Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Hungry Hungry Hippos’ Category

Another cherished feminist and equalist shitlibboleth falls. Fat chicks were never attractive to men. There never was a “fatopia” in history when low sexual market value manatees battled the patriarchy’s beauty standards and won. Fat women have ALWAYS been repulsive to the vast majority of men.

And CH has long been on record reminding the fat acceptors and fatty fat apologists that their quest to overturn men’s innate preference for slender babes is a quixotic one doomed to end in oleaginous tears.

As if ❤️SCIENCE❤️ hadn’t already stamped more than enough Chateau real world observations with its liberal-approved (heh) imprimatur, along comes another trove of historical research (re)discovering the wisdom of the ancients that men prefer slim-waisted beauties, and that this preference is about as universal as a human mate preference gets (h/t thejerk):

Slim waists have been the mark of attractive women throughout history, says a US scholar who has analysed thousands of ancient texts.

Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.

He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author. […]

In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.

While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.

While the most-often mentioned feature was the breasts, waistlines were mentioned 66 times, with a slim waist predominantly linked to attractiveness.

Objective female beauty standards are timeless, unchangeable, and hated by the ugly, fat, and misshapen.

This shiv gleams with the bloody blubbery wetness of a skewered fatty, but the good doctor Singh has one more wound to carve in the distended porcine bellies of the slovenly shambling mounds.

Dr Singh said: “The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.

“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

And that is why America has never been uglier, in body and spirit, than she is today, groaning under the weight of an obesity epidemic and fracturing from the tinnitus caused by the whiny wails of a million butthurt losers.

******

And that is not all the shiv we have today! There’s yet more shanky goodness. CH has written about the grade inflation in women’s dress sizes to accommodate, physically and psychologically, the zaftig proportions of the modern emporkered American woman with an ego as thin-skinned as her hide is thickly equipped.

And no wonder manufacturers have sought to “vanity size” their dresses for sale to a growing (heh) market of waddling wursts. The average American woman today weighs about as much as the average 1960s man! To my American male readers, the odds are good that you are banging a woman you’d have as much trouble throwing over your shoulder as you would have had with your father or grandfather in their primes. Sleep on that.

A follow-up to that CH post about women’s dress sizes comes via reader Critical Eye. Inflation strikes again:

A size 8 dress today is nearly the equivalent of a size 16 dress in 1958. And a size 8 dress of 1958 doesn’t even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today’s size 00. […]

Enter the era of vanity sizing. Clothing manufacturers realized that they could flatter consumers by revising sizes downward. The measurements that added up to a size 12 in 1958 would get redefined to a size 6 by 2011.

And Lena’s getting laaaaaaaaaarger!!

Critical Eye observes that the Fat Acceptance bowel movement “comes with Offishal Imprimatur:  the clothing sizes are maintained by the American Society of Testing and Materials.”

Fat fucks can take a backhanded comfort in the assuaging of their wide load egos by Offishal government organizations devoted to spreading a Valdez-sized oil slick of lies over everything true and beautiful in the world, but in the end the only imprimatur that matters is the serrated CH Shiv leaving its insignia in the marbled vitals of these filth-peddling grotesqueries.

******

This is a truthnbeauty post, so hatefact news about Diversity™ is related to exposing the lies of the Fat Acceptors: diversity lowers a firm’s market value.

Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)

PS Commenter JP makes a great analogy between stock portfolio diversity and racial/ethnic diversity:

When you over-diversify your stock portfolio, you don’t ever outperform the market. You just sort of putter along, rising and falling with the all-share index while everyone else gets rich. The same applies to diversity uber alles.

PPS

Yes, I know it’s ‘shopped, but the visual alone sans placard (the hooters chick was originally carrying a drink order) would’ve sufficed to get the point across. A happy, smiling hottie, content to be a pleasing decoration for men, horrifies an ugly feminist by her mere cavorting presence. Low mutational load rape!

Read Full Post »

Twitter twats hired Randi Lee Harper as an “Online Abuse Prevention” schoolmarm, and continue to employ her, despite a mass (heh) of gathering evidence that she is fat, drug-addicted, mentally unhinged, and a disingenuous liar.

So why is she still working there? Does she have dirt on Twatter executives? Or is the entire Twatter HR department staffed wall to wall by crazy-eyed feminists and pantywaist sycophants allergic to facts and tasked with Narrative dissemination?

A reader muses,

feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… ”

I see, someone REALLY doesn’t want to be allowed back on the twitter.

Does anyone seriously think a CH house lord would beg a porky misfit like Randi Lee Harper for re-entrance to the club she is inexplicably charged with monitoring? No, that is not how this will go. She will come to CH, on her ungulate knees, to offer an obsequious apology and reconciliation to her betters. As losers are meant to do.

Long-time guests of Le Chateau will recognize the deeper message of this post. They will know this post is not solely about Randi Lee Harper (or about using her SJW tools against her) — she is but a convenient emblem to showcase a much more pervasive societal sickness — but is about, instead, the tentacled mind and body rot oozing out over the commons from the sewage pipes emptying the uptalking id waste of the SJW corporation of bitter, spiteful, loser freak degenerates whose adult sentiments were prematurely calcified into a juvenile philosophy of solipsism as they peered at the world outside through the vents of their high school lockers.

PS Hi Randi! PETA wants to know how your blue-dyed dog is doing.

Read Full Post »

…to a gay man scouting for a green card. For evidence, see this try-hard article and accompanying photos.

Dat gay face. He’s the one with the thousand cock stare.

She is totally his citizenship beard. They will make traditional love precisely once. He will need mass quantities of drugs to commence the act and fake his completion.

Her marriage is a hog and phony show to burnish her feminist cred. “See, a fat woman proud of her fatness can get married too! Take that, straight white masculine men with healthy libidos!”

Lindy West is a blowhard feminist. Not a colorful exaggeration. You can practically see her blowhole.

The Immensity lies,

I’ve dated [ed: black] men who relished me in private but refused to be seen with me on the street, or who told me, explicitly, that we had no serious future because they were afraid their friends would laugh at them.

shitthatneverhappened.txt. No man talks like this. If a loser dumpster dives to get his rocks off, he won’t deliver a confessional coda like this one to his fat fling. He’ll just stop texting and ghost. Shit that does happen to Lindy West: She falls for [ed: white] guys, they aren’t the least bit interested, she spins it as their fear of getting ribbed by their friends rather than their complete lack of physical attraction.

Fat pigs lie all the time to assuage their hammy egos. Feminist fat pigs with an internet bullhorn lie twice as much and ten times as desperately. The try-hard, butthurt, phonyfuck haggadocio drips like bacon grease from the mouth corners of the Lindy Wests of the world.

I’m surprised by the numbers of gullible “red pillers” who take fat women at their word when they oink about their nonexistent love lives with “studs” and “winners”. Look at Lindy’s “””wedding””” pics. The freak show rolled into town and the only one not getting the joke is Lindy.

Prediction: Lindy West will not get happier nor more emotionally secure as she settles into her marriage. That is because she will know what no one but her and gaycabanaboy know: A circus spectacle won’t save her from the lonely, loveless nights that are the fate of fat women married to effeminate men dreaming of somewhere and something else entirely.

PS The easy shiv: “Lindy + A Ham”. True that.

PPS Why do I come down hard on Lindy West and her ilk? Because they’re degenerate liars. And degenerate liars are bad business for believers in truthnbeauty.

Read Full Post »

Compare and contrast.

America, then:

joblessalpha

America, now:

America the Beautiful to America the Beastly in eighty years. You think this is frivolous, if amusing, griping. Ugliness in body and of spirit, and the crooked celebration thereof, is a defining feature of exhausted, declining cultures. Pampered softness has made Americans, and especially American women, ugly, crass, and teetering on the brink of mass insanity.

What do I mean by ugliness of spirit?

This, for example…

The nation has taken a wholesale turn away from beauty and toward ugliness. We embrace the ugly, castigate those “beauty bitter clingers”, and rejoice at the death of judgement. All the while our spirits and our bodies turn into formless pulp, manifesting our new beliefs, and we become ripe for defeat by more vital outsiders.

A little bit of hardship is good for a civilization’s, as well as a person’s, soul. Hardship will likely return to us, but when that time comes the difference then will be that we won’t be prepared to meet it head on.

Read Full Post »

Lena Dunham — or as Vox Day calls her, the Dunham Horror — is back in the news, attention whoring on social media in her new lingerie fat folds hammock. (WARNING: You are about to see what cannot be unseen. The faint of heart should look away now.)

.

.

.

.

Until Lena, never in the history of womankind has an attention whore been less aware of the nature of the attention she receives, or of the mismatch between what she offers and the kind of attention she demands for her offerings.

Which manboob does Lena’s nottie bod most resemble?

I’ll have to go with “sidewinders”.

Lena’s personal philosophy and her behaviors which manifest from her beliefs are a cancer on the world. A grotesquerie like her should spend less time flaunting her repulsive ugliness on the internet and more time in the gym and away from the grease trucks kicking her body into a reasonably feminine shape that she can then proudly save for the pleasure of her gay husband in the privacy of their home. Growing out her hair so she looks less like David Fatrelle would help, too.

But, she will never do this. Find a husband, that is.

But even with their visible admiration for one another, this pair has no plans to say “I Do” anytime soon. It’s not that they aren’t ready. They just wish everyone [ed: gays] would be given the same opportunity in all 50 states.

This post is cruel. I’m in a giving mood, so I’ll leave youze guys with some oculation material.

Read Full Post »

Dat post title… I’m such a steenker!

White women are kinda, sorta… most definitely raciss n sheeeeiiit. But what about those righteous, morally superior goodwhite women who throw off the burden of white privilege and happily date black men?

Unfortunately for branding purposes, these moral paragons aren’t exactly the classiest or thinnest ladies. From an earlier draft of a paper referencing the same Yahoo Personals internet profile data, researchers discovered (likely much to their chagrin):

Body type, political views, and religion are also related to the exclusion of blacks or Asians. Among white women, one of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. [ed: :lol: ] For white men, body type has no effect on their likelihood of excluding blacks or Asians. While political views also have no effect on racial exclusion by white men, white women who describe themselves as liberal or very liberal are less likely to exclude black men as dates than women who are not political, middle of the road, or conservative. Surprisingly, liberal white women appear more likely to exclude Asian men as dates, although this finding only borders on significance. Finally, religion affects black exclusion, and Asian exclusion among white women. Specifically, we see that whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor; that is, all white men and women who identified as Jewish excluded blacks as possible dates; all white women who identified as Jewish also excluded Asian men as possible dates. Further, white men who do not state a religion or who state their religion as “other” are far more inclusive of black women as dates than those who describe themselves as not religious. Likewise, white women of “other” religions are more likely to include Asian males as dates.

What a cluster bomb of hatefacts!

Now the only question remaining is whether fat white chicks settle for black men because those are the only men who’ll have them, or that black men try but fail to get sexy white chicks and decide to shoot for the easy prey because even a fat white girl is more feminine than the typical black girl? Same difference, I suppose. My limited knowledge of the mating rituals of matricentric cultures is that it’s a bit of both; fat chicks are stuck choosing between a steel-reinforced dildo and a black man, and black men hone in on fat white chicks because they love can tolerate grotesque booties and they learned from experience that sexy white chicks want nothing to do with them.

These findings are perfectly in line with the CH observation — heck it’s in line with just about everyone’s observations except that no one wants to bring it up at the company picnic — that the white women who date black men are often fat, gross, and classless.

Probably unsurprising to most, the kind of white women willing to dance by the dusky coonlight? Fat liberal white women with sanctimony issues.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that fat liberal white women are just about the most unappealing dating prospects for any white man with options and a working set of nads. So… good riddance.

And wazzup wit da Eskimos? Man they talk a big game about breaking down race barriers, but when the rubber hits the ho, it’s “Blacks?! Are you meshuggina??”.

Let’s end this journey through the human hindbrain on a hopeful note. Dear NOWAGs, if you want a white woman (and who doesn’t?), date a Wiccan. I’m sure you have the psychological tools to stoically endure her kookiness.

It hardly needs clarifying to regular visitors of Le Chateau, but CH has no problem with racial dating preferences. Racism is natural, evolved, and a part of what makes us human. Racism expands the diversity in the world by creating and sustaining group aesthetics that would otherwise get swamped into oblivion by a one-world fuckfest.

Read Full Post »

Lardass of the Blogosphere is butthurt by all the anti-fat realtalk in the free speech zone, and this resentment fuels the obstinacy with which he holds to wrong-headed opinions about obesity. His latest is a howler:

In the comments, there is often talk about the fattening of America, yet I hardly see any fat white people in Manhattan. Thus I came up with the theory, this morning, that thin people are moving to Manhattan and other thin cities such as Washington, Boston, and San Francisco/Silicon Valley, leaving the fat people behind in the rest of the country. Those readers who live in the rest of the country are, therefore, getting the false impression that the population as a whole, is fatter than it really is.

Or that, you know, the skinny people living in the pricey coastal cities are getting the false impression that the population as a whole is skinnier than it really is.

LotB is called out on his ignorance of CDC obesity data by one of his commenters, which he reacts to by attempting a semantic evasion.

Those [CDC obesity] statistics are not broken down by race. New York has plenty of overweight blacks and Hispanics.

Here is the CDC obesity data for white women (the data most pertinent to the functioning of a healthy sexual market):

Between 1988–1994 and 2007–2008, the prevalence of obesity among women increased (Figure 4):
•    From 22.9% to 33.0% among non-Hispanic white women.

Yes, there are disproportionately more fat black and amerindian women, but white women are getting FATTER too. LotB is simply mistaken in his pro-fatass beliefs. For shits and giggles, here’s the obesity rate in the United States in 1960 versus the obesity rate in 2008:

Obese (BMI ≥ 30)
1960-1962: 13.4%
2007-2008: 34.3%

Extreme Obesity (BMI ≥ 40):
1960-1962: 0.9%
2007-2008: 6.0%

Environmental shocks.

Obesity and extreme obesity are the two most revolting categories of fatness. Mere overweight has gone up a couple percentage points since 1960. None of the trends are good, however a few extra pounds on a man won’t adversely affect his romantic prospects like similar extra weight on a woman would affect hers.

These numbers are even worse than they appear, because the obesity categories are based on renormed standards. The 1959 Met Life insurance tables are truer standards of ideal weight, because they were devised before American “girth inflation” became necessary to spare the feelings of chubsters like, I would bet good money, those of LotB’s.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,325 other followers

%d bloggers like this: