Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Inner Beauty’ Category

An early 30s woman I know through a lover likes to regale friends who will listen with tales of her sordid sex life. (If you want to know what happens to a woman’s vagina if she’s still single by her thirties, think of a flowering rose…mashed into a slab of ground beef.)

One of her adventures included a break-up with a caddish loafer, followed by a two month-long rebound “””boyfriend””” who was dumped one month after her ex-jerkboy sent her a two word text (accompanied by a thumbs up emoji) at 1am: “wut up”. Sometime during her fling with the rebound, she openly stated when he was out of earshot that he wasn’t a serious contender and that little did he know she was fucking her ex-jerkboy on the side (her ardor obviously reignited by his eloquent late-night text). Oh, and to add colorful detail to the story, since she “didn’t have those kinds of feelings” for the rebound boyfriend, she withheld her pussy from him and only permitted mouth and anal access.

To her ex-jerkboy’s credit, he wisely said no to getting back together in a relationship context.

Let me just preface here that the clearest view of women’s true sexual nature is from the vantage point of a man who has gotten “in”, in every sense of the preposition, with a crowd of attractive young women. You will hear, and sometimes see, and occasionally participate in, everything that the average bumbling beta male does not. If observed patterns at the individual level are indicative of general behavior at the societal level, then the view is a disillusioning one indeed for those who nurture a streak of quaint romanticism.

A thought intrudes: What would the sexual market look like if all men, appeasing betas included, had first-hand knowledge of women’s most intimate goings-on? Women have a vested interest in maintaining a quasi-lockdown on unsanitized information about their sexual behavior reaching the mass audience of potential male suitors. But if men had Pussy-vision — that is, if men could see women’s secret world through the cylindrical scope of their vaginas — how would the sexual market change?

Would, say, the rebound man in the story above, if Pussy-vision pinkly illuminated the world of women for him, have continued dating and investing his time and money and energy into this girl who refused him her vagina but gave it freely and furtively and concurrently to an ex who invested nothing in her that didn’t require more than a perfunctory text solicitation?

What about other female behaviors that most men, especially White men, consider distasteful or even depraved and evidence that the woman exhibiting them is unworthy of marriage, or a carton of Skittles on her birthday? How would the typical White man respond if he suddenly knew that the bubbly HR girl he has started dating once shacked up with a black guy who left her with a bruise and an abortion?I’ll cut to the lace.

These rhetorical questions answer themselves. If Pussy-vision were real, the sexual market would change radically, and not to the benefit of women or of society. You’d see a lot more pump and dumping, a lot fewer engagement rings and $40K wedding circuses, and increased market demand for sexbots, virtual reality porn, and libido-numbing interventions.

Alpha males would hesitate more to commit, greater beta males would kick out the last leg of their pussy pedestal and consequently score with more women, lesser beta males would shy from asking girls out even more than they already do, and omega males would, to women’s consternation, become bolder in asking for raunchy sex, not unjustifiably assuming that skanks who have taken it up the pooper on first dates might not have a properly functioning discretion filter.

These would be the immediate effects. Eventually, (if Pussy-vision were real), the wholesale abandonment of men from the LTR and marriage market would drive women’s behaviors in the direction of chasteness, modesty, low partner count, deference to male prerogative, and vulnerable femininity, (and away from mudsharking, you bet your ass). Hmm, not unlike how it used to be prior 1960 or thereabouts.

So, did pre-1960 American men have Pussy-vision? In a way, they did. No, they weren’t seeing the world close-up through women’s vaginas, but the culture was a healthy one that acted as a proxy Pussy-vision instrument, instructing men in the traits and behaviors of women who are worthy of long-term investment. Men didn’t need to spend years in the banging trenches to learn the true nature of women; they had fathers (and mothers!) and friends and institutions teaching them, forthrightly or round-aboutly, the shapely contours and tell-tale demeanor of the marriage-worthy woman.

What has happened since then is the warehousing of Pussy-vision out of sight of the everyday man. In a way, Pussy-vision is real, but now only for a select few alpha lords who have the key to the secret garden and a peen’s-eye-view of unkempt, chaotic, dizzyingly feral female sexuality. For the rest, the culture has not only jettisoned the concept of Pussy-vision, it actively works to promote the opposite of Pussy-vision:

Beaver-blindness.

Which would not be such a mentally handicapping thing if women were, in fact, worthy of investment. Beaver-blindness is the benefit of the doubt women receive when they are truly keeping up their end of the bargain: namely, don’t have an N-count that could rival a porn star’s and don’t delude yourself into thinking ass sex is an acceptable virginity-preserving substitute.

But Beaver-blindness is metadeath to the idealistic man living during an era of unrestricted female licentiousness, either as practiced or as imbibed by a go-girl propaganda machine that encourages and glorifies sexual amorphism and the taking on by women of the traditional roles and behaviors normally associated with male sexuality. Beaver-blindness is wilful castration when pussy is liberated from male expectation and discernment. It’s basically telling women, “Do what you will, I have neither the inclination nor the capacity to judge your worth as a lover and a partner in life.”

Naturally, women HATE HATE HATE nonjudgmental men who let them get away with the farm, (even as they tell social scientist surveyors and gullible male feminists the opposite). The only counter to liberated pussy is donning the Pussy-vision goggles and treating women exactly how they allow themselves to be treated. This will improve the enwhitened man’s love life and may, paradoxically, persuade women to reject the liberation of their sex.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Yup wants us to notice something very telling about Trump’s wives.

Trump’s had 3 wives.

1st wife: 14 years

2nd wife: 4 years

3rd wife: 11 years and counting.

Guess which wife was American.

😂 I’ll take “4 years” for $5.5 billion, Alex.

Read Full Post »

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

scissister

*band name alert

PS Reader The Observer observes,

You can learn a lot by watching a lesbian work on her target paramour while out and about, too.

They push boundaries HARD. They know it works, and where the limits are, and walk right up to them. They understand the function of obligation in the female psyche.

Observe, and learn.

Obligation and submission are two powerful psychosexual undercurrents in the roiling sea of a woman’s soul. It’s a shame it goes so little remarked upon by mainstream social analysis. But that’s why the Chateau exists; a beacon of truth guiding the way through a dark wood. *heart bursts with vanity*

Read Full Post »

Can we spare a moment for some brisk Realtalk that’s liable to send a certain contingent reaching for their smelling salts? Facials are hot. The giving of them, if you’re a man (or a man not named John Scalzi). The receiving of them, if you’re a woman (or a man named John Scalzi).

Check that, if you’re a certain kind of woman.

Depraved though facials may be, there’s no denying the act’s electrifying sexual charge. A facial is the Pollock splattered symbol of incontestable ownership by the man of his woman. It isn’t the Christian thing to do, but damn me if the devil’s bedroom blueprint isn’t a schematic leading straight to the jizz-soaked id.

The catch-22 is that the woman who will eagerly welcome into her face and upturned eyes the beatific brandishing of your white hot boner brew is not the woman you’d trust to leave alone for more than a week without a champion series labia lock set to impregnable.

It is the reality of woman: she who most excites your manly humors is she who least assures your manly honor.

My advice: If you love a woman, and you love the idea of giving her a facial, try it out. If she allows it, but only after expressing an initial and thereafter rolling reluctance, (i.e., she puts up some resistance and isn’t parting at the lips to try it again), she’s your long time gal instead of your good time gal.

Read Full Post »

This is a shibboleth-smashing study sure to give ugly feminists (but I repeat myself) and game-hating tradcons the hives.

Attachment Styles of Women-Younger Partners in Age-Gap Relationships.

Women have evolved to seek an older mate, however, research has shown negative opinions toward these relationships if the age-gap is significant. The most popular opinion is that women who date men that are 10 years or more their senior have an unhealthy relationship with their father. We investigated women-younger partners in age-gapped heterosexual romantic relationships to see if they differ in attachment styles when compared with women in similar-age relationships. We predicted that women in age-gap relationships will be predominantly securely attached, because it is evolutionary beneficial for women to seek older mates, and that there will be no significant difference in attachment styles between women in age-gap versus similar-age relationships. The common belief that the women who choose much older partners because of having “daddy issues” was unfounded in this study. There was no significant difference in attachment styles between the 2 groups, and 74% of the women in age-gap relationships were securely attached. Results are consistent with the limited literature on age-gap relationships regarding attachment style and relationship satisfaction. This study adds to the growing body of literature on attachment style and offers insight into the less-explored age-gap relationship dynamic.

There’s nothing psychologically unhealthy about an older man seeking a much younger woman or a younger woman loving a much older man. “Daddy issues” is just the butthurt bleat of envious beta males and bitterbitch aging females desperately trying to pathologize a natural expression of love and passion-inducing sexual polarity.

This is yet more laboratory proof from the whitecoats affirming the field observations of the common man; in this case, that women place less emphasis on men’s physical attributes than men do on women’s physical attributes, and more emphasis on other attractive male traits like personality, social status, resources, dominance, self-possession, confidence, and maturity.

So men, go ahead and fall in love with that barely legal beauty. You have less to worry about her motivations than you do about the jealousy and resentment you’ll provoke in everyone else who can’t stand to see you happy.

Read Full Post »

Mars and Venus“, by Antonio Canova.

Dat contrapposto. The old timers knew how an alpha male should stand (and how a woman should look when she’s ecstatically submitting to him).

Crucially, notice how Mars’ chest faces outward (while Venus’ entire body is devoted to him). His eyes pierce Venus’ soul with divine love, but his torso belies a longing in his heart for conquests and glory that are apart from her. See also: CH Poon Commandment III.

***

Compare and contrast with modern Western art:

It’s the elevation of ugliness all the way down.

Read Full Post »

Nouveau GoodWhites who falsely pride themselves on their intellectual capacity to appreciate the highly abstracted mess known as postmodern art secretly yearn for, and experience tremendous emotional engagement with, art that reaches back and embraces mythological archetypes. Discuss.

I’ve seen a few SWPL hipsters walking around in t-shirts printed with the words “More Humble Athletes Please”. You have to have some familiarity with shitlib SWPL euphemisms to know that this t-shirt is their way of saying “Less Naggershines Please”. Discuss.

Leftoid pundit assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, White America is or soon will be moving rightward, but unlike similar past ideological shifts it won’t matter because this go round non-White demographics will obviate the consequences of that White rightward shift. When this happens, resentment and anger will spread among Whites as they come to realize what an evil has been perpetrated on them by their leaders the past fifty odd years. Discuss.

A woman who doesn’t orgasm but remains deeply satisfied after sex with her man feels a much truer, more honest love for him than a woman who gets irritated if she doesn’t orgasm with her man regularly. Aaaaaaaand…. discuss.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,596 other followers

%d bloggers like this: