Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Relationships’ Category

Fake it till she betrays it. A study found that a woman who fakes her orgasms a lot is also more likely to cheat.

According to a new study, published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, women who regularly fake orgasms were less faithful.

The survey studied 138 women and 121 men in heterosexual relationships and asked them about climaxing and cheating.

While the intensity and frequency of female orgasms had little bearing on whether women had cheated before or were likely to cheat in the future.

But there was a definite link between the number of times a woman faked her climax and how likely she was to cheat.

Women have a dual mating strategy. They evolved to reassure beta providers, and to rock their ovaries with fly-by-night alphas. A woman who is especially skilled at, and motivated to, fake her orgasms is a woman pursuing her dual mate strategy of comforting a lovemaking beta and convulsing with a raw dogging alpha.

Be aware of the female infidelity red flags, especially this giant banner. The healthiest relationships are those entered with clear eyes, full heart, and Girl Two in the kitty.

Read Full Post »

Are you familiar with the sound of a rhetorical shiv piercing mangina hide and splintering id-bone? It sounds like this feeble defensive mewl from John Scalzi, the world’s most foremost beta male feminist emasculate.

Following a shock and maul CH campaign on both Twatter and at this ‘umble blog belittling the remnants of Scalzi’s manhood and everything he stands for, El Castrato finally cracked and Twat-streamed this effluvium of butthurt katzenjammer:

∑T = ∑E

That wedding photo is so very revealing. Megawife must’ve been ovulating on her wedding day, because she doesn’t want Scalzi’s supplicating seed anywhere near her eggs. I haven’t seen a “lean out” like that since Sheryl Sandberg’s husband set his treadmill speed to “the sweet relief of marital release”.

Naturally, I stuck the shiv once more in the undulating mass of Scalzi’s swolelessness.


Uxorious, adjective
– doting upon, foolishly fond of, or affectionately submissive toward one’s wife.

Scalzi is the Uxorious Male personified. His debased kind seem to be blossoming like dainty wildflowers all over Gaymerica, sending airborne tufts of estrogen to signal high T pollinators that their women are open to illicit dalliances.

The Uxorious Male is in reality a red flag of relationship disquiet. A man who ostentatiously and publicly bends the knee to his woman and considers it an act of sexual polarity-inverting rebellion against masculine norms instead of what it really is — a craven display of sycophantic shamelessness by an LSMV manchild — unintentionally announces to any spectators that his relationship or marriage is not what he wants it to seem.

Male uxoriousness, especially the variety that seeks a public platform, is a flamboyant concealment of relationship trouble. This trouble can take many forms:

  • the male feels an urge to cheat, and is ashamed of it
  • the woman is emotionally and sexually disconnecting from the relationship
  • both partners have checked out and are now in the business of keeping up (laughably try-hard) appearances
  • the male has experienced a sudden increase in financial or social status and subconsciously feels impelled to reassert his fidelity
  • the woman has experienced pleasing attention from other men and behaves in an emotionally distant way that triggers the male to uxorious mate guarding
  • the male is extremely low value relative to his woman and believes, mistakenly, that cloying displays of faithfulness and admiration will keep her as interested in him
  • both partners are sexually low value and each of them abides the uxorious male’s exaggerated show of fealty because it pumps their flagging egos

Dear girlfriends or wives reading at this outpost of outrageous truth,

DON’T TRUST A MAN WHO WANTONLY GLORIFIES YOU

He has an ulterior motive, is feeling guilty for something, or you can do better and he knows this (even if you don’t…yet).

CH Maxim 88: The fervor of a man’s public declarations of fidelity to his woman positively correlate with an increased risk of cheating by either the man or the woman.

Scalzi is not just a psychologically disfigured beta bitchboy; he’s also an anti-White virtue signaling whore. And as long as the Chateau stands in defiance of the Degenerate Freak Mafia, anti-White empty virtue whores like Scalzi will no longer be free to indulge their smarmy habit unopposed. It’s a new day.

More Scalzied chew-toy fun:

Read Full Post »

Sluts do not come “in all shapes and sizes”; they fall into archetypes that are noticeable to even the untrained beta goober eye. This post briefly profiles the stereotypical slut appearance and behavior, with the caveat that these observations by yours truly are broad (heh) generalizations. Plenty of exceptions to the rules exist, and this is so because nature has deemed it beneficial to bestow women a valuable coin of the reproduction realm: skill in the art of deception, of others and herself.

For instance, despite my general impression that ultra-feminine girls are less slutty than mannish girls, there are certainly very dainty, coquettish, eternal ingenues who play men like a fiddle for their resources and pack on a surprising amount of cockage over the years as man-eaters in pixie’s clothing. So the wary (or opportunistic) man reading this post would be wise to use it as a loose (heh) guide rather than a precise schematic.

FYI, “cock count” is a lovingly scientifical term to describe how many sex partners a woman has had in her life to date.

Women with the highest cock counts tend to be

  1. sassy/neurotic
  2. liberal
  3. androgenized (narrow hips, manjaw, short temper)

Women with the lowest cock counts tend to be

  1. demure/deferential
  2. conservative
  3. estrogenic (hourglass figure, neotenous features, nurturing temperament)

Why do masculinized, liberal women have higher cock counts? My theory — one that will no doubt be validated by SCIENCE! in a few months’ time — is that the key variable isn’t the intensity of female horniness but rather the presence of female disinhibition. Masculine women, like men, skew toward risk-taking and have fewer inhibitions than feminine women. They are less coy about their wants and (probably) less regretful about fulfilling those wants (at least during the immediate aftermath of their hookups). And liberal women, like liberals generally, have a stronger novelty-seeking compulsion and higher disgust thresholds, which together mean they aren’t as prone to existential crises about noncommittal casual sex as are conservative women.

I don’t see that feminine, conservative women are any less horny than masculine, liberal women, but they are certainly less inclined to act on their horniness with the perfunctory freewheeling attitude that your garden variety slutty urban SWPL chick brings to the bedroom.

Men can do one of two things with this darkly dank information: help them identify which women will go all the way right away… or which women would make good LTR girlfriend or wife material. The two goals are mutually exclusive in the whole (allowing for overlap at the margins).

Be careful with this knowledge. There’s no free munch. Long-term, low cock count women are a much better bet for relationship stability (and hence, for paternity certainty and divorce theft avoidance). But those low cock count women come with a price: lower sexual drive. If you like to bang, and bang a lot, you may become unhappy with a chaste low N girl who’d rather dream of babies and gossip with her girlfriends than ride you through the night into the morning. One mitigating advantage men with aggressively high horny levels have at their disposal, should relationship stability be their primary concern, is that, as a reader has reminded, on average men have a higher sex drive than women anyhow, and it’s “better to ‘work [a low cock count woman’s libido] up’ (probable) than to ‘tame [a slut’s vivacity] down’ (not possible)”.

Men care more about any particular woman’s cock count in proportion to the length of time they want to spend with that woman. A woman’s cock count cutoff for a man is highly dependent on his intentions with her. ONS? No cutoff. Fun fling? A cock count higher than twenty will gross a man out (even if he won’t admit it). Marriage? Any number over ten will seriously make a man question his decision to nuptially shackle himself. Ideally, most (non-black) men would love to marry a woman who’s a virgin, or more liberally (given current sexual market realities) who has accumulated no more than three cocks in her lifetime.

One of the illest feelings in the world for a man is to find out post-cock ergo cocker that the woman he loves and committed himself to has a sexual history that would rival Genghis Khan’s. This feeling will percolate no matter how much his woman loves him presently or swears her fidelity to him in future; these are primal attractions and repulsions that modern society with its platitude carpet bombing and gogrrl glorification and emasculation affirmations will never banish from the hindmind of man. That’s why it’s so critically important that alpha males teach beta male buddies, and shitlord dads teach pre-brainwashed sons, how to identify sluts and exploit them for pleasure biding or avoid them for patriarchy building.

Read Full Post »

Peacemaker Putin notes the importance of the same sex parent-child relationship.

The impact a Father has on his son cannot be overstated. Same goes for the Mother on the daughters. Modeling is powerful.

Behavioral modeling by children of parents is a bit of a sketchy proposition given what we now know about the large contribution of genetic inheritance and the relative paucity of shared environment (i.e. parental) effects on kids’ outcomes.

But in my opinion there is something to the notion that parents have different, and unequal, impacts on their same-sex versus opposite-sex kids’ development. Parents exert their influence (however little it can be quantified by current measurement systems) through two ways: presence and modeling (or what could be called “character appropriation”). The former is predominant in the development of opposite sex children and the latter on same sex children.

For example, a father’s presence shields daughters from becoming cock carousel femcunt mudskanks, and a mother’s presence guides sons towards social engagement. The parent-child interaction gets much more interesting and subject to vulnerabilities from disruption when the sexes are the same.

In the realm of modeling, fathers are a crucial decanter from which sons imbibe so many valuable lessons: toughness, grit, confidence, spirit, and the fulfillment of the all-important need of a son to look up to an older man. Mothers likewise impart their daughters with the wisdom of chastity and faithfulness, and the power of femininity and sexual guardianship.

The above formula requires unpolluted input variables. A slutty single mom isn’t going to impart anything good to her daughter, and a violent, disparaging, AWOL father will activate all sorts of negative gene-environment feedback loops in a young son’s spongiform brain.

Perhaps this presence-modeling theory of sex-differential parenting explains the social phenomenon of the association between longer-lasting marriages and birth of sons. Fathers instinctively and subconsciously know that their steady and reliable guidance will be a lot more critical to their sons’ positive development than to their daughters’.

Btw if CH is the first Shivmaester to come up with this theory, please feel free to lavish me with oodles of ego canoodles.

***

Commenter tteclod adds something with which I can find no fault,

CH: You may not have considered the interaction between heritable traits and learned adaptation of heritable traits, or at least didn’t say anything about it.

Let’s put it this way: the difference between the 90% heritable success and the extra 10% parental contribution is the difference between an A student and a B student, or a star athlete and an also-ran teammate. In a competitive environment (all of planet earth), these differences define social strata.

My son is smart. That’s genetics. My daughter is also smart, but not as smart as my son. Also genetics. However, the success of both my son and my daughter is augmented by my participation in the education of each, most especially because they are very much like me (nature) and I know how to be like me successfully (nurture). Without me, each child fumbles through life not knowing how to succeed except through learning from experience. That’s stupid. Every man knows it is best to learn from the mistakes of others, not his own.

Throw in incremental generational improvement in nature (slow) and nurture (fast), and you have the difference between r-selection and K-selection. K-selection assumes the opportunity to build incrementally upon civilizational augmentation of progeny, whereas r-selection hopes for some success among much failure. I prefer the putting my finger on the scale in favor of my children.

Read Full Post »

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read Full Post »

Moments Of Beta

A handsome couple – she: tall, easy on the eyes, he: older, shitlord face – walked by me and I overheard the following:

Her: “You’re always questioning what I do.”

Him: “No, I don’t do that…blah blah”

He trailed off, but I heard enough to know that this man was a paper alpha, hidden beta.

Simple little beta male tells like that say so much. He got defensive. He fell into her frame. He made excuses/apologized for his behavior, with a very predictable reactive wince.

There are so many ways this man could’ve replied that projected an aura of irresistible charisma. It’s not that hard to be the alpha male women love. All you have to do is THINK DIFFERENT. Get out of that obsequious mental space where all that matters is appeasing your woman and “making it all right”. For instance,

Her: “You’re always questioning what I do.”

Him: “YUP. Someone’s gotta run a tight ship in this relationship.”

Does the right phrasing elude you? Never mind! It’s your head space that you need a handle on. In my example, the man does NOT get defensive (if anything, he gets OFFENSIVE), he does NOT fall into the woman’s frame (he makes his own frame), and he does NOT make excuses or walk back his impertinence (he instead implies she’s to blame for her complaints).

When you have the right head space, the right words will flow like a river. As will the poosy tingles.

***

themanofmystery2 asks,

CH, how do you feel about the disdainful “are you fucking kidding me?” glance with no words followed by a conversation started with someone else? Alpha for not falling into frame and making her feel inferior to your power, or beta for letting her get away with her snippy bullshit?

You mean the man responds this way, right? (It wasn’t entirely clear.) Anyhow, this is nasty shit. I’ve seen girls do this sort of thing and it’s such a bitch move. Imo, if for use by a man, this is over the top for all but the most demanding scenarios (i.e., your dignity as a man is on the line). It also carries the whiff of butthurtness/spite/snottiness, which is why it’s more common to see women doing it. (das misogyniss!)

If a woman is snippy with you, remember the clarion call of the alpha male: amused mastery. If she’s snippy with you ALL THE TIME, then you’ve got bigger issues than a nimble tongue can solve. Such a woman was lost to love long before her current imbroglio with you.

Read Full Post »

We share a hearty chuckle over the avoidable miseries of friendzoned beta males, but there are dead serious implications should the practice ever fall out of favor or get deprived of its seemingly endless source stream of dupes, chodes, and tools.

The fewer beta orbiters willing or available to provide sexless emotional and financial support to dual-mate strategizing (“alpha fux, beta bux”) girls, the more pressure is applied to the alpha male lovers of those girls to assume the “beta bux” relationship responsibilities abjured by the former friendzoned betas.

In theory, this gutting of the friendzone industrial complex should result in three dating market adjustments:

– Girls choosing less conspicuously caddish jerks as lovers. Men who can’t or won’t offer any relationship dependability will have a harder time “locking in” girlfriends for the long haul.

– Girls becoming less disposed to take beta male attention for granted. This will mean that when betas do show romantic interest, they won’t immediately get stuffed into the LJBF hugbox.

– Girls experiencing more difficulty advertising-by-beta orbiter proxy their “no muss no fuss” sexual accessibility to roving alphas. As shartiste explains,

I’m growing more fond of my theory that girls use friend-zoned guys as signals to draw in low-investment alphas. Call it the Conspicuous Cuck Strategy. Look at her, framing him as a prop while she eye-fucks the camera and displays cleavage for any alpha onlooker. Come and get it, I know you’ll fuck and run but the cucks all ready!

I no longer hookup with attached girls, but I did a few times in less discriminating days. The girls ALWAYS talked about their bf/husband in the most beta terms possible, even though reality was probably a bit more shade of grey. They’d talk him down so hard and pitifully, not for any illusion that she’d dump him or I’d whisk her away, but it seemed more to signal just how bad she needed an alpha fuck, and simultaneously assure there’d be no reprisal. This is “flirting” to them. Its kinda disgusting, honestly.

It takes two to tango, and the female exploiting the asexual provisioning of the cuck is just as complicit as the cuck accepting his role and enabling the girl’s dual mate strategy. In this analysis, the girl is more malevolent, but the cuck is more contemptible.

Nevertheless, I don’t think girls are using beta orbiters as dinner bells for fly by night alphas. Not consciously, at least. It’s more reasonable to interpret a woman’s motivation to establish and sustain friendzoned eunuchs as exactly what it is: a status display to other women, and a practical consideration to “cover all her bases”. One can easily imagine a reproductive advantage in the EEA to women who gathered the resources of both sexual and asexual admirers.

Ideally, women want the cad and the dad in the same über alpha male; and women with very high SMV can pull off this coup. But for the majority of women who can’t, acquiring an entourage of harmless castrati isn’t without its twisted appeal. Think about how much the friendzoned beta orbiter offers women:

therapy.
extreme listening skills.
cashmoney.
endless ego-boosting flattery (without demanding reciprocation).
and, perhaps most crucially, a white knight perimeter defense against hopeful betas (and conversely a character-testing gauntlet for aggressive alphas).

So in theory reducing the frequency of friendzoning in the dating market should redound to the benefit of beta males and the detriment of alpha males.

But theory often gets abused trying to make sense of female sexuality. In practice, as the supply of beta male emotional tampons shrinks, what I think likelier to happen is that the alpha cads remain objects of female desire, but girls will have to find alternate outlets to absorb their bitching and moaning about their jerky boyfriends, which could mean girl friends and family. Hearteningly, or maddeningly depending on your degree of cynicism, it could also mean girls “amp up” their sexual coquettishness around beta males to secure the same amount of harmless male attention they used to get for less effort (and for less risk of misconstrual).

On balance, it’s a good thing to reduce the incidence of friendzoning, even if it means more lesser betas wind up alone with their dignity, instead of alone with a cute girl tormenting them with her unattainable nearness. If betas are unwilling to prostrate themselves to self-aggrandizing girls who will never put out for them, there might follow a morale boost and an impetus to learn and acquire the whole panoply of masculine traits that coaxes from girls the kind of hugs that really matter: post-orgasmic leg hugs.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, girls deprived of pushover eunuchs might start to view those betas in a more sex-positive light.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: