Archive for the ‘Hitting The Wall’ Category

One thing I have noticed (as has reader DoBA) is the incredible amount of hysterical bile flung at Trump by has-been ex-sluts, spinsters, cougars, and bitterbitch skanks whose salad days are receding in the rearview mirror. DoBA:

Re: Louise Mensch.

A lot of people don’t like Trump, but I’ve noticed a pattern in that the people who truly seem to DESPISE him with an obsessive fervor all seem to be aged ex-sluts. Examples among women I know: An old “rock club” slut who used to fuck metal bands passing through town; a former college friend who fucked almost the whole dorm hall and several professors; and the town slut who not only fucked but *dated* her high school bio teacher, then went on to be in countless wet t-shirt contests.

I could give more examples, but these are the most glaring. Why? Because they especially took offense to Trump’s pussy-grabbing comment. That’s right — the very women who were the first to actually get their tits out in their teens and twenties are now indignant in their forties that a man (OMG!) would actually talk about sex. Imagine that. How rude!

There has to be some weird psychological thing going on here. Resentment? Loss of power? Lack of control over the sexual market? All of the above?

I have three theories to explain the psychological motivations of ex-slut hatred of Trump (and by extension, hatred of Trumperica and its people).

  1. Shame. Ex-sluts have to carry the burden of their sluttery and no matter how much they put on a brave grrlpower face, they HATE HATE HATE to be reminded that they joyfully acquiesced to alpha men like a young Trump using their youthful bodies for fleeting pleasures of the flesh and of the peak femininity.
  2. The Wall. Ex-sluts try to ignore The Wall and their inevitable sex and romance-destroying impact with it. As with the shame of their sexual histories, ex-sluts don’t like reminders of their rapidly coalescing sexual (and marital) worthlessness. Trump’s well-known ALPHA MALE ENTITLEMENT in the company of younger hotter tighter women, and his implied DISAVOWAL of spending romantic effort on older women, is a constant needle under the skin of aging beauties for whom Trump is the visual embodiment of every man they secretly desire but can now no longer attract.
  3. Social ostracism. Fact is, if Trumperica is realized in all its feminism-jettisoning, patriarchy-recovering glory, sluts and spinsters will have a hard go of it, especially in the marital market. A nation of beta males energized with a renewed masculinity and healthy male prerogative will feel less inclined to suck up to low value women or, worse, settle for them out of a misplaced sense of lack of options which have heretofore been drilled into their heads by the man-hating shrikegeist. Trumperica means the end of beta male thirst, at least as it is practiced today under the rules of our degenerate matriarchy: in public, with ostentatiousness and self-defeating white knight earnestness. The drying up of the beta male thirst pool will mean, blessedly, less attention lavished on fading cock hop stars by any man but the most desperately indiscriminate blacks. Ex-sluts will feel this social demotion in their bones, and they fight against its arrival — an arrival in the form of Trump and his aesthete army — with a passion they are no longer able to conjure in the bedroom.

I hope this clears up the matter!

Read Full Post »

Because Sweden’s leaders are emotional, virtue signaling women.

It would be funny if it weren’t existentially tragic. Team Cunt invites the swarthworld into Sweden on a menstrual wave of righteousness, and bows to the swarthworld like the submissive harem playthings to which they secretly aspire.

Handing the reins to White women will be the Final Stupidity that ends Western Civilization, unless the native fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands of these women reassert their masculine privilege and demote them to the roles for which they are most suited: inspirational physical beauty and motherhood.

Feminism is the shit test that MUST be passed, or Western White men are doomed to be cucked forever by Morlocks with a stronger pimp hand.


Days of Broken Arrows writes that the problem of women in leadership positions is their pathological conformism.

Anyone who went to an American school knows that females, as a group, will go along with any trend that’s being pushed by mass media, from clothes to music to makeup. The girls didn’t question why they were doing what they were doing (except for the odd math team girl). They just went along with everyone else.

So it is today with politics. The same girls who had to have the same shoes as everyone else now have to go along with everyone else too. This was the danger of allowing women a political voice and I’m guessing that on an unconscious level, the Founding Fathers knew this.

Schools are really about socializing people, so principals and teachers make such girls the center of attention. The media is all about “manufacturing consent,” so women are placed front-and-center as much as possible.

Conversely, men are a more dangerous proposition. Even the most conformist men have an individualist streak. Schools and the media do as much as they can to curb this, but you can’t change human nature.

The guys you knew in high school are still around and still probably have the same individualist quirks you remember. But you don’t hear about them. Their opinions are now being drowned out, the same way they were drowned out as high school sophomores by girls shrieking over the new pairs of Lucky jeans they bought.

When you get down to it, politics is a pair of jeans for women. It’s not that they particularly even care about jeans or want to wear them. It’s that everyone else is doing it.

Female (and relatedly, gay male) infiltration of so many institutions has created unstoppable momentum toward US decline and eventual collapse. Those drowned out voices of the individualist (White) men will have to get a lot louder and more insistent if the female-led decline is to be reversed.


This is a great blog post tying together feminism and the third worldization of the West.

Thus feminised groups will open their borders (and their legs) to everyone and everybody, including to more masculine groups who have more kids, leading to the feminised group becoming a minority in its own country. This could be also observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups, such as western Europeans and white north Americans, have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.


Women, in general, have similar behavior to that of minority non-white groups, so they reinforce each other. This could be also called the “women – minority alliance”. You will see lots of similarities between female behavior and minority/third worlder behavior. […]

As you can see, the one group empowers the other, there is collusion between them, and they jointly create an environment that is particularly well suited towards parasitism upon white men.


What is interesting to me is that feminisation and third-worldization work together. You often hear the phrase “women and minorities”, “racism and sexism”, “white privilege and male privilege” etc.  Those words often come together. There is collusion going on. Why is that? Because women pay only 30 percent of taxes, (10) but receive the vast majority of welfare, pensions and medical care, and benefit from diversity quotas/affirmative action, so they often support other parasitic groups and often work together with them to expand the welfare state and affirmative action/diversity policies.

The more influence women have directly leads to more minority influence, and vice versa, creating a positive “more diversity” feedback loop. There is correlation between the level of female influence in first world societies and the third-worldization of those societies.


Feminism could cause a white woman to support a minority woman against a white man, and put the non-white woman above the white man. When white women, due to feminism and “sisterhood”, feel closer to non-white women, than to white men, and turn against their own men, then their group may not survive such treason.

This is why feminism is incompatible with nationalism and the survival of the ethnic group.


Basically, many women and minorities have similar (parasitic) behavior and similar (more government, more affirmative action, more quotas, more taxes, more redistribution, more welfare, more “give me, give me”) goals. They also both fear potential white male violence, both complain about “too many white men” dominating this area or that area, or how a certain sector is “too male and pale”,  and both shout “down with the 1950s!”.

If you look at political parties who support feminism, you will notice that they also support more minority influence, and vice versa. For example the Canadian election where female supported liberal Justin Trudeau won resulted in both more women and more minorities in Parliament and in the Government.


The Women’s march against Trump also demanded immigration and open borders, claiming that “no human being is illegal”. (42) Meanwhile, non-white feminists are turning against white feminists using the same methods they used on men.


So basically white men in the West are getting attacked by a coalition of many of their own women working together with minorities.


Do you think it is a coincidence that western societies became more liberal and opened their borders in the 60s, exactly the decade when contraception became widely available, women were freed from the burden of having multiple kids and entered the work force and politics en masse, and female influence exploded?


If you want to get rid of white people, then it makes sense to promote feminism among them. First, it will lead to negative birth rates. Second, it will lead to more tolerance for immigration and open borders. Third, it will divide and destabilise the targeted ethnic group, and will turn the women and the men of that group against each other. And fourth, women will hardly care about the presence of Jews in the midst of their society, since women are less xenophobic than men. So I don’t think that it is a coincidence that the people who are on record saying they want to get rid of white people of European descent are also supporting feminism in western countries (but not in their own country).

Tradcons will have to wake up to the fact that White women and nonWhites have formed, intentionally or organically, a de facto coalition to destroy the nations that White men have created. The war for the survival of the West really is White men versus everyone else.

I like those odds.

Read Full Post »

A naive beta male wonders why there’s a dearth of single men willing to marry the aging spinsters he knows.

why don’t I know any single men who could be fixed up with a well-educated woman in her late 30s?

Smart people say the stupidest shit sometimes.

This seems to be a common situation among our friends. We know single women whom we believe would be wonderful companions and mothers, but none of the single men whom they are seeking as partners.

Wonderful companions and motherhood potential don’t make dicks hard.

A friend in D.C. says “Single women nearing 40 have spent decades perfecting their adult selves.

That’s their problem, right there. Instead of spending decades perfecting their adult selves, they should have spent some time getting serious with a man while their bodies were still perfect.

Men of the same age are still stuck in their teenage personality.”

Bitterbitch snark for normal, natural male sexual desire for younger, hotter, tighter women.

What is the explanation for this phenomenon?

Hard-on heuristics.

…finding an unpartnered adult male who is in possession of said good stuff seems to be impossible.

For mangy cougars. But for spry springboks, not at all impossible.

Separately, I’m wondering if the large quantity of involuntarily single-and-childless women shows poor life-planning strategies.

That Pill-lubed, anonymous urban living-facilitated cock carousel isn’t gonna ride itself!

These women have advanced education, great job skills, and good careers compared to the American average.

Yeah but do they have clear skin, pert tits, firm asses, and pussies that smell of lavender?

Inadvertently, our plucky White Knight shilling for his starving cougars stumbles upon a payout system that likely incentivizes the pursuit of alpha fux over settling for beta bux.

we must observe that [women’s] after-tax income is in nearly every case lower than if they’d had sex with a dermatologist or dentist in Massachusetts and collected child support.

Note to dermatologists and dentists: if you’re gonna bang a desperate aging beauty, wear your own condom and dispose of it in the toilet.

(Most of these women want two children, which, if properly planned, could easily offer a tax-free cash yield of $200,000/year via child support (multiply by 23 years in Massachusetts).) See this from the Practical Tips chapter:

In most states, the potential child support profits from a one-night encounter are roughly the same as the profits from a short-term marriage. … “Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.”

All women can be mercenary given strong enough incentives, but luckily (for men) most women still strive to have children within a marriage. Single momhood is not (yet) a desired life outcome for psychologically healthy women, despite its inglorious rise over the past forty years. What this means is that for the typical man, the odds of getting fleeced by a woman pulling the ol’ gotcha pregnancy maneuver are low.

Rich men do have something to worry about, especially rich men with Game, because women will lose all sense around them (like men do around barely legal sexpots) and are liable to think pregnancy and child support entrapment are reasonable first date objectives.

From the point of view of having the children that they want prior to the exhaustion of their fertility and from the point of view of financial security, these women would have been better off spending their 18-22-year-old years having sex with married men rather than attending college. That’s not to suggest that 18-year-old child support profiteer is the optimum lifestyle for every American woman, but the fact that it would yield a better outcome measured against their own goals than what the women we know have accomplished suggests that they pursued a pretty bad life strategy.

Here’s a better idea that isn’t compiled in the abstracted kookland of the homo spergonomicus mind:

Women who want kids should get married in their early 20s and start having them by their mid-late 20s, then spend some years at home raising them, afterwards returning to their careers soulfully satisfied and serenely accepting of the fact that they can’t have it all and motherhood necessarily means the corner office won’t be a realistic option for them. No “child support profiteer” shenanigans needed. (Any woman who seriously follows such a cold, sociopathic blueprint deserves all the pain and suffering she will inevitably receive in the romance market.)

Readers: Looking at the 35-45 age group, and restricting to people who have a college degree, above-median earnings, agreeable personality, and responsible habits, what’s the ratio of single women to single men?

Who cares? It’s like asking what’s the ratio of garden slugs to single men. The one will have no influence on the behavior of the other.

The first commenter to the original author’s blog post gets to the heart of it:

Men select for beauty and fertility; both of which are on the decline in the women you mention. They also select for low-conflict behavior, kindness, etc., which may or may not be found among the women you mention.

Reality is, that any guy who is 40 and has his act together, is going to date younger; especially with the horrible economy -there are lots of 28yo women without a clear path to career at this point.

A 37yo with possibly 2 years of fertility left should be looking not for 40 or 42, but for someone about 50 to 54 who is in good shape and still wants to have 1 or 2 kids.

Satanic feminists have lied to women for so long that simple truths like “don’t wait too long to marry and have kids because your fertility window is short and men won’t be interested in you when you’re older and uglier” are willfully ignored or twisted into nostrums of oppression that should be fought against and actively denied through the alchemy of embracing gogrrl, leaned in, cock-hopping, careerist lifestyles that ironically will leave women more miserable than if they had just submitted to the patriarchy’s price of admission.

Read Full Post »

Anna Merlan has a post up at Jizzebel about Trump, Hitler, Nazis, White Nationalists, and Hitler. That’s really all you need to know. In full, it is as stupid and incoherent and rife with empty-headed aging Millennial snark as CH’s executive summary makes it sound. Basically, shitlibs are flooding their diapers that Whites are starting to do what other racial groups have always done: embrace a race-aware political identity.

But the real story here, as is usually the case with these indignant witch burning histrionics from the thin-skinned bluehair nosepierce generation, is the circus sideshow that defines the life of the author. Let us recall that Anna Merlan is the acid-blooded feminist xenomorph who helped breathe life into the UVA fraternity rape hoax (a hoax roundly exposed by numerous media outlets), who was rightly condemned for her poor journalistic standards (i.e., libel), who lashed out in a vengeful rage and initially refused to own up to her part in the lie, and who finally was forced to issue a snide apology for her efforts at menstrually smearing the reputations of innocent men.

Merlan the Lizard

Merlan the Lizard

A huge cunt, all in all.

Anna Merlan’s been lying her whole life. She’s a Nimrod Class sociopath and attention whore, who uses lies to construct her glowing self-conception. A sane society would shun her kind to the icy wastelands, and never allow her to sully any respectable organization.

Given the well-known background on Anna Merlan — her lying, dissembling, malevolence, man-hating, and unethical, incompetent journalistic practices that make mockery of the field — why is she still employed? How is it that she is still able to have a platform to vomit her lies and libel after everything that is known about her?

Could it be………


Read Full Post »

Although rare, one does occasionally encounter the younger grown man-older woman couple. (I specify “grown man”, because there is room in the sexual market for inexperienced teenage and early 20s beta males to pop their cherries in the easy and uncomplicated, if road-worn, guiding folds of older woman orifice.)

The married younger man-older woman is a coupling that seems to defy not just evolutionary theory but also common sense. Why would a man so ludicrously work against his reproductive interests? There is already a built-in preference among women to date and marry older men than themselves, and a woman’s fertility window is much shorter than a man’s. One would have to be either a fetishist who gets his GILF freak on, or a complete loser lacking any confidence in his ability to marry at least a few boner-inspiring years down the poon market.

While fetishists of every stripe exist, they are so rare — much rarer than the noise their advocates make on SJW comment boards where all that matters is parroting the Pantywaist Line — that it’s safe to compartmentalize them into a box full of Darwinian exceptions who don’t violate the general rule governing sex interactions.

More common are the lesser beta and omega male losers who have so little to offer women, or who believe they have so little to offer, that they settle, with a sad resignation they have spent their lives expertly concealing under self-soothing bromides and plastic smiles from public inquisition, for older broads with short shelf lives and lowered standards.

If the numbers of these loser husband-older wife couples are increasing, (anecdotally, there does appear to be a slight uptick in their numbers, mirroring the slight uptick in the numbers of white women-black men couples. I invite the reader to make the relevant connection), we can identify a number of social changes that may be contributing to the odd pairings.

Reader corvinus explains,

CH: and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman.

This. About 10 years younger.

As to why it’s considered the norm to marry a woman the same age as you, I have a couple of ideas:

1) Social pressure, especially from the women.
2) Online dating, which has a stronger age-homogamy bias than IRL.
3) Lack of game on the men’s part.

Interestingly enough, apparently during the recession, the age at first marriage has gone up faster for men than for women, suggesting that women are more willing to consider marrying somewhat older men than they were before.

During times of economic hardship, women smartly choose established men with more resources (betas). The inverse is also true: during times of female economic self-sufficiency, women vaginally choose charming jerkboys with or without resources.

Corvinus has hit on the big three reasons why younger man-older women marriages continue to exist and offend good taste.

Social pressure is a big deal, because women are the lemming sex and bend to the will of the group more readily than do men. If more older women are getting locked out of the chase for older, resource-rich men, then they will seek succor from their misery by propagandizing the wonderful wonderfulness of fucking younger men in short-term flings. (We here at CH know better. These women hurt badly on the inside.) The lies of feminism can have an impact on how socially comfortable women feel about dating older men.

Online dating does create a sex market skew against the intangibles of courtship. That is, women who try to find a man exclusively online will subconsciously bias the crude, artless markers of a man’s SMV — his listed age and profile pic — at the expense of the complex, refined cues of his seductive prowess (amply explored in the CH archives). Luckily, there are plenty of smooth moves a man can execute to evade this age-homogamy bias of online dating.

Lack of game. This is the big pink tuna. In my travels around the world of women, I’ve come to observe that younger man-older woman relationships are invariably of four kinds:

– The older woman was preternaturally attractive and slender, and competing in a local market filled with chubby younger women and off-the-market married men. In this milieu, an older woman (but not too much older) will capture the interest of younger unmarried men fed up with the feeding schedules of their female peers.

– The younger man was a beta male to the core. This is the explanation for 90% of younger man-older woman marriages. You take a lesser beta with little experience bedding women, add an older, sexually aggressive broad with her talons out for contractually locking down an indentured servant a husband, and you’ve got a combustible situation the beta has no hope of exerting any control over its direction. These couples flout natural law because the beta male has few sexual market options, or believes in his heart he has few options. Scarcity mentality is the soulkiller of masculinity.

– The younger man was black, the older woman a flabby white. For biomechanical reasons I don’t feel like hammering into submission yet again, it is an observable fact that black men are simply more tolerant of SMV hideousness in the women they screw, and this goes double when black men date white women. A black man will spear white land whales or go down on the wrinkled vag flaps of old white women that no white man would touch.

– The older woman was rich. Many of the younger men in these relationships are closeted gays on the psychopathy spectrum.

tl;dr: There’s a reason we feel an emotional swell of harmoniousness when we see older man-younger woman couples, and we feel a jolt of emotional discomfort when we see the opposite.


I forgot to mention sex ratio skew as a potential cause of increased younger man-older woman marriages. In a prime nubility market in which men outnumbered (against the historical average) the available hot young minxes, there would be immense pressure at the younger male margins to tragically settle for older women who are the sexual and/or marital discards of older alpha men in the process of trading up to younger lovers. An ahistorical sex ratio skew can introduce plenty of tumult and “black swans” into the normal functioning of the sexual market.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Peter draws a scalpel to the aging female’s id and explains why so many wrinkled German divorcées head to the Dark Incontinent for spiritually enervating EatPrayFuck sex tours.

In Europe reasonably attractive women will occasionally date and marry African black men. So there is definitely some cultural element to these preferences. White women in America learn intuitively at a very young age that a relationship with a black man makes you damaged goods in the eyes of any white man worth marrying. The stigma in Germany is not as bad, especially given the high profiles in soccer and entertainment of all sorts of German “Mischlingskinder” with African fathers. Of course, even in Germany Africans are mostly the fall backs for aging German divorcees. But unlike America, middle aged German hags actually take pride in taking sex tours to Africa where they pay young African men to fuck them and give them back rubs for a few weeks a year. I’m sure at some level fucking black men is a way to take revenge on a society that rejects you as unattractive and superfluous.

This really gets to the heart of the EATPRAYSLUT Western white woman social phenomenon. White men are simply more discriminating than black men, and as a result of that heightened discriminatory aesthetic, there are a lot of leftover aging white women who can no longer compete in their native culture’s fully secularized sexual market, so, thanks to jetliner travel on the cheap facilitating easy access to lil’ Butt Nakeds who will balm their burned ids, lots of spinster discards are heading down for a thrill that will secretly keep them up at night weeping bitter tears for their metadeath fates.

So, globalization has that going for it, which is nice.

Read Full Post »

Commenter natphilosopher poses an interesting thought experiment,

What I want to know is, what’s the CH translation factor [for female age versus female fatness]?
I figure, maybe 2-2.5 pounds/year?
A 20 year old who’s 50 pounds overweight against the same woman 20-25 years later, but now she’s lost the extra weight and toned up?

No, better yet, CH, they are both at the end of the bar. It’s the middle of nowhere, so there’s no other action and your stationed here for a while. The newly divorced mother, toned and horny, and the overweight but otherwise hot daughter and two of her overweight friends. The mother is so hot for her age, which is 39, that under the circumstances she appeals to the mighty CH. How many pounds per year does the daughter have to be overweight for the Mom to win CH’s attention?

The variables:

39-year-old mom, slender and toned.


20-year-old daughter, 50 pounds overweight.

Which woman commands not just CH’s turgid attention, but most men’s attention (since the vast majority of men share the same preferences in women)?

In other words, how much fat has to accumulate on a prime nubility young woman before a height-weight proportionate woman twice her age begins to look like a more sexually alluring prospect?

Reminder: Presented with two equally slender women 20 years apart, most men will, given a free choice, choose the younger woman for sex AND love. (yes, both)

The formula is simple: Youth >>>> Cougardom, at a healthy body weight, every time. It gets complicated when we fiddle with the variables and compare a young fatty to an older, age-adjusted hottie.

Thinking hard about this (because neither cougars nor fatties are sexual fantasy material), I conclude that the thin mom would earn the CH rod of approval. Youthful bloom, rare and exquisite as it is, can’t withstand 50 pounds of disfiguring blubber. Wrinkles and sag are no man’s idea of boner-fuel, but the equivalent of Lindy West is like the anti-Viagra: Boners implode into a black hole of flaccidness, from which no seed can escape.

I’d therefore have to agree with natphilosopher’s mathematical elegance: A 20-year-old daughter would have to be 2.5 lbs per year fatter than her 39-year-old mom. But only if her mom is already thin. If the daughter is 50 pounds fatter than her obese mom, that’s a dirigible sideshow no one wants to contemplate puncturing.

50 pounds of superfluous fat is a lot of unsexxxy BBBBBBBBW adipose. What if the daughter is, say, 40 pounds heavier than her twice-as-old slender mom? 30 pounds? 20?

At 40 pounds difference, most men would still opt to bang the thin mom with the extra 20 years.

At 30 pounds difference, the pattern of fat accumulation on the daughter will start to matter. Did her additional 30 pounds settle on her ass and tits, and avoid her face, neck, belly and arms? Then I conclude that even numbers of men would choose the daughter and the mother.

At 20 pounds difference, the same as above applies, but now the daughter’s sheer youthfulness exerts a powerful influence on men’s autonomic desires. Most men will overlook an extra 20 pounds on a 20-year-old if the only alternative is sex with a thin 39-year-old (again, presuming equal facial attractiveness, i.e. bone structure).

At 10 pounds difference, the daughter wins nearly every time.

I hope this answer has cleared up everyone’s questions on the matter of female fatness and female age and their deleterious, and synergistically deflating, effects on men’s libidos.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: