plain janes) still exist, but their relative numbers have been crushed (heh) by the growing (heh) class of fat chicks. In a healthy America, say, 10% of women would be 4s; in a super-sized America, only 5% would be 4s because half of the 4s would have gotten fat and demoted themselves to 3s and 2s and “I’d sooner pork an apple pie”s.

Perhaps, then, the Current Year prime fertility female beauty curve looks more like a camel’s double-hump: lots of, ironically, sexually invisible fatties, and enough bangable slender babes to keep men at least partially invested in making a go at it rather than surrendering entirely to Pornhub. As age gathers, the female beauty curve starts to resemble a normal distribution, until a sexual worthlessness inflection point is reached and nearly all the women bunch up on the far left-behind side of the curve.

*Obesity so badly damages women’s SMV that there are wide (heh) swaths of the USA where barely any young women are attractive enough to inspire thoughts of the bang.

PS Comparison of the extreme tails is revealing. My hunch is that the left tail of female looks is longer/fatter than the right tail. If 1-in-30,000 women are 9s, then 1-in-300 are 2s. And this mismatch accords with personal observation. It’s probably a consequence of the sheer number of genetic permutations that have to go right to produce a 9, as opposed to the relatively light demands placed on the God of Biomechanics to produce a 2. (Basically, Nature stops de-bugging her code, and lets the mutational load run havoc.)

Read Full Post »

Scanman posits three rules of dating in post-America:

A few gems of sage advice that I will pass on to my sons —

1. If a woman has ever been photographed wearing a crown or tiara on her birthday, she is likely a shit human being.

2. Ditto for any woman who has referred to herself or her friends as a goddess.

3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.

I find nothing objectionable in this crib sheet. If you just want a simple guide to girls that requires the least bit of pattern recognizing effort, steering clear of tiara girls, “goddesses”, and avowedly altruistic women is as good as any dating guide you’ll find in laddies mags.

The beauty of Scanman’s rules for red pillers is that following them effectively screens out the worst of the post-America girls: the pathological narcissists and ¡lookatme! attention whores. It also screens out a lot of fatties, because I can’t help but notice a calorically-dense number of broads who wear tiaras and refer to themselves as goddesses are fat fucks.

The last rule might invite skepticism — after all, women as a sex are more empathetic than men and can thus be expected to have stronger urges to “help people” — but understand that there’s a crucial distinction between the typical sappy woman and the virtue signaling SJW urbanette who makes a big show of her altruism. Aggressively empathetic women can be as dangerous as aggressively cold-hearted men. More dangerous, actually, as ruthless men aren’t likely to flood their nations with millions of incompatible mud worlders just for the self-righteousness high.


Commenter chris adds labcoat context to the third rule.

“3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.”

There is a scientific explanation for this.

Basically, doing things that are regarded as ‘moral’ makes people feel like they have built up a ‘moral credit’ that they can draw on in the future to offset any immoral behaviour or ‘moral debits’ they engage in.


Nazis by Kraut: A Playful Application of Moral Self-Licensing

Doing something moral gives one a license to do something immoral. This form of moral compensation is called “moral self-licensing”. Interestingly, the moral behavior can take place in another domain than the subsequent immoral behavior. For example, buying eco-friendly products gives one a license to steal. This article is based on the idea that a healthy diet has a moral dimension. As a consequence, consuming a healthy product should give one a license for immoral behavior. This research supports this hypothesis on a playful study. This study shows that drinking sauerkraut juice contributes to a stronger support of Nazi-esque right wing ideology than drinking either nothing or a less-healthy beverage (Nestea).

Avowedly, assertively altruistic women (or women who claim the altruism mantle) are probably sluts with a well-fed rationalization hamster ready to justify their future infidelities.

Read Full Post »

Here is a photo of a just-married man with his blushing bride. Did you cringe while looking at it? That’s understandable. Her body language drops at least three clues that this marriage is doomed to roll off the divorce disassembly line.


  1. He’s leaning into her (and her head is arching away from his kiss).
  2. She’s (fake) smiling for the camera, instead of for him.
  3. She’s got the kung-fu take-down grip on his wrist, as if she’s ready to stop his hand from roaming toward her ass.

Those are bad omens for your marriage if your bride is like this woman. Recall an ancient CH maxim (paraphrasing): If a man has to chase a woman’s love, she’ll never relinquish it.

The romantically successful couple reverses the polarity balefully evidenced in the photo above. A marriage destined for many years of reciprocal loving love looks more like the couple in the photo below:


This pic is literally the mirror image of the first photo. The man — Trump — is the one looking at the camera smilingly, his hand smugly occupying the erogenous nook of Melania’s appealing lordosis, and tickling the top of her ass. His torso, like his megashit-eating grin, is swiveled forward-facing. Meanwhile, Melania gazes at him adoringly, pressed unquestioningly into his chest, seemingly oblivious to the photographer in the room. If there is an attention whore here, it’s Trump, not Melania, and that makes all the difference in the world.

To recap:

Chasing man + chased woman: splitsville
Chased man + chasing woman: healthy relationship
Chasing man + chasing woman: unmarried couple in throes of lust
Chased man + chased woman: theoretically possible if both partners are cheating

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: