Study: Women With High Self-Esteem Have More Rape Fantasies

Continuing on the theme of “WOMEN…THEY REALLY ARE NOTHING LIKE MEN”, another study (h/t Arbiter) finds that not only are rape fantasies common among the female of the species, but, contrary to conventional tradcon wisdom, it’s the HIGH SELF-ESTEEM women who have the most frequent and pleasurable rape fantasies.

This study evaluated explanations of rape fantasy in a sample of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a sexual fantasy checklist which included eight types of rape fantasy, participants’ detailed descriptions of a rape fantasy they have had, a rape fantasy scenario audio presentation, and measures of personality. Three explanations of rape fantasy were tested: openness to sexual experience, sexual desirability, and sexual blame avoidance. Women who were higher in erotophilia and self-esteem and who had more frequent consensual sexual fantasies and more frequent desirability fantasies, particularly of performing as a stripper, had more frequent rape fantasies. Women who were higher in erotophilia, openness to fantasy, desirability fantasies, and self-esteem reported greater sexual arousal to rape fantasies. Sexual blame avoidance theory was not supported; sexual desirability theory was moderately supported; openness to sexual experience theory received the strongest support.

It appears women have rape fantasies because… wait for it… it TURNS THEM ON. Which makes sense. Fantasy is based on real desire. (For proof of this, ask yourself when was the last time a woman admitted she fantasized about sex with a dutiful beta provider.)

Rape fantasies aren’t reactions to negative real life experiences or evidence of imbalanced psychologies; quite the opposite, rape fantasies are the domain of women who think highly of themselves and are comfortable with their sexuality.

Arbiter interjects,

Yet another finding that contradicts the feminist worldview. The women who like sex the most and are the most daring, are the ones who fantasize about rape the most. These are the toughest women, the most independent women.

Feminists claim that “rape is about control”. It is “a way for men to control women”. In that case it should be the women who feminists consider traitors who have the most rape fantasies, shouldn’t it? The women who are the most “submissive”, women who are obedient slaves to the evil men, shy and afraid, quiet as a mouse, “seen but not heard” and all the things feminists imagine about conservative women since they don’t know any. Instead it’s the toughest women who enjoy rape fantasies the most, since rape is about sex, not the “patriarchy’s” control.

What’s equally interesting is why women who are lower in sociosexuality and in self-esteem have fewer reported rape fantasies. Maybe they are less honest about their true desires, thinking them shameful? Or maybe they simply have lower libidos than more erotically feminine women, and this is reflected in their lower incidences of the sorts of sexual/romantic fantasies that preoccupy the female hindbrain.

Read Full Post »

A Knock-On Benefit Of Ending The Friendzone Industrial Complex

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 »

“Your daughter will marry a bearded man”

The Muslim invader smells weakness and fear in the enemy. He is aroused in his confidence, and reveals his id monster in all its primal glory.

Germans, and GoodWhite equalist leftoids in general, have no one to blame but themselves for their autogenocide. The occupiers they have let in are just doing what occupiers do when no native sons will put them under the boot. Will the White man find his heart again? Or has the rot reached the bone? The answer to this question will determine the shape of the 21st Century.

Read Full Post »

Thousand-Cuck Stare

We’re all familiar with the thousand-cock stare — the glazed, unfocused, hollow eyes of a broken slut in the grips of a delirium from having taken a few too many rides on the cock carousel.

There’s a male analogue to the thousand-cock stare:

This is the thousand-cuck stare, the tormented look of a man in the friendzone trying desperately to hide his pain from the world. His suffering is exquisite; always within sniffing distance of prime poosy but who may as well be twelve parsecs from ever reaching vaghalla. He is cucked by: a jerk boyfriend, a mandingo lover, his own futility, the cosmic overlord. Another man has what he wants, but the poor bastard doesn’t even have the dignity or good sense to stop being a party to his humiliation. Instead of admitting failure, he’ll pretend as if his blue balls are a badge of honor and his sexless circumstance is his free choice.

But his eyes will belie the massive backlog of sperm in his aching testes. If you see a man with the thousand-cuck stare, be on guard. There’s no telling when he might snap, like John Boehner remembering his mudsharking daughter and what his grandkids will look like.

Read Full Post »

The Reason Women Initiate 70% Of Divorces

Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.

Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?

CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.

The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.

CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:

Options = Instability.

A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).

Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.

From Dalrock:

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.

On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.

In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.

One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).

The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.

If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.

A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.

(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)

Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)

Read Full Post »

Trolling The Exploitative Women Of Friendzoned Betas

A reader came up with an excellent idea: use reverse psychology (the old-fashioned term for trolling) against the women who exploit beta male chumps for money and emotional support without giving the betas any sex in return.

The concept is simple. Whenever you come across an attention whore on social media bragging to anyone who will listen about the asexual lump she keeps around as a “great friend” to “help raise her child (which is not his)”, you slyly imply, or directly state if that’s your style, that she and her beta toy “look like a great couple together!! ❤️❤️”

Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “This is my best friend, Chodester McChode! He buys me stuff!”

Despicable You: “Aw you guys are so cute together! It’s obvious you two are in love.”

Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “Whaaat? No, we’re not together….”

Despicable You: “Stop trying to be so modest. We get it, you have a real catch, and you don’t want to make your girl friends jealous.”

Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “No, really… don’t get the wrong idea….. OMG I can’t belive you think that??!”

Despicable You: “Look at you playing coy. Come on, we can all see what a great match he is for you. You’re not going to do better honey!”

Etc, etc, insert shiv, etc. You can dial up the sadism as much as you like, and have fun while doing it. Bonus: I believe this will make a dent in America’s Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath population. Or at least a dent in their willingness to humiliate their pet betas online to throngs of cackling cunts.

Read Full Post »

CH Game Wisdom Confirmed: Never Apologize If You Want To Win Hearts And Gines

CH Poon Commandment VIII (first printed oct 2008):

VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary

Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.

Recently, in the Washington Beta, an article was published confirming that the CH game advice to never apologize is effective at winning people to your cause.

Donald Trump never apologizes for his controversial remarks. Here’s why he shouldn’t.

[..]

Research shows that a person who backs down in a dispute becomes less likable to observers, who may want to punish that individual.

Second, overconfidence, even to the point of breaking rules, causes people to view an individual more positively, as does social risk-taking. In particular, males who show social dominance are judged more attractively as potential mates. An individual who does not back down in the face of controversy shows confidence by not giving in to social pressure, and takes a risk by refusing to follow the conventional path. Some on the right openly suggest that part of Trump’s appeal lies in his refusal to apologize and his unwillingness to be “politically correct.”

“some on the right’. hey, throw a chateau proprietor a bone here!

Here is where my research comes in. […]

Respondents… read about the suggestion by then-Harvard President Larry Summers in 2005 that genetic factors help to explain the lack of high-performing female scientists and engineers at top universities. After reading the comments and hearing about the outcry, half the participants were told that Summers defended himself by saying he believed that “raising questions, discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important.” The rest learned that he had apologized and read a brief statement Summers made expressing regret for his comments and reflecting on the damage that they had caused. […]

The results for the Summers controversy were even more surprising. Of those who read about his apology, 64 percent said that he “definitely” or “probably” should have faced negative consequences for his statements about women. However, that number dropped to 56 percent when respondents were led to believe that Summers stood firm in his position. Moreover, the surprisingly negative effect of Summers’ apology was even larger among the groups that arguably should have appreciated the apology: women and liberals.

No one who is familiar with Le Chateau’s teachings should be surprised that women and liberals react the most positively to alpha male Realtalkers who don’t back down like sniveling plushphag manlets from their hurtful, triggering words.

CH has long been on record stating that liberals, women, and especially liberal women are secret submissives and CRAVE the guiding pimp hand of a strong, deliberate, unshakable, dominant alpha male to calm the storm of their feels whirlwinds. And now here’s ¡SCIENCE! to give its imprimatur — the same imprimatur that shitlibs adore more than life itself when it’s used to discredit biblical creationists — to one of the coldest, stoniest, Heartiste-iest ugly truths.

perchance, to *preen*.

Read Full Post »