Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

In the “Picking up married women” post, I commented that an indeterminate number of happily married women will go out of their way to avoid the temptation to infidelity, and will extend this courtesy to their boyfriends and husbands.

Some happily married women (read: married women still sexually aroused by their husbands) avoid the company of sexually appetitive men or of high status men capable of stimulating the sexual appetites of women. Often, this avoidance is achieved simply by not going to places where a lot of single huntsmen congregate. And, married women will try to introduce the temptation-resisting wonders of avoidance to their husbands, by preventing them from being too frequently in the company of young single ladies. Moving to the suburbs helps a lot with this avoidance program.

Commenter Euro Death Knot astutely notes the corollary to the above observation, and illustrates it from personal anecdotes as the “other man” having an affair with a cheating wife:

The converse of this principle is that a married woman traveling alone is a strong indication of potential interest.

I first learned this long ago when I was a college kid who knew nothing and was traveling on my own in Europe. I spent a night in a youth hostel in the Netherlands and approached an attractive German woman (5+ years older than I was) who was taking a vacation bike trip on her own across Holland. While I had taken only one year of German and her English was just a bit better than my German, it was easily less than 2 hours from me saying hi until I was finger fucking her and she was giving me a hand job, all of this in an open-air loft above the hostel’s dining room with some people milling below us.

It was only the next day when we met up to take the same train to Köln (her to go home and me to crash for a few days with a girl I had approached, made out with and address-closed in a park in München who was studying and living in Köln) that I paid attention to the fact that the ring she was wearing was on her ring finger and I realized that she was married. She told me that her husband traveled a lot and she felt that he had been sleeping around.

I can still see in my mind’s eye how affectionately she embraced her husband who was waiting for her at the train station (never mind that she had pulled out my cock again on the train ride). A couple of years ago I Googled her and discovered that decades later she’s still married (with the same name and close to the same address so presumably to the same man) and has three grown children.

If a wife is traveling alone without her husband, there’s often a reason.

Three lessons:

1. A wife or girlfriend who does not make pained efforts to avoid circumstances rife with illicit sexual invitation is by default a woman seeking them out.

2. The average woman is very good at hiding her infidelity from suspicion. Much better, from what I’ve seen, than the concealment the average man is capable of summoning when guilt is ripping at the soul. I conclude that men feel guilt and loyalty more palpably than do women. The exception to this rule is the accomplished cad, whose years of deception and nurtured sociopathy have honed in him a jewel thief’s skill at evading detection.

3. Even with the best intentions, a taken woman is still human, and an abundance of charming men in her social or work environment will test her limits of self-abnegation, much like a convention of 19-year-old lingerie models with daddy issues will test a devoted husband’s and father’s vows. It’s no coincidence that female infidelity rose at the same time as female participation in the workforce, and hence female exposure to alpha male movers and shakers, increased.

My suggestion: If you want a guarantee that your beloved won’t stray, get her off the cock grid. Rural Montana perhaps. Facsimiles of cock grid escape used to be simpler undertakings, but that all changed with [X], [EX], and [XXX].

The next best option? Game.

Read Full Post »

First Things peers into the playroom of women’s minds and discovers that women really LOVE LOVE LOVE dominant alpha males and are BORED BORED BORED by beta males, when they aren’t HATE HATE HATING them. Has First Things been visiting the Chateau? Yes.

[W]hat are fans of the Fifty Shades series seeking?

One answer is that there’s a hunger that’s not being satisfied: Namely, for men who are unabashedly masculine, who aren’t afraid to take control, and to lead. That is, there’s a longing (even a lusting) for men who aren’t afraid of what’s classically been called “headship.” To this end, while Fifty Shades subverts Christian sexual morality, it subverts the modern crusade for “genderlessness” all the more.

For the past forty years, there’s been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the sexual differences between men and women. The sought-after utopia is the “truly equal world” envisioned by Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg, in which “women [run] half our countries and companies and men [run] half our homes.” According to this view (and contrary to the scientific data), the differences between the sexes are merely social constructs: the culture is to blame for women being feminine and men being masculine.

The funny thing about “Fifty Shades” is that I doubt the female author set out to subvert “genderlessness”. Rather, she set out to write a book with themes that she knew would be arousing for women to read, because those themes are arousing to her. It’s female hindbrains all the way down (to the vaj).

A reader responds with an optimistic take:

Chicks dig assholes, sure.

But women are aroused by male strength, even when the man is not an asshole.

If people want a moral regeneration of the USA then the key is to restore masculine strength as a virtue to be cultivated and admired.

Good luck with that. Every Western culture vector is pointing to more androgynes of either sex. Have you seen a manboobed new atheist or an iron-jawed feminist lately? They’re everywhere. Have you seen them get raked over the coals by the Hivemind, as a lesson for the others? I haven’t. Rehabilitating these sexless wonders will be like squeezing healthy sperm from a brony. Their anti-human abasement is enabled and encouraged by the megaphonies.

This is possible but will be difficult.  On the positive side, there is a pent up demand there that dares not speak its name.

Exalting masculine strength NECESSARILY means discrediting feminism and trannyism and all the other degenerate freak mafia -isms. The former cannot COEXIST with any of the latter.

(And the PLAYA, echoing St. Augustine, says, yes, ok, sure, some day, but not too soon, maybe in a decade or two, in time for me to retire in safety and comfort, but not yet, the women have to stay loose for a while  … .)

I believe women are aroused by assholes qua assholes because assholes are, above all, INTERESTING men. They aren’t like the mediocre masses of rapidly feminizing beta males. You want masculine, virtuous men of the West? The path to that nirvana is blazed by the swashbuckling assholes.

Read Full Post »

This post is presented “as is”, with neither editorial condemnation nor endorsement. Read at your own risk.

There are scores of CH posts in the archives dealing with game for married men: How to (re)seduce your wife, and how to seduce applicants for mistresshood. But there aren’t many posts about picking up married women. An odd oversight, or a tribute to a latent moral code in the heart of CH?

Nevertheless, we feel it is important to give it all to the reader: The light, the dark, and the chaotic. To shy from forbidden topics would be a refutation of everything the Heartiste abides.

Will writes,

this is what I do if they are married or have BFs (you’d be surprised how many girls wear fake rings to weed out the weak.)

Anyway, the line is simple

Alpha-In-Training:” so, let’s grab a drink sometime.”

Cougar: “Oh! That’s so sweet, but I’m engaged, see my ring?”

AiT: “Hey, it’s just coffee”
::hands her the phone with the ‘New Contact’ screen already open::

C: “I shouldn’t…”

AiT: “How about this, I’ll shoot you a text and you can think it over.”

Works like a charm.
The above does two things. It demonstrates that you are persistent and get what you want. Secondly, she has plausible deniability. You’ve given her jiminy cricket a way to justify her giving out her number.
It sails right past any objections in a smooth manner.

The “it’s just coffee” and “I’ll shoot you a text and you can decide.” win 80% of the time.

I’m of the belief, perhaps optimistic, that a married woman truly, deeply in love with her husband cannot be seduced to betrayal. If I’m right, the problem remains: Just how many married women truly, deeply love their husbands? In this diversifying, slut parading, trust-cratering society we call a nation, vows of fidelity seem quaint. How many wives would you trust to uphold their end of a marital contract when every signal and every noise encourages female empowerment through perfidy?

Will is basically correct about the two premises that must be established when picking up married women. One, you’ve got to foresee and neutralize objections. This is obvious. Married women aren’t going to jump to pressure tactics. It’s too easy for them to lean on the crutch of their back-at-home hubbies when the heat comes between their legs. This means, in practice, giving her hamster a lotta room to spin. You’ll be courtly aloof, but with white hot sexual intent communicated all the same.

Two, all you need is her number. Unless she’s aggressively seeking an excuse to cheat, an insta-date isn’t likely an option. Secure her digits, then text her once later, maybe even a few days later, so that the temptation to sin simmers in her.

The happily married woman can’t be “taken with extreme prejudice” like the single woman. She will need to feel like she’s exercising some control over the proceedings, and she will need to feel like she can walk at any time.

On a related subject, a buddy I knew sometimes wore a fake wedding ring when he departed for the hunt. The first time he did this, I told him it was counterproductive. Surely, most girls will balk at getting hit on by a married man? He smiled, and said, “I have a line with this ring. ‘Oh, I’m not married. I just wear this ring to scare away stalker girls.’ Or I say, ‘It keeps away unwanted attention.’ It really messes with their heads. It’s like when hot girls sometimes wear fake wedding rings so they don’t get bothered by guys all the time. I’m telling them the same thing, except with the sexes reversed.”

magistro meo, mi amice…

Read Full Post »

Drop another social science study on the pile of studies affirming the CH maxim that diversity + proximity = war (by whichever means).

Keep your enemies close? Greater proximity to opponents leads to more polarization.

Encouraging adversaries to have more interpersonal contact to find common ground may work on occasion, but not necessarily in the U.S. Senate, according to new research.

In their study, “Pulling Closer and Moving Apart: Interaction, Identity, and Influence in the U.S. Senate, 1973 to 2009,” which appears in the February issue of the American Sociological Review, Sameer B. Srivastava, assistant professor, Haas Management of Organizations Group at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, and Christopher C. Liu, assistant professor of strategy at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, studied the interactions among U.S. senators from the 1970s to the 2000s.

A pattern emerged. Senators either moved closer together or further apart in their voting behavior as a function of their political identities and how much contact they had with each other. This pattern was especially pronounced when contact occurred in Senate committees that were more divided.

“Conventional wisdom says interpersonal contact between people will foster collaboration and consensus,” says Srivastava. “We found that increasing physical contact between people who have opposing and public political identities can instead promote divergence of attitudes or behavior. This tendency is further amplified in environments involving high conflict, which makes political identities more salient.”

“Co-location can induce both positive and negative outcomes. Sometimes keeping some distance is the better option,” says Liu.

A billion white leftoid SWPLs would weep, except they already agreed with the conclusions of this study and others like it when they skedaddled for white hipster enclaves and white suburbs with white majority schools.

This latest result belying the “diversity is our strength” mantra is in line with Putnam’s previous finding that trust within communities decreased as ethnic and racial diversity increased. Just like regular people, politicians don’t want to be around strange, irritating foreigners for long.

Of all the stupid acts of malice elite white leftoids have perpetrated upon America, when the dust settles on District Yankeeland it will be the opening of the borders to the nonwhite world and the shitting in the faces of core middle class whites that will chasten them the most. That is, if there is any integrity left in them.

 

Read Full Post »

The 2015 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (swolefeed) will feature a fatty fat as one of its “””models”””. (Granted, she’s only in an ad, which should tell you something about the difficulty of wedging fat chicks into what is essentially masturbation material for men.) This kowtowing to the fatty fat acceptance movement is a first for a major glossy that primarily serves the tastes of normal straight men.

Given the obvious fact that almost no normal straight men are interested in looking at the near-naked bodies of ugly or “big-boned” women, it’s a strange editorial choice by SI. Why would SI risk losing customers?

SI, like most contemporary media organs, is likely staffed floor to rafters with leftoids. The Hivemind Narrative — read: equalist, multikult, anti-normal white man — is so entrancing to leftoids that they’ll leave money on the table to proselytize it.

Homo economicus is dead, long live homo hamstericus! Now that the myth of a purely economically rational man is rapidly getting discredited by realtalkers, we can better analyze the seeming counterproductive behavior of megaphones like SI.

The patented CH Profit-Propaganda curve explains SI’s actions.

As you can see, at very low profit margin, most business will engage in no propaganda beyond that which is required to sell their product. Struggling entrepreneurs simply can’t risk a loss of revenue on a quixotic quest to ideologically reeducate their customers.

As we climb the P-P curve, we see that the worst propaganda is streamed with unmatched intensity and devotion by businesses with profit margins sufficiently robust to absorb losses of antagonized customers put off by its anti-human message. Here we find the media, government, and academia.

At the very highest profitability — finance, medicine, etc — we find the propaganda machine winding down. Once a business reaches the level of Fuck You money, its interest in abiding prevailing Hivmind norms wanes. But not totally. Although the very richest don’t spend a lot of the energy on *direct* propaganda, they do spend a lot on *indirect* Hivemind propaganda, such as contributing to charities and lobbying government on their No Non-White Boy Left Behind policy ideas.

The P-P curve is explained in part by the fact that leftoids congregate in fields that are naturally efficient at brainwashing, and most of these fields are — scratch that, have been — comfortably profitable.

Another reason for the shape of the curve is the mentality of people working for businesses that have come into non-struggle money; that is, they work for companies that have “made it”. Once a business has “made it”, the pent-up ideological energy of the apparatchiks working there is released in a bukkake of hope and change. Give a leftoid a little bit of stripper cash, and she can’t help but blow the wad on clothes and cocaine. A little bit of Hivemind-enabling money can be a dangerous thing.

At the extremes of profit are the captains of industry who are far more interested in turning a buck or a billion than in chipping away at their rotund bottom line with Party propaganda.

Finally, the obscenely rich are fairly well-insulated from the clownshirt SJW and race huckster shakedowns. And the striver businesses — the mom and pops — aren’t rich enough to catch the interest of Hivemind zealots. But middling profitable companies are ripe targets, with pockets just deep enough to justify paying the Danegelding instead of telling the diversity whores to fuck off and thereby assuming the risk of a public or, worse, legal lynching by a loudly one-sided megaphone.

Related: How to fight the propaganda machine.

Read Full Post »

Attention Whore of the Month, Emma Sulkowicz (Asian-Eskimo), once accused a man of rape. She whored for femcunt fame by carrying a mattress around campus as if she was doing the Stations of the Mattress.

Her victim story, predictably, did not hold up, not even in the Columbia University kangaroo court. Her cry of rape is a lie. A fabrication. A delusion. Feminists wept, but soldier on in the belief that there’s a “larger theme” to tell. Just #LikeAGirl.

A Regret Rape is a rape that didn’t happen. Let’s cut to the chase: 99% of false rape accusations are made by plain janes who shot the alpha male boyfriend moon and missed, and were bitter about it.

They didn’t get the relationship and alpha boyfriend status feels they imagined should automatically result from sex, so naturally they respond by marching around with a mattress on their backs and marching into Orwellian university anti-sex league offices to falsely charge innocent men of a vile crime. Dat 60/40 female/male campus sex ratio is really starting to fuck with the heads of marginally bangable girls.

OH WELL. I figure feminist hearts and minds will change once greedy lawyers with brass balls throw a few of these FRA cunts into prison and sue a few Ivies into premature endowment withdrawal.

Read Full Post »

Leftoid Prime Jonathan Chait is feeling kind of nervous about the intensity and target acquisition algorithm of the witch hunts that his Social Justice Wanker allies have been up to these last few centuries decades years. Ross Douthat responded in a gentlemanly manner (and that is why he will always fail), and Steverino Sailerino detailed the intramural derailment on his blog.

The liberal elite are beginning the phase of cultural decline where they eat each other after having achieved total victory over their enemies (i.e., normal people). It would all be a humorous sideshow if the stakes weren’t so high and marginal realtalkers weren’t losing their livelihoods to mobs of screeching idiots.

Anyhow, a commenter at Steve’s, doombuggy, perspicaciously noted:

Sounds like Chait is just bragging that his side is winning.

For all this winning, they are the most unhappy people in history.

Doombuggy, intentionally or not, revealed a deep truth about human nature, particularly human female nature.

Maxim #105: Women, and leftoids, are unhappy when they have no dominant power to whom they can submit.

Leftoids, and women, ARE the dominant power in late stage Western societies. And this makes them very unhappy. That’s because the nature of leftoids, and women, is submission. The joyous capitulation to a dominant man, or a dominant paternal culture, has the paradoxical effect of relieving women and leftoids of that gnawing feeling of unfulfilled yearning to give themselves over to a truly powerful force of nature.

When there are no dominant men, or no dominant culture, to rein in their worst excesses of mind and habit, women and leftoids become unhappy and agitated, like untethered electrons spinning out of valence, naked nuclei violently colliding. This explains why, even in the moment of their absolute victory, leftoids and women wail and ragepout like toddlers throwing temper tantrums. They really never wanted to win. They just wanted to stamp their wee feet as dad sternly admonished and sent them to their rooms.

Now that they’ve won, they cast around for sturdy support, only to find themselves and their despicable loser cohorts flinging feces at each other. Desperate for a father figure to at once obey and resent, they summon the frat boy or redneck southroner golems, but that horse left the barn a long time ago, replaced by fat pigs and sneaky rats.

Leftoids, like women, will stress-test their objects of dominance. They need to know if the dominant society/men they love are as they seem.

Leftoids, like women, will quickly lose respect for their society/lovers if the former are allowed to get away with murder by the latter.

Leftoids, like women, say one thing and desire another.

Leftoids, like women, will get very angry and spiteful if they are given what they claim to want.

Leftoids, like women, will make life miserable for the society/men who supplicate to them.

Leftoids, like women, are contemptuous of a weak society/weak man.

Leftoids, like women, will work ceaselessly to sabotage society/relationships, and will blame anyone but themselves for their treachery.

Leftoids, like women, are incapable of wisely and judiciously exercising power. A few leftoids and women are comfortable wielding real power for the good of their fellowmen and posterity, but most are clumsy tyrants who secretly hate having the role thrust on them. They grow angrier, more spiteful, and more vindictive with each day they are tasked to possess the monarch’s mace.

This is the nub of it: Leftoids are like women because both crave the calming embrace of a strong, dominant, unshakeable lover.

An alpha society as an alpha male.

But we are no longer an alpha society. We are a beta society into which women and leftoids have filled the alpha male vacuum. And they hate the world for it.

Equalism, multikultism, and anti-white prostration have robbed leftoids of happiness just as assuredly as feminism has robbed women of happiness. But they will never realize or accept this. It therefore falls to men, unapologetic men and their patriarchal goodness, to set them right. What leftoids need is what women have always needed:

A strong pimp hand.

***

Addendum: Douthat asks a rhetorical question in his ChaitFact column:

Is the vocabulary that the contemporary left increasingly uses for this purpose, to condemn arguments instead of answering them — don’t victimblame, don’t slutshame, check your privilege, that’s phobic (whether trans or homo or Islamo or otherwise), that’s denialism — worth embracing and defending?

I have a simple reply to leftoids pulling this indignant condemnation stunt:

“Answer the question.”

Conservatives should try it sometime. If they do, they might find they enjoy the feeling of their testicles dropping.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,172 other followers

%d bloggers like this: