Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

There are a few pervasive sexual market myths that cry out for the tender vivisection only a Chateau house lord can lovingly execute. One of these myths is the notion held dear by sour grapes LSMV men that hotties are dead fish in bed.

Reader Passer By comments relevantly,

i remember when an ugly woman (skinny, though) was asking for advice in some men’s forum. She wanted to know if men are going to prefer a pretty woman that rarely makes sex over her, that can offer great sex. The men told her that they will prefer an ugly woman (with good looking body), if she can make great sex, over a pretty women, that rarely makes sex.

So you could give that advice to such women. Sex up!

The men in that forum are lying. It’s what men do when they want to help a distressed woman feel better about herself. But when the rubber meats the hole, men will betray their stated lofty principles and experience hotter, better sex with a hot woman than with a plain jane. Because of this real world dynamic, men will expend a lot of energy seeking one night stand sex with hot women over relaxing in the confines of a secure relationship with a buttaface who puts out more regularly.

Commeter Tarl inserts a pointed shiv,

If you are so ugly that no man will ever climb in bed with you, then your ability to “make great sex” is irrelevant.

True, and it’s a false dichotomy anyway. An unrealistic hypothetical. The “dead fish in bed hottie” is another one of those dumb feminist and butthurt beta male ego-assuaging foundational myths that has no bearing in reality. Hot chicks are actually more passionate in bed because they know their beauty is a turn-on for men, and they get turned on by watching their men lose control. A mind-body arousal feedback loop sets up that can escalate a hot woman’s carnal passion to heights that ugly women only read about in female porn (aka romance novels).

And it’s even more dispiriting for ugly women than that. Not only are hotter women generally MORE sexually wanton in bed than are ugly women, but men are primed to PERCEIVE a hot woman’s sexuality in more glowing terms than they would a plain woman’s sexuality, EVEN IF the plain woman objectively possessed a broader repertoire of sex positions and wider flexibility to accommodate those positions.

There really is no end to the ways in which being a beautiful woman is better than being an ugly woman.

***

I suspect the dead fish hottie myth first circulated among beta male strivers who had accumulated some experience bedding genuinely hot women. Hot women have hot woman standards, which can play out as sexual indolence on the rare occasions when a hot woman hooks up with an uninspiring beta male. Rejection stings, but sexual rejection is a scythe to a man’s soul, and many such betas cut down by the turtled snatch scythe will rationalize a hot woman’s lack of sexual enthusiasm as her own character defect. The male rationalization hamster exists, though we may say the critter is slower and smaller than the female version.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Karl Marx (fitting) wonders if sexual shame is the real reason why good-looking men with no Game fail with women.

Are you not conflating mental problems with no game? Most good looking guys who can’t get laid have some sort of mental hangup. If parents embed deep sexual shame into their sons no amount of PUA tactics can save a man.

Garden-variety introversion and dullness are common afflictions and not indicative of “mental hangups”. Sexual shame is a useless Freudian concept that has almost no basis in reality outside of weird religious communities and mentally ill autogynephilic trannies.

You go to great lengths about the effectiveness of shaming women, fat people but consider sexual shame “no basis in reality”?

Shaming “women”? No, shaming “fat women”. And the reason is obvious: fat kills romance dead. But I have never met a man who did poorly with women because he had some deep-seated “sexual shame”. That’s not how it goes for the vast majority of men who have trouble getting women. Just the opposite really; men have NO sexual shame and a great desire to FULFILL their sexual craving, but lack the courage and acumen to satisfy their lust. The tension between their sexual SHAMELESSNESS and their sexual FAILURE is what causes them to swallow black pills by the mouthful and grasp discredited Freudian gobbledygook to rationalize their incel torment.

How you are treated throughout your childhood affects you your whole life.

Hm, a loaded statement that, while containing nuggets of truth, has come under fire from geneticists who haven’t located any strong correlation between shared environment and life outcome. The evidence appears to be heading in the direction of genes piloting the ship of fate, with environment (parents and peers) playing a smaller role as co-pilot.

Anyhow, social shaming of boys will never be powerful enough to override their later sexual desires. Like I said, most men aren’t deviants acutely ashamed of their insolent boners. What they are is supplicating, fearful dullards who place pussy on the pedestal thinking that will help them get laid, and yes that should be shamed by better men who know it’s not what women want.

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of Reb, a very, uh, vivid anecdote of life after nofap.

Every 7 days is what I heard. I went no fap in jail a few times. I had the power of an animal. Fucked the first blond woman with big tities whom I approached when I got out. She was on birth control so her pussy sprayed the kid out like a plate of spaghetti two days after.

There should be a healthy balance between nofap and gofap. Strict nofap is an ascetic demand too great on the male body, unless the man is supplementing his literal downtime with a rigorous protocol of vajfap. But gofap — constant and unregulated personal indulgence of fapping — poses risks to a man’s health as well, mostly I’d guess through gradual wearing away of psychological defenses against crippling self-doubt. The gofapper is typically a man who struggles in the acquisition of the preferred vajfap release, so each crabbed-hand fap over time reinforces limiting beliefs in his sexual and seductive prowess.

The optimal ejaculation frequency is therefore going to be lower for gofappers, higher for nofappers, and like baby bear’s porridge, juuuuuust the right amount for vajfappers. There’s something to be said for “cleaning the pipes”, but more to be said for laying pipe. Really, there’s no upper limit on vajfap; the healthiest (in every measurable way) men I know vajfap like it’s their last. If there’s attractive vaj that wants fapping, the good and honorable vajfapper will never turn it down. Hedonism has its privileges.

Read Full Post »

Although the old trope of the undersexed husband has been around for ages, it wasn’t quite accurate, at least until recently. General Social Survey warriors like Audacious E had dug up data showing that married couples have more sex than singles. (Forgive me for not finding the relevant post, I’m a lazy SOB).

I can recall objecting to the GSS sex frequency data on the grounds that it exaggerates the sexual wantonness of married couples compared to singles because the population of singles includes all the no-sex, fap-happy incels dragging down the sex frequency average for their group. I suggested this asexual albatross would conceal the incredibly-high, curve-busting sex frequency rates of unmarried alpha male cads who are following the “girlfriend and fling” formula for happiness.

While I can’t at the moment recall any posts I may have written confirming with data any factual basis for my objection, I can report that a recent study, via our resident gold star artist Captain Obvious, finds that there was a decline in sexual frequency among married or cohabiting American adults from 1989-2014.

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Regular guests of this brazen retreat won’t be surprised by the relative sexlessness of the Millennial generation, a screechy, androgynous, narcissistic generation which from nearly every vantage point appears to be the most useless lump of Americans to ever squib outta their mommas’ womb chutes.

Nor will readers be surprised by the finding that old farts who look like raisins with eyes have less sex than virile youts who can still flaunt their sexual dimorphism.

What’s interesting is mentioned in the last line: sex frequency is down over the period because there are more unpartnered people having no sex, and partnered couples are having less sex.

So….the incel demo is exploding. That would seem to confirm a CH observation of the sexual market; namely that the prolonged unmarried phase of courtship (aka the cock carousel) is supercharging female hypergamy. A lot of single in the city ladies are sharing HSMV men and leaving less charismatic beta males in the cold. That explains the male incels. The rise in female insols is explained by the concurrent rise in obesity (and aggro-feminism). Fat chicks and annoying chicks really do have less sex than slender, feminine babes, because men also exercise choice of mate.

The remaining mystery is why married and cohabiting sex frequency is decreasing. Captain Obvious writes,

Shitlib & Libertardian geeks and nerds at /. were sounding thoroughly Red-Pilled about this – talking about Phuckerbergbook, SSRIs, pr0n, the decline in earning power, an omnipresent sense of trepidation & cowardice & fear pervading much of the population, etc etc etc – and one dude even div0rced his wife over her iPhag Addiction: https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/03/07/2313232/americans-are-having-less-sex-than-20-years-ago-study-finds

Yes to all of that as causes for the sex frequency decline, but again I must humbly suggest that the primary causes are female obesity, female economic self-sufficiency, and the multigenerational drop in testosterone.

Female obesity: men are visually stimulated to bedroom action, and men really are disgusted by the sight of a female fatbody. Men, and especially White men with options, will fap to porn before bouncing dick-first into a fat chick’s belly brûlée. The obesity epidemic shows no signs of letting up, and that’s gotta have an effect on the national GCP (Gross Carnal Product).

Female economic self-sufficiency: women are aroused by powerful men with resources to spare on them, and they are turned off by powerless cash-strapped men. Women who are in less need of a man’s resources are also less sexually interested in men who don’t make substantially more than they make (or have other compensating traits). If husbands’ incomes have decreased relative to wives’ incomes, then there will be a shift toward wives desiring less sex from their husbands. It’s biomechanics all the way down.

Testosterone decline: this one is self-evident. Lower T means lower libido, for men but also for women. Since men are the initiators of sex (especially within the confines of a long term relationship), a low libido man will initiate less frequently, and his woman won’t take up the slack (women have a lot of pride about their ability to passively rouse their men to ardor, which is why they don’t like making the first move). If there’s lower T in women as well (a small amount of testosterone does affect female libido), then that would kill the passion just as quickly. Finally, low T men are just a plain turn-off to women. I have read studies which found women preferred the musky scent of sweaty shirts of men with high T.

All of this is leading to sex-starved husbands and the high divorce rate, because no matter how sacred your marital vows if hubby ain’t getting any his guilt about checking out of the marriage evaporates in a haze of 31 Redtube tabs.

Read Full Post »

Testosterone levels have been plummeting in Western men for at least two generations and this fact is without question. I will speculate in this post what a multigenerational, age-independent decline in T will portend for American society, should the trend not shortly reverse itself.

  • women will dress and act sluttier to capture the attention of increasingly benumbed men who need the services of the hardest of hardcore porn to feel aroused.
  • team sports will disappear.
  • drama club will be a required class.
  • politics will intensify its shift leftward because low T men will vote more like women.
  • the national (and psychological) borders protecting the low T men from predation will remain, for all practical purposes, open to the sewer world until, inevitably, higher T conquerors arrive in sufficient number to wipe out the low T White submissivists.
  • inventiveness and entrepreneurship will stagnate, and contract.
  • any big job or goal will demand more oversight, more paper pushing, more regulatory hurdles to overcome. the days when men gathered and made shit happen on a reasonable time frame will be over. it’ll be an HR dystopia of endless meetings all the way down to the musty cellar of the gossip mill.
  • corporations will turn into ghettos of bickering crones, slutty college girls, and yes-manlets. nothing will be produced but social media apps and articles about online dating. the resulting economic collapse will create a run on arable urban land as millions of useless SWPLs fight to the death for patches of communal gardens to plant their sad kale and heirloom tomatoes.
  • therapy and self-medication will shoot through the roof.
  • heart disease, cancer, and obesity will rise again (or continue the general upwards rise) among men.
  • the rate of infidelity will increase.
  • the rate of divorce will hold steady or increase (we may have hit the divorce industrial complex saturation point).
  • marriage will increasingly be platforms for brides to take selfies and grooms to blubber during the vows. jerkboy best men will be tasked with the job of deflowering any virgin brides remaining in the wilds as the soyfatted grooms recite lines from their favorite feminist poets.
  • fertility will continue declining.
  • the rate of cuckoldry will increase.
  • cat ownership will increase among men.
  • muscle cars will become a distant relic.
  • there will be vanishingly little entertainment made with a straight male sensibility in mind.
  • weird sexual paraphilias and fetishes will rise (those afflicted with declining libido will compensate with outlandish substitutes to bring back that lovin’ feeling).
  • the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions will increase.
  • feminism will get increasingly shrill, and male feminists increasingly servile and pathetic.
  • the population of basement bachelors, cat ladies and bitter spinsters will explode.
  • sexbots will be the only romantic companionship for half the population.
  • high libido men — cads — will reign supreme in the actual sexual market (what’s left of it) as opposed to the pretend sexual market that lonely feminists jabber about during their intersectionality bullshit sessions.
  • androgyny will become the norm.
  • polyandry will be common.
  • polygyny will be rare, but more entrenched. (the few high T men who aren’t eunuchs will have no trouble keeping de facto harems of smitten lovers satisfied and compliant)
  • balls, penises, jawlines, chins, noses, and musculature will literally shrink in men. ears may become floppy.
  • a million sociologists with shitty research papers no one has any intention of replicating will claim that beta male orbiters are our strength. they will write of the virtues of polygamy and the matriarchy, as their civilization burns down around them.
  • no one will ever again speak anything close to the truth about the world, about the sexes, about the races. equalist self-delusion will be taught in schools under the subject “everything but math”.
  • math will succumb soon afterward.
  • art will suck. music will suck. architecture will suck. literature will suck. this will continue a trend long evident. houellebecq may very well be our last great author.
  • tissue boxes will be handed out in movie theaters so that the 70-30 male-female audience may dab their eyes sitting through a full line-up of sappy rom-coms.
  • Mars? Uh, no. More like, the space program will be dead and the androgynes of the future will come to remember the moon landing as a myth promulgated by ancient hirsute men imprisoned in a strictly binary sexuality, who possessed a vestigial feature called a “jawline” and squinted a lot.
  • infrastructure will continue crumbling. instead of doing something about it, everyone will wait for the next tragedy when a bridge fails and then participate in a candlelight vigil and cry a lot. they will repeat this process until everyone is dead from preventable tragedies.
  • John Scalzi will be Premier of this Empire of Aromatase. His rule will not last long. Muslims, blacks, and black Muslims will overrun the Femme West and every capital will ring out with the dulcet ululations of muhammed’s flock.

Recall the Law of Gender Conservation:

∑Masculinity = ∑Femininity

Or, ∑T = ∑E, for short.

Nature abhors a testosterone vacuum. If one tribe’s men has low T, the fapuum will be filled with (in no particular order or likelihood of emergence):

  1. invader men who have higher T
  2. aggrocunts of man-jaw and boy-hip who have lower E (to align with the lower T of their men)
  3. intratribe men with high T who somehow evolved an immunity against the low T disease.

Option one is genocide. Not fun.
Option two is bed death. Not fun.
Option three is our best bet for saving the West. Society will rebound as Nature, in her infinite wisdom, entrusts the low T landscape to high T spermlords who, despite feminists’ faux abhorrence to the contrary, will piledrive a wide swath through a lot of parched pussy that has spent decades lost in an anhedonic wilderness of un-men.

But if we don’t get our borders under control and stop seeding our water supply with endocrine-disrupting chemsexicals, Option Three will never have a chance to pass.

Read Full Post »

*scraaaaatch*

*freeze frame*

Let me tell you why I preen so much. Because ¡SCIENCE! can’t stop slobbing the CH knob!

The Chateau was out there early laying realtalk on the stubborn ears of the eunuchracy about the male enthusiasm for no strings attached sexual release and the opposite female preference for sex swaddled in the comforting confines of commitment.

Now a study had rediscovered the wisdom of the ancients: Women regret one night stands, men regret not having more one night stands.

Feminists have striven for decades to emancipate women sexually, but when it comes to casual promiscuity, the female of the species is still more straight-laced than the male. And evolution is to blame.

The prime lie of feminism is that women are sexually and romantically wired like men. Therefore, the feminist goal of liberating female sexuality from any and all constraints will run headlong into the reality that women don’t do well pursuing the same sexual liberation that men take to more instinctively.

Only one in three women said they were happy about their casual sex experience, compared to more than 50 per cent of men.

However far more men regret saying no to a one night stand than women. Eight in 10 women said they were glad that they had said no to a recent opportunity for casual sex, compared to just 43 per cent of men.

FYI any aspiring womanizer should read this as evidence that it’s the smart move to push a woman for sex sooner rather than later. Waiting too long allows more time for her to rationalize reasons not to sleep with you. Use a Trump tactic and “flood her zone” (double entendre intended).

(The 43% of men who regretted their one night stands were the ones fucking fatties.)

“We’re not saying that there aren’t men who regret casual sex,” added Prof Kennair. “But it is far more common for women to regret saying yes. They are also less unequivocally happy about the experience.

“Women regretted having a one-night stand the most, but they weren’t sorry about saying no at all.”

High cock count sluts have that tell-tale thousand cock stare for a reason: they’re wracked with regret and a gnawing feeling of worthlessness.

Men in the study were also found to enjoy the actual sex more, with more men saying they had achieved orgasm than women.

Feminists BTFO……..by literally thousands of years of common human knowledge about sex differences!

“Due to selective pressure from the big difference in parental investment, one would expect men and women to regret different aspects of casual sex decisions: having casual sex with the wrong partner versus missing a casual sexual opportunity,” the authors conclude in the study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

Men can theoretically father thousands of children and are only limited by the supply of willing, fertile women. In the past those who could reproduce freely could have so many children that it would not matter if some did not survive.

The “scatter-gun” strategy means that the quality of a sexual partner for men does not have to be as high as for women, the study suggests. Men who moved from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.

When Whites and Asians evolved in their high paternal investment environments outside of Africa and its particular selection pressures, the men picked up a stronger discriminatory taste in women because they would be sticking around to help raise their kids. So this evo psych assertion needs trimming to account for race differences in male mate acquisition. Black men honestly will fuck anything, and that simply doesn’t apply to nonblacks to the same degree.

However for women, partner quality is far more important and adding additional sexual partners does not increase their chance of reproductive success.

The BLEEDING obvious.

“Many social scientists expect that in sexually egalitarian cultures such as Norway, these sex differences would disappear. They do not. This fact makes the findings on sex differences in sexual regret in modern Norwegian people so fascinating scientifically.”

Nordic Feminism is a luxury of a decadent people who can afford to entertain lies and fantastical interpretations of human nature.

The researchers conclude that cultural changes since the 1960s have not altered underlying gender differences in how men and women view sex.

The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic human ideals.

Read Full Post »

10s exist. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Their rarity and rarified beauty are naturally cause for disputation among men who bound their egos to their ability to discern exquisite apex femininity, but rarity is not a synonym for nonexistence.

With that in mind, would you consider this meadow minx an HB10? The perfection of woman by the standards of present-day worldwide womanhood?

hb10

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: