Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

A comment from Inlikeme that compares pulling out to pumping in:

…if you’re whipping it out you’re ready to go again in a few mins.
If you’re blasting inside it’s snuggle time for like half an hour or more.
I wonder if there’s a study on oxytocin levels (in chaps) on whipping it out v holding her down and blasting inside.

A cursory search of the CH archives reveals that there are no posts dealing with this topic. A regrettable oversight! One must hand it to Inlikeme for providing comment fodder not already covered in dusty tomes housed in this esteemed retreat. A rare accomplishment.

Time for a pro and con misticle.

Pulling Out

Pros

Nothing says “ownage” quite like your jizzbomb oozing down a woman’s face.

You can accurately gauge your intensity of desire by the size, shape, color, and don’t forget texture of your ropey release. (this is also how you determine if a woman is commitment worthy)

As Inlikeme noted, pulling out shortens the refractory period, for physiologic reasons which are not yet clear to the labcoats. You’re ready for round two before the speckle has spackled.

It’s fun to aim and drain.

Pulling out is actually a fairly effective form of contraception, assuming your girl isn’t crazy and liable to abscond with a thimbleful for a secretive bathroom fingertip insertion.

It’s easier for the girl to caress your scrotal depths at the moment of delivery, adding to the pleasure.

Surprise eye shot! (back, and to the left…so hot)

Cons

You’ll cuddle in your own mess.

A gnawing feeling of Darwinian futility.

A gnawing feeling you aren’t Spawndo material.

Crazy girl opportunism.

Effort spent trying to keep her from turning over and soiling your sheets with her cummy tummy.

You will hear Captain Obvious’ refrain “BUNZ => OVENS” ringing through your head. Buzzkill!

If she jumps out of bed to clean herself, rather than lay there admiring your property markers, it’s a major slut tell. She’s done this with other men, and has gotten inured to its BONDING potential. A keeper will never wash off your wayward seed without reverent ritualistic tribute.

***

Pumping In

Pros

Now THAT’S lovemaking.

Nothing says “genetic ownage” quite like holding her down and filling her with your champions.

No orgasm will match the intensity of the orgasm which tickles the cervical portal.

Congrats, you’ve done your part to save the White race. The screaming of the Captain Obvious is finally silenced.

Buried deep behind the borderline, your nut will feel like a hot river instead of a squirt gun.

If she takes you in, happily, eagerly, she may be a keeper.

A half hour later, she’s still giggling about you dripping out of her. Giggling. Not chortling like a high T careerist shrike.

It’s fun to lay there inside her for a while after, going slowly soft but never so soft that you slip out, and getting hard again while still inside, so you can fill her up like a swimming pool.

Cons

She *said* she was on the Pill. You can trust her, right?

If she’s a super slut, guess what? You just commingled sperms with her morning lover. You better hope the idea of “scooping” doesn’t put you out of the mood.

Interminable cuddling.

Viscous queefs.

She’s more likely to consider the act one of finality, to close out the evening. It starts with flaccid post-coital cuddling, and ends with nethers-grazing blue balls.

You might fall in love. Not so great if it’s the third date. You want to keep that love card in the deck, or she’ll have hand.

You might come too fast if you know you can have all of her.

You’ve always wanted to be the Jackson Pollock of body painting.

Read Full Post »

This is the porn post. Its purpose is to encourage discussion and embarrassing open-cubicle chubbies.

FYI I redact or pseudonomize real names of thread participants because I don’t assume they would want their identifying info spread to outside platforms beyond the one they directly engage. If they would like to be identified, they can say so in the comments or in email.

J.R. kicks it off,

[online porn is] just so insanely hardcore

stuff that maybe only the hardest core degenerate might get into after a lifetime of chasing ever more debauched forms of porn and perversion are basically just another option on the front page of all the major porn sites, so now the average kid has explored the outer boundaries of porn by the time he’s 15

it’s fucked up

Chad Bigly,

Porn is a real public health problem – I truly believe that. It’s easier for people to quit smoking than to quit porn. And it really is so fucking over the top gross now. If I were in power I’d completely ban it tomorrow. Just make it illegal and enforce the shit out of it and watch civilization trend toward normal again.

J.R.,

i think porn has something to do w/ the whole tranny thing
there’s something feminizing about dudes watching that much porn

for 99.9999% of human history the only erection men ever saw was their own

now the avg dude has seen 10k before he gets out of high school
i don’t think evolution prepared the male brain for that possibility

there’s your endocrine disrupter

I don’t buy the theory that porn is inherently gay (because you’re looking at hard dick). (Incel-mocking tradcons at MPC like to cavalierly indulge this theory.) No straight man was turned to homosexuality by watching porn. When men watch, they will focus on the woman’s body and vagina, and imagine their own dick doing the pounding. There’s a dick substitution process that occurs subconsciously during viewing, which obscures or even eliminates the possibility of a mood-killing intrusion of awareness that one is also watching another man get off. Porn producers actually acknowledge this reality by filming in such a way that the male actor is out of the middle of the frame, and his contorted face is off-screen. POV (point-of-view) porn is popular for this reason.

S.K. responds,

Porn is bad, but not for the reason J.R. thinks. Seeing dicks doesn’t make you gay, whether or not they are involved in sex.

It’s watching another male fuck a female you desire. He’s getting her; you aren’t. In primal chimpanzee sexual mode, you have to be a pretty thoroughly inferior male to not get any chance at the female in estrus. So you, the omega male, sit on the sidelines and jerk off while the superior males have their go.

Further, females make more noise when having sex with alpha males. Porn females shriek their heads off, further reinforcing how the males are higher status than you.

Being subordinate status feminizes you. Want to be weak and gay? Watch porn.

Tagging in Heartiste because this is up his alley.

S.K. is closer to identifying the true banefulness of porn addiction. These hypotheses above (among others I’ve come across) are all valid explanations for the potentially deleterious effects of long-term porn viewing, but subordinate to the central pathology of porn: it hijacks the visually oriented arousal mechanism in men to provide a steady yet low dose drip of dopamine, which is just enough to discourage investment in real world courtship.

In short, porn kills real life sex dead.

This is why I predict the sexbot revolution will bring utter destruction to civilization, replacing beta male investment with beta male dopamine imprisonment and massive alpha male harems (with the concomitant male-on-male violence that characterizes rampant polygyny).

A disturbing consequence of my theory, if true (it is), is that Western women might react by inviting hordes of more sexually aggressive swartheners to fill the void in their gines for at least superficially strong and un-gay males. Whatever pap women are menstruating on femcunt wombzines is irrelevant to how women act when the rubber hits the ho, and how they act is unmistakable: they will get their aggressive alpha male courtship from whichever source pool of men is willing to provide it.

So porn might be one major pathway leading to the nexus of our open borders disease.

Newspeak Translator writes,

The trend seems to be reversing somewhat. There was a thread on twatter a few days ago- apparently X-videos has seen a pretty significant drop in traffic recently. The K-ifying political environment has people too paranoid to be horny. Disgust reflexes are comin’ back in style, baby!

An antibiotic resistant sexually transmitted disease that results in rotted out genitals, blindness, and early death is a surefire diabolus ex machina that would elevate the disgust reflex back to the top of the pantheon of moral judgements.

This won’t necessarily contradict Newspeak’s claim, but what I’ve read is that there’s been a rise (heh) in porn searches for lesbian sex and hentai. Make of that what you will. (I will: it’s yet another indicator of rapid mass infantilization and retreat from intimacy.)

S.K. again,

Lesbian porn, and, I speculate, hentai, don’t feature superior men copulating.
I postulate that males are unconsciously recognizing the feminizing effects on themselves. We have a strong ability to associate behavior with reward and punishment across time – future time preference, if that is the correct term.
Hell, my son, only 16, thinks porn is weird and stupid. I pointed out that maybe the reason people like tranny porn is because you can verify that the “female” is aroused; he laughed, “What, OH OH OH OH BABY doesn’t convince you?”

I’m no expert on hentai, but what I know of it is that it features exaggerated genitalia like oversized breasts, enormous cocks, tiny narrow waists, and gushers of jizz, (tentacles optional). I’m not sure that makes it anything like an “escape” from the feminizing effects of real human porn with superior men copulating. It does make it an escape from porn that is “too real” for modren men to consume without feeling like losers.

***

From Deter Naturalist,

“It’s any wonder many weak people escape into movies and video games and as well as the topic of this post: porn.”

And opioid drugs. Opium’s main effect is to make you simply not care…and when your life sucks bad, but you’re not quite ready to off yourself, a pill that makes leaves the pain but makes you not GAF about it…is attractive. And if it’s a hot-lot with too much fentanyl added by the basement chemist, you just drift off to sleep…and stop breathing.

The opioid “crisis” is a direct result of the war on whites, and falls on those whites who often are far worse off than any ghetto-rat. When you take from W to give to B, the W who don’t have anything but their life to give are stripped of that, too.

The opioid crisis is the fruit of the Anti-White Agenda. I pray for a better world to come soon, when the people responsible for both are made to answer for their crimes against Heritage America.

Read Full Post »

The Chateau predicted this.

Conclusion – [The advent of the sexbot revolution will mean] the entire market structure of dating will shift seismically in the direction of men becoming choosier and less willing to please and women becoming looser and more willing to please.

The basic premise I have outlined above rests on a simple observation — the more physically satisfying choices men have to sate their lust, the less needy they will be with women.  And non-neediness translates into a slight downgrade in the asking price of single women.  Because women are more loathe to settle than men, there will be a rush to the top as the dwindling number of acceptable male prospects commands the attentions of an ever-growing pool of women.  Polygamy will rush in to fill the need.

Sexbots present a clear and present danger to women’s sexual market value and their ability to leverage their fattening bodies to acquire a lifelong mate. Men are visually aroused, and on a subconscious level women understand this, which is why maximally visually stimulating sexbots strike fear into the hearts of middling and low smv women who are paying attention.

And right on cue…..it’s ¡SCIENCE! to cradle my balls and smile lovingly up at me from chafed knees.

Via Rolf Degen, again. (The man is a conduit to wrecking ball research that crushes the Equalism Narrative)

Jealousy 4.0? An empirical study on jealousy-related discomfort of women evoked by other women and gynoid robots

Best Of research paper title contender.

The present study investigated whether women react with the same level of jealousy towards the idea of their partner having sexual interactions with a (human-like or machine-like) gynoid robot as they would when imagining their partner having sexual interactions with another woman. We assumed that, due to the higher comparability and the greater likelihood of past experiences of other women as sexual competitors, women would feel more discomfort and jealousy in response to another woman. However, it seems not sufficient to state that women in general evoke stronger jealousy-related discomfort than robots. On the contrary, it depends on the subdimension of jealousy. The jealousy-related discomfort was higher for female competitors compared to the robotic ones, for instance regarding the discomfort caused by the idea of sexual intercourse, whereas in other dimensions the robots evoked the same or higher levels of jealousy-related discomfort, such as the discomfort caused by negative self-evaluations in comparison to the competitor or discomfort caused by shared emotional and time resources. Contrary to our expectation, the factors of similarity and comparability did not lead to differences between human-like and machinelike gynoid robots in terms of the different subdimensions of jealousy-related discomfort. It is possible that basic social cues are sufficient to trigger social scripts known from humans-human interactions, which, in turn, result in social comparison and jealousy-related discomfort. Greater knowledge about the underlying processes of machines could help women to better evaluate the abilities of robots. Moreover, an enhanced willingness to create and shape sexualized technologies of the near future could positively affect females’ self-confidence, as such inventions could more strongly respect and represent their needs in terms of both sexuality and societal standing. Most importantly, our findings should spark further discussion on ethical aspects of human-robot interaction and hopefully result in social and sexual norms to guide responsible robotics developments which will not negatively impact long-term relationships and women’s self-evaluation.

Human women are insanely jealous of robot women. Instinctively, women know that a height-weight proportionate, nubile, centerfold replicating gynoid who can be programmed to derisively mock pussyhatters is real competition, because women also know instinctively that men are primarily aroused by gazing at a woman’s beauty and bangable body. No amount of feminist wishful thinking to the cuntrary can erase this reality of women’s intuitive hindbrains. If the typical crass Amerifat woman sees a hot little minxbot, she won’t be able to #resist comparing herself to the hotbot. The sexual market dynamic would be the same as if the sexbot were a human hottie flouncing into the club to outshine the herd of cows.

Further, women can feel a threat to their interests from a man falling in love with a beautiful bangable sexbot, because men first lust before they love. This is why human female participants in this research expressed jealous discomfort at the thought that their men might get emotionally attached to their HB100 sexbots.

As I’ve been saying, once sexbots cross the uncanny valley and acquire fine motor skills (of the mouth and vagina), it’s game over for the known sexual market which has guided human evolution since the dawn of time. I have predicted a likely outcome of the reoriented sexual market in the wake of the sexbot revolution — rampant polygamy followed by rapid social collapse — that can be avoided if human women make themselves as appealing as the coming sexbots. Which means,

push away from the table
stop voting for degenerate nation wrecking freaks
don’t ride the cock carousel
learn to cook
learn to give good head
adore your man

Is that too much to ask?

Read Full Post »

You’ve been choking on fuggernaut fumes every day, it’s time to recharge your hindbrain with something young, nubile, furrowed, and true.

Read Full Post »

Recall the classic CH post “Hotter Women, Better Sex“. It set off a firestorm of wow just wows from feminists and betaboys who wandered into the free fire zone. That post put forth a self-evident proposition that would seem profound and dangerous in our age of willful ignorance:

The hotter the woman, the better the sex will be for the man banging her.

I suspect the people who think that men chase hot girls the most feverishly so as to lord it over other men have an agenda.  They want to believe that human nature is not immutable; that with the right amount of peer pressure and fist-shaking at the media juggernaut men’s desires can be altered — tamed — to accommodate their conceit.  And pride is malleable where thermonuclear blasts of lust are not.

If, on the other hand, men pursue the best-looking women at the behest of hidden compulsions buried deep in the reptilian cores of their brains, then there is nothing can be done to change this fact of manhood and what it means for less attractive girls.

How your body responds to a woman during sex tells the tale.  The hotter I find the girl, the better the sex is, all else being equal.  Since men remember sex acts with crystal clear clarity, it’s easy for me to recall the exact specifications of my sexual encounters with each woman in my life.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but my jizzbombs were heavier and the distance ejected farther with the prettier girls.  Since this is something I cannot consciously control, it is proof of the innate characteristics of the male sex drive.

A dandy and indeed handy chart was included:

In the interest of science, I’ve put my beauty-to-cumload comparison in a handy chart:

hotness of woman               size of load               squirt distance
0                                            *                                *
1                                            *                                *
2                                            *                                *
3                                            pre-cum only           had to be squeezed out
4                                            droplet                      dribble
5                                            <5 grams                  2 cm
6                                            fills bellybutton        3 inches
7                                            1 tbsp                         8 inches
8                                            2 tbsps                       1.5 feet
9                                            1/4 cup                       3 feet
10                                          gallon**                      5 yards**

*insufficient data
**extrapolation

Years later, SCIENCE would tardily catch up to Chateau wisdom and vindicate that handy dandy chart presenting the direct connection between female hotness and male lust:

Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age.

***

I think the abstract speaks for itself. However, for the benefit of the short bussers: The men in the study got harder, stronger, bigger boners with the physically better-looking women. The men also had more frequent sex when they were having it with younger, hotter, tighter women. And finally, the men reported more sexual satisfaction when their sexual partners were hotter, thinner women with sexy hourglass shapes.

Young, slender, hot babes are nature’s Viagra, capable of inflating even an old man’s wrinkled wurst to heights of former glory.

But wait, there’s more! The “hotter women = better sex” CH aphorjism has, once again, been indirectly confirmed by scientific vigor (this time in a manner taken from the woman’s point-of-view, “bigger jizzbombs = happier women”). Courtesy of Rolf Degen, one of the few remaining bright spots on Twatter, a study shows

About half of all women reported getting off on men’s ejaculation.

***

The Importance of Male Ejaculation for Female Sexual Satisfaction and Function

That face you make when you came but ¡SCIENCE! still sucking.

I’ll unpack the goodness stuffed into that study.

  1. half of women have stronger orgasms when their men ejaculate first
  2. half of women have stronger orgasms when their men’s jizzbombs are fuller, thicker, farther
  3. women who considered their partner’s ejaculation an important part of their sex lives had better lifelong sexual functioning
  4. a significant minority of women considered jizzbomb volume, distance, and accompanying theatrics a reflection of their own attractiveness
  5. the size of a man’s load was especially important to a woman’s self-perceived SMV (“the perception of a large ejaculation volume can make the woman feel sexy and wanted”)

Talk about a BOMBSHELL of a study. The CH formulation — hotter women means better sex for men — is confirmed accurate by its inverse: more intense blasts of ropey jizz mean women with higher self-esteems because their desirability as sexual objects is expulsively validated.

Or: the reinforcing feedback loop runs both ways: men are more aroused by hotter women, and women feel hotter when men are more aroused, (especially if the male arousal takes the form of something that is outside a man’s conscious control, such as the size, strength, texture and distance of his ejaculate).

From this, we can safely conclude jizz volume and distance are predictive of relationship strength, because a woman who feels sexier and hotter with her man is a woman who won’t be eager to blow up the relationship. And a man who cums harder with a woman similarly won’t be cavalier about losing access to a rare pleasure-maximizing input.

The cosmic order is a harmonious thing of timeless beauty.

PS Short and tall women are sluttier and crazier than medium-height women. So if you want to make a lady your main, find a miss whose height isn’t a strain. (my guess is that short and tall women have to compete more for hsmv male attention, thus the sluttiness and craziness)

Read Full Post »

I don’t go down on girls, unless they’re virginal and their poosies smell like a springtime meadow. If I’m with a 21 year old and I have a strong suspicion I am her first or second lover, then yeah, here’s me gorging at the Y:

Most over-25 women aren’t virginal and their poosies aren’t exactly garden fresh. I have no interest in sticking my nose in a sewer and contracting mouth cancer.

But try telling a girl that (ID FATALITY).

And yet, I’ve noticed more girls demanding mouthlove, especially reciprocated mouthlove. Sex often inaugurates with the girl slobbing my knob, but now it’s been transactionalized by anti-romantic battlecunts who have been inculcated by Femcunt Inc to view any unreciprocated action — no matter the context or the mood lighting — as a slight against grrldom by the oppressive white male hateriarchy.

In fact, some of these chicks will push my head downward toward their steampipes as I’m dropping mad kisses on the non-smelly parts of their bodies, and I’ll RESIST, which only makes them push harder on my head. Wouldn’t that qualify as sexual assault under the terms created from thin air by the BELIEVE WAHMEN cuntsortium?

So here’s what you should say if a girl expresses in so many words that she wants you to lick her cancerclit:

MY TONGUE, MY CHOICE: I don’t do that.

GIRL: Why? Are you selfish or something?

MY TONGUE, MY CHOICE: I only offer those services to girls I’ve been dating a long time. It’s very intimate.

GIRL: We’ve been dating a while.

MY TONGUE, MY CHOICE: Not long enough. I’ll let you know when.

I never let her know when, because a girl who’s indignant that her poosy be viewed like a tootsie roll pop (how many licks to get to the G spot?) is a girl who

  1. has been scoured by a squadron of stiff ones and can only get off now with extraordinary efforts on the part of the man and
  2. is a strident bitch who won’t ever show generosity of spirit or snatch without a rider attached to it

Ladies, if you want the licky licky, avoid the sticky pricky. Virgins are ravaged because they haven’t been ravaged. Get the picture?

 

Read Full Post »

All across the developed world, people are having less sex.

Calhoun’s mouse experiment is everywhere if you have the eyes to see.

I can supply some reasons explaining the decline in sex frequency among modrens:

1. diversity (it causes cocooning)
2. obesity (it causes loss of desire)
3. population density (it causes mental health problems)
4. soyboys (self-explanatory)
5. video games
6. porn
7. female porn (teevee)
8. pathological narcissism metastasized by social media use

That last one is crucial to understanding the problem behind the Breaching of the Sexes: the study notes that men and women are spending more time on “looking good” and less time putting those good looks to use in the bedroom. A pathological narcissist wouldn’t want to risk his or her image by actually sleeping with someone who would find out what they look like the morning after, or discover how skilled they are as lovers. The Social Media Narcissist recoils from intimacy because it demands a pence of vulnerability to be true, real, and valuable. It’s safer for the maintenance of her image if she struts and poses on her world stage, full of snark and gogrrlies, signifying nothing, than to risk it all by stepping out from behind the ‘shopped selfie to place her painstakingly animated Marvel Comics heart at the mercy of another.

As someone noted on that Twatter thread, sexual frequency isn’t the same as sexual distribution.

Why can’t you address the elephant in the room. 20% of the men are sleeping with 80 % of the women. Most men 18-34 get infrequent or no sex at all. The dating market is cruel as any free market.

Sex frequency may be down, but female hypergamy is up up up, and more intense than ever.

The Breaching of the Sexes will soon give way to the Bifurcation of the Sexed And Sexless, and finally to the Bounty of the Sexbots.

Unless Generation Zyklon re-embraces a benevolent patriarchy, this story has only one ending: Hard Times Ahead.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: