Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Id Monster’ Category

In my years of living, dating, and loving across these United Plates, I’ve come to certain conclusions about women drawn from a wellspring of eagle-eyed observations and red raw experiences. One of my personal observations is that smarter women tend, for various reasons among which female hypergamy must surely loom prominent, to have more difficulty locking down a long-term boyfriend, and to stay single far longer in between relationship bouts, than do women of less Hollywood-sized prefrontal-pectorals. And this romantic failure is worse the smarter the woman.

But, I didn’t have the benefit of ¡scientifical! studies to confirm my observations, so I guess I should have washed my brain of any pattern recognition inputs and waited the requisite fifty years for the scientific consensus to come to a prevailing view.

As I’ve always said, if you keep your eyes open and live not by pretty lies, 80% of the patterns you observe about human nature will eventually be proven true by laboratory analysis (or at least recognized as a real phenomenon by cultural gatekeepers). (15% of the remaining 20% are too difficult to properly measure by social scientists, and the last 5% of your observations can be grouped under conventional wisdom that science manages to overturn, usually by data-twisting legerdemain.)

From the article relevant to this post, the quotes that make feminists choke:

A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic.

Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable. […]

Why don’t men want women with whom they can converse and who challenge them? [ed: spot the false premise] When did the aversion to strong and intelligent women become a code orange? When did everyone just want to go to the Bahamas and lie around?

In an article by “The Wire,” financial reporter, John Carney, gives one explanation for this phenomenon, deducing, “successful men date less successful women not because they want ‘women to be dumb’ but rather because they want ‘someone who prioritizes their life in a way that’s compatible with how you prioritize yours.’”

Basically, they want someone who isn’t ever going to let her career come before making dinner and pleasing them first.

My take is that men, especially smart men, instinctively recoil from very smart and/or educated women (in the same way women instinctively recoil from needy niceguys) because men know that a woman of equal or greater brainpower or academic achievement is a high risk for future relationship instability and a latent threat to paternity assurance. Men are aware, consciously perhaps, subconsciously definitely, that female hypergamy is real and therefore it’s personally advantageous to find women who aren’t too much more gifted in traits that double as male mate fitness cues.

In short, it pays men to date up in looks and date down in everything else.

The inverse is also true. It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.

Everyone’s happier all around if they abide the above two Heartistian precepts.

A reader contemptuously adds,

Nearly schizophrenic incoherence, self-loathing, generalized rage, sexual frustration, pride that she can’t admit that a life has been spent believing pretty, stupid lies and making irretrievable mistakes, contempt and hatred for men on one hand, yet demands and pangs of hopeless desire for their attention and affection and love on the other hand, unabashed hatred for women who are young and attractive and willing to make love and devotion to a man a priority in their lives.

This hamster wheel is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second. The axle is going red-hot from the friction.  The spinning wheel is making a sharp, high-pitched, painful screeching sound, which sets your teeth on edge. If you listen carefully millions just like it are audible all over America.

This can’t go on much longer.  10 years, maybe. But not 50. Probably not another entire generation.

Future generations will look back on the women of this era with disgusted amazement.

Before then they are going to spend the second 50 years of their medically extended lives alone and filled with a despair and a hatred for their own lives and for the lives of those around them who have managed to be happy which is going to poison our society for many years to come.

If they weren’t so vicious and destructive you could almost feel sorry for them.

I do think we Americans are living through a period (heh) when women are at their absolute worst. Porn addicted manlet men aren’t much better, but this dystopia is largely a female-centered implosion.

There’s a gene-culture co-evolution process that describes how groups have self-balancing mechanisms, so that when one type of organism within the group becomes too numerous, a competing type will start to have greater reproductive success to “bring balance to the force”. I forget the term for it, but the classic case is the “cheater-cooperator” evolutionary strategies, in which cheaters prosper (and hence reproductively prosper) in cooperative societies, but then lose ground to cooperators when cheaters become too numerous and start poaching each other.

Well, a similar thing could be happening with SMRT women. The more smart over-educated over-credentialed women a society has, the less reproductively fit they become at the same time women with average smarts become more reproductively fit. The group shifts its evolutionary strategy toward smarter or dumber women as each becomes prominent. Maybe this is why human IQ hasn’t continued upward into the stratosphere…. smart men get tired of the haranguing from smart women and smart women get locked out of the dating market because there aren’t very many men smarter than them who can satisfy their hypergamous urgings, and they resist settling for dumber men.

Related, the supply of beta males in a group could also fluctuate according to some cosmic balancing mechanism that favors or disfavors betas depending on their numbers. The rise of pathologically altruistic white beta males in the West is producing blowback as their ranks swell with self-abnegating ankle-biters. Ultra violent thugs or ultra charming cads are starting to increase in impression, if not yet in number, and women are turning to them for relief from the effete beta male masses.

It’s a spitball, I know, but maybe it’s high time for the patented CH BOSSS strategy to invigorate our culture to take center stage? Maybe it already has and we’re just now waking up to the fact?

PS Really smart women fuck like demonesses. They love their contraceptively-enabled fucking as much as any sub-mensa slut.

Read Full Post »

Pleasureshivvers draw copious blood in an entertaining thread titled “Shitlib-faces.png“. Do shitlibs — aka leftoids (the CH nomenclature crafted to draw attention to the essential anti-human ideology of SJWs) — have a distinguishing “look”? Why, yes, they do.

It’s physiognomies all the way down.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the shitlibbiest face of all time. Here’s my contribution:

I think I just lost five years worth of boners.

Read Full Post »

Although CH prefers the more direct means of measuring a man’s degree of alphatude, there are proxy methods for coming up with a ballpark figure for the Alpha Within. One such proxy is the amount of shit a woman will put up with from her man. The more crap she happily tolerates, the higher her man’s alpha male rating.

As commenter WillBest explains,

Women are far and away more pragmatic about men’s affairs. I know of several couples that have survived a man’s affair and none that have survived a woman’s affair.

You could probably plot your relative alphaness against what your wife will tolerate.

brothel outside country < … < discrete mistress < rumored affair < open mistress < claiming bastards < having your wife assist in selection of your harem (as seen on Marco Polo).

It’s funny ’cause it’s cruel.

A marriage can survive a husband’s infidelity because the real risk, from the wife’s gene’s POV, is the redistribution of his resources (of which love is a proxy indicator) to the other woman. As long as the husband remains primarily devoted to his immediate family’s finances, his oat-sowing won’t much affect the future of his children or the guarantee of the mother’s “maternity assurance”.

But a wife’s infidelity is much more dangerous to her family’s cohesion. She could get pregnant on one of her slutcations, and saddle her husband with another man’s spawn. (And this would’ve been more likely in the contraception-free environment of evolutionary adaptation.) This is the worst thing that can befall a husband from his genes’ POV. And if he finds out, the whole family may be nuked from orbit.

Naturally, a man’s affair isn’t automatically forgivable. Women aren’t totally inhuman; they will feel the sting of romantic rejection. But it’s true that the more alpha the man, the more tractable his woman. Hell hath no fury like a scorned wife… if her husband is a beta male. Heaven hath no angelic forgiveness like a scorned wife of an alpha male.

This post cries out for a handy dandy chart.

There’s a reason for the exponential trajectory. Observe closely, and you’ll notice most married men are betas whose wives won’t even tolerate their wandering eye without stirring up a storm of martyrdom. But once a man begins taking on the penumbras and emanations of alphaness, his woman’s toleration curve skyrockets. Each increment of alphatude results in a drastic expansion of the scope of caddish misbehavior that a wife or girlfriend will tolerate. At the extremes of male alphatude, their women are complicit in helping their men achieve the limits of sexual and romantic pleasure that are particular to the male domain of desire.

I hope this post has been instructive. May it guide you to better days in your own relationships.

Read Full Post »

Are you curious what constitutes the daily life of a girl who thinks herself a feminist? An anonymous commenter caught a glimpse of the Day-to-Day Feminist’s paltry, predictable world.

Sitting behind a girl on the bus yesterday, through the gap in the seat i got to see her flicking through her smart phone. She started off browsing Buzzfeed, pausing on an an article featuring melodramatic gifs with woman humour. i watched as she then progressed onto articles featuring makeup and period pain. With a knowing look I went back to my own business. 5 minutes later i looked back and i was met with the word ‘feminist’ on her screen, being edited by her in instagram to make it more eye catching. Shortly after this she began browsing her facebook feed, i payed particular attention as she paused the mindless perusing when pictures of attractive girls came into view to carefully inspect them. The girls were cute and wearing short dresses. I couldn’t see the bus girls face but instinctually I imagined her brow and mind contorting with white burning jealously and loathing.

A snapchat comes in on her phone, she opens the app, watching the 10 second images. She faces the camera towards herself and the dull twilight of the bus is sharply illuminated by a bright flash. she and i look at the resulting photo almost simultaneously, both of us unimpressed by the sight we see. She deletes the image, like a perfectionist artist discarding a painting that has failed to reach the standards of his minds eye. She tries again, same outcome. A third try fails to capture any beauty. She exits the app, putting down the phone, defeated.

I see clarity and ponder the hard truths thought by this blog and feel a sting of pity for this girl.

The Day-to-Day Feminist is the day-to-day girl. That is, she’s the opposite of every principle feminists claim to uphold. She calls herself feminist while comparing her looks to the standard established by beautiful women, keeping tabs on her Facebook neighbors, fulfilling her need to feed on buzzy gossip, and prettifying herself so that she can compete better in the sexual market for desirable men.

Feminists are at war with femininity, so they don’t like this reality about women, which is why they loudly insist “real” women are the opposite of the way women behave when left to their own devices. “REAL women have curves.” “REAL women love math.” “REAL women get raped.” “REAL women slay dragons.”

FYI, the next time you read or hear the words “a REAL woman…”, assume that the opposite of whatever is to follow is the truth.

REAL women don’t confuse obesity for curves.
REAL women don’t much like math and don’t perform as well as men at high level math.
REAL women hardly ever get raped, and the few that do are usually raped by non-white, non-frat boys.
REAL women know that the average, out-of-shape man could easily best them in a fight.

Read Full Post »

Sweden is the experimental lab of the deranged feminist and equalist revolutions. Manjaw and manlet Mengeles perform a gruesome vivisection of Swedish society, reattaching parts until a bolt of lightning gives life to the ünterandrogyne as zie menacingly rises from the operating table.

The “Together” project is another weapon against Racism.

Motala Municipality’s summer home is the scene of a project that’ll see young Swedes and refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan build bridges together.

here comes the cuck shot…

Camp organizer Kajsa Nilsson was asked why the camp only allows Swedish girls, but allows foreign man and girls, who are sometimes much older than the Swedish participants. “In the countries that many of these young men come from, they are used to dating girls younger than themselves, so we see [this] as a cultural compromise.”

“I mean, what a welcome to Sweden, right, when you meet a friendly young lady?” he added.

the very best of welcomes.

The camp is held at Motala summer home in the hope the Swedish girls may create “interfaces” with strangers.

The different activities to bring the two groups together include draktillverkning,

swedish for “rape play”.

This post was a delayed April Fool’s prank. But you believed it, because it was, sadly, believable. Ten years ago, you’d chortle skeptically. Today, you assume Swedish self-cucking is par for the course.

And your assumption would be more right than wrong. A Swedish “multicultural center expert” converted to Islam and joined ISIS. That story is true.

I’ll leave this post on a hopeful note. There are nationalists — aka sane people — in Sweden. One lovely Swedish nationalist lass did her own compare & contrast experiment.

It’s funny cuz it’s self-evidently true.

Read Full Post »

Commenter irishsavant puzzles over a seeming contradiction at the core of Game philosophy.

I acknowledge that I haven’t taken a formal course in Heartisteology but surely there’s a blatant contradiction here. How do you square the primacy of a woman’s need to be desired with the dismissive treatment inherent in the Alpha game plan which seems to be the only way to win a woman’s heart?

The contradiction is neatly resolved once you accept the essential conflict of women’s romantic longing for the desirable man who will deny the prerogatives of his own desirability to embrace monogamous commitment to her.

Women need the desire of a man who is himself desired. This contingency is responsible for much of the contradictory nature of female intention that befuddles inexperienced men. Yes, a woman loves the idea of the man so struck by lust that he loses control around her, and yet she knows that a man’s lustful abandon means nothing if he surrenders himself to any willing provocation. His surrender means so much more when it’s wrested after a string of battlefield victories, and his self-pride is at its zenith.

This is the impetus for the female attraction to men who walk the line between strong sexual intent and cavalier dismissiveness. To solicit a woman, then push her away, then coyly reconsider, repeated as necessary and with emphasis at each step added or removed according to its reception, until the passionate coda, is the formula for winning seductions.

A woman wants to be desired and taken, but she also wants to feel like she, alone among women, is capable of inflaming that desire, and what better proof of her power to arouse and capacity to awaken well-fed beasts to the hunt than the beast’s initially cagey appraisal of her worth as prey?

Executive Summary: Male desire is a conflagration. Female desire is tinder waiting for a match.

Read Full Post »

An article at Psychology Today titled “What Do Women Really Want?” hits all the Heartistian Realtalk notes. The author sounds like he spent his vacation at Le Chateau, and absconded with a few dusty tomes on his exit for later perusing. Excerpts:

[M]ore recent studies show that [sex] differences in reported number of sexual partners are reduced or disappear altogether if women are told that they are connected to a lie detector and that the information they provide will remain confidential. […]

The female tendency toward a roving eye can also be inferred, according to the work of evolutionary psychologist David Buss, from the very phenomenon of male jealousy, which is common in all societies and consistently related to men’s fears of potential cuckoldry. If women really do not want extra marital sex, then why are men so suspicious and jealous? Why put Stop signs on a street with no traffic?

Women aren’t as naturally promiscuous as men (especially men with options), but neither are they as pure as the wind-driven snow, as white knights and pedestal-polishing betas fervently believe.

Recent studies indicate that the objects of female sexual attraction vary with the menstrual cycle. During their fertile days, women tend to fancy high-testosterone men who are not good candidates for monogamy but have healthy male genes. How many married women secretly act on this impulse is difficult to estimate, but this type of ‘sperm poaching’ appears to be quite normative among our primate relatives.

CH has discussed “Ovulation Cycle Game” in a few posts. You need never again be SURPRISE CUCKSEXED! by an ovulating lover.

Men, in turn, are designed for this sperm competition as well. Biologist Robin Baker of the University of Manchester found, for example, that the amount of sperm a man discharges during intercourse with his wife is not dependent on the timing of the man’s last ejaculation but on the time since his last sex with his wife. If a long time has passed (increasing the chances that someone else’s seed found its way into his wife’s vagina), the husband’s ejaculate contains more sperm cells, which increases his competitive odds.

How weird to think that there’s a part of our limbic subconscious which puppeteers certain aspects of our behavior completely outside our conscious awareness.

Sex after a long separation tends to be more intense and prolonged. This is because long intercourse increases the chance of the woman reaching orgasm. According to research by Baker and biologist Mark Bellis, the uterine muscle contractions that accompany the female orgasm help retain sperm inside the vagina and move them toward the ovaries, and fertilization.

I don’t know about the validity of the explanation for it, but I agree that absence makes the rod grow harder even if it doesn’t necessarily make the heart grow fonder.

[T]he evidence suggests that women initiate divorce more often than men, and benefit less from marriage than do men on measures of health, happiness, and wealth. Additionally, as is well known to clinical psychologists and marriage counselors everywhere, many women who feel close to a loving partner nevertheless fail to feel passion for him.

Relationship Game is the cure for what ails a wife’s flagging libido. And, yeah, that female hypergamy is a bitch on lifelong love.

If monogamy, intimacy and communication are the engines of female desire, why do so many women fail to ignite with a familiar and faithful man? Why does their passion fizzle in marriage? Why will they seek to secretly graze in foreign pastures? Why do they not benefit from the monogamous arrangement more? Why do they break it up more readily?

All these burning questions answered here, in full, at the Chateau over the years. We are your one stop shoppe for the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And amorality.

As additional evidence [for the subversive nature of female sexual desire], developmental psychologist Lisa Diamond of the University of Utah found that many women experience their sexual interests as fluid and open, encompassing at different times men or women, or both. Richard Lippa of California State University has found that unlike men, whose sexual appetite narrows as it increases, sexually charged women display an increasingly open orientation. Women with higher libidos are more likely to feel desire toward members of both sexes.

We’re all familiar with the observation that many more women than men go through a bicurious sexually experimental phase. The old joke: What’s two women and a man? A threesome. What’s two men and a woman? Gay.

Marta Meana, a researcher at the University of Nevada, has argued provocatively that the organizing principle of female sexuality is the desire to be desired.

That’s the money shot right there. Women’s desire is to be desired. This conclusion is perfectly in line with similar notions of female sexual psychology made at various UglyTruth outlets, such as the idea that women are the “receiving” sex or that women want to submit to a dominant man. The shared animating impulse described by all these ideas is the innate compulsion of women to be desired. Desired so strongly that a man loses control of himself. Women are, by their very nature, irredeemably solipsistic, and this solipsism is a function of their genetic prime directive: to use their bodies and their beauty to capture the seed and the services of a high value man.

The woman who denies her prime directive is a genetic dead ender.

In her view, the delicate, tentative guy who politely thinks about you and asks if this is okay or that is okay is a guy who may meet the expectations of your gender politics (treats me as an equal; is respectful of me; communicates with me) and your parents’ preferences, but he may also put you into a sexual coma—not despite these qualities, but because of them.

Niceguys finish last. Jerkboys finish on her face.

Female desire, according to Meana, is activated when a woman feels overwhelmingly desired, not rationally considered. Female erotic literature, including all those shades of gray, is built on this fantasy. Sexual desire in this view does not work according to our expectations and social values. Desire seeks the path of desire, not the path of righteousness. It thrives not on social order but on its negation. This is one reason all religions and societies try to control, contain, limit and re-direct it.

I’m sure there’s a CH maxim somewhere in the archives asserting that female sexuality is more dangerous than male sexuality to social order, primarily because a wanton woman can fuck a man’s shit up for eighteen years.

Marta Meana had men and women watch erotic pictures of contact between a man and a woman and tracked the participants’ eye movements. She found that men and women focus on different aspects of the sexual event. Men looked at the women, while the women watched the two genders equally. They concentrated on the man’s face and the woman’s body. What turned them on apparently were the desired female body, with which they identify, and the man’s lustful gaze, for which they long.

Men are visual, women are holistic. This is why a man’s looks aren’t as crucial to his romantic success as a woman’s looks are crucial to hers.

Despite what is commonly believed, then, Meana argues that female sexuality is more self-centered than male’s. Mick Jagger’s lamentations aside, male fantasies focus on giving satisfaction, not on receiving it. Men see themselves in their fantasies bringing the woman to orgasm, not themselves. Women see the man, set aflame by uncontrollable lust for them, bringing them to ecstasy. Men want to excite women. Women want men to excite them.

Women are the more selfish sex, in and out of the bedroom. Color me shocked.

Basically, everything feminists assert, the opposite is true.

[W]ouldn’t more women be jealous of the desired woman who cannot orgasm than of the orgasmic woman who is not desired?

Yes, women are more jealous of beautiful women than of ugly fatties. Someone make a social awareness campaign about it.

Meana asserts that this aspect of female sexuality explains the prevalence of rape fantasies in the female fantasy repertoire. Rape fantasies, in this understanding, are actually fantasies about surrender, not out of masochistic yearnings to be harmed or punished, but out of the female desire to be desired by a man to the point of driving him out of control.

This is the one part of the article with which I mildly disagree. In fact, there are plenty of women who yearn to be harmed or punished, even if their yearning operates mostly on the subconscious level of cognition, below the level of survey administrators asking pointed embarrassing questions. You need only look at the long lines of death row groupies to see that there resides among womanhood a non-trivial contingent who welcome the whip hand of a dangerous man.

It’s as if a woman’s desire to be desired is, when taken to extremes, warped into a need for punishing treatment as the only demonstrations of male desire that will mean anything to her.

According to this view, monogamous marriage does work for women on a certain level: it provides security, intimacy, and help with the children. But it also suffocates female sexual desire.

According to GSS survey data, married men have a little bit more sex on a weekly basis than do single men, but this finding is horribly skewed by the reality of all those lesser beta and omega male singles who are utterly invisible to women. I’d bet the ranch that the single alpha male gets a lot more sex, and (obviously) gets it with a much greater variety of pussy, than does the average married man.

At the end of the day, the accumulating evidence appears to reveal a paradoxical element at the core of female desire, a tension between two conflicting motives. On the one hand is the desire for stability, intimacy, and security—picture the flame on the burner of a gas stove: controlled, utilitarian, domesticated, and good for making dinner. On the other hand is the need to feel totally, uncontrollably desired, the object of raw, primal lust—a house on fire.

Female sexual nature is bifurcated. Game — the art of applied charisma — will help build a loving bridge joining together a woman’s maddening, competing desires.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: