Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

Staying slender is no reprieve from the Wall, ladies. When you get old, your slender figure turns skeletal and the flesh droops like canvas drapes off the bones. Your best bet for delaying critical Wall impact is weightlifting (notably squats) in conjunction with cardio. You lose that tender adipose fat soon after your early 20s and you need something to replace it — muscle — to keep your curves and protuberances in the right boner-inducing size and place.

PS: Men: let this be a lesson. That 35 year old sexpot teacher you have the hots for when you’re fourteen? Have fun with her, but don’t marry her. When you’re 45, she’ll be 66, and that’s the boner killer for which there is no cure.

Read Full Post »

The Judge says giving women all the responsibility for initiating and controlling the pace of sex is the answer to false rape accusations.

Women are just dishonest to the bone, 24/7. You can think everything is cool because the dumb bitch doesn’t say anything, next thing you know, she claims you raped her, or she “felt half-raped”.

In such a climate, Game…CHARISMA…is needed, because the only safe sexual encounter is one initiated and controlled by the dumb bitch.

The Judge is well-meaning but his suggestion will actually make the problem of women blaming men for the regret and emptiness women normally feel after impulsive hookups much worse. Ceding the domain of bedroom escalation to women is no guarantee of a safe sexual encounter. As we all know, a woman will back-rationalize any sexual encounter into a distant facsimile of actual events to support whatever her feelings require in the moment, and that includes sexual interactions she initiated and controlled. Even if you signed a consent form with a lawyer present and tied your hands behind your back so that she would have to undress you and guide your penis into her three holes, if she felt bad about it the next day she’ll concoct a load of self-serving sophistry to excuse her actions and relinquish her accountability, which in practice means IT’S ALWAYS THE BOYIM’S FAULT.

Paradoxically, the closest thing men have to a guarantee against a false regret rape accusation is to DOMINATE and LEAD the girl to a sexual encounter in which she CAN’T CONTROL her erupting arousal and EAGERLY SURRENDERS to the man. (Then make sure you give her a peck on the cheek and tell her something nice before bolting in the morning. Leave em wetter than you found em.)

The problem with the physically and personably unattractive amy schumers of the world is that they are fated to date weak men, soyboys, gloryhole faces, male feminists, john scalzis, and simpering omega nerdos. A woman who initiates and controls the sexual encounter from start to finish with one of those kinds of un-males will FEEL LIKE she was raped afterwards, because her contaminated womb will be crying out for a mercy killing. Naturally, this bad feeling of existential darwinian regret will compel her to deny her role in the consensual sex and to seek absolution by shifting a fake blame onto the unwitting loser male who thought she was enjoying his tepid romantic advances.

A woman sexually in control is a woman emotionally in doubt. Give her control over sexual progression and the only guarantee you’ll get is her post-coital spite and resentment. Few women, deep down, want to lead a man. Most women, deep down, want to follow a man. You, as a man, deny this want of women at your peril.

Read Full Post »

dshugashvili makes what I consider a novel and convincing case against Male Genital Mutilation (aka circumcision): the barbaric practice robs both men and women of the white hot lust which intimately bonds them for the long haul.

plumpjack: Prior to my [circumcision] restoration, I had some great experiences – or so I thought. In hindsight, they were all experiences that centered around HER pleasure: “Boy, I really made her cum last night,” etc. But now there was a profound difference; the experiences I was having were mine. And they were damn good.

Ironically, the more pleasure I started having, the more that my partners began to have. They could sense my pleasure and this made them more excited. There is an interconnected aspect to sexual intercourse, and having genitals that function correctly is an integral part of this.

How I Restored My Foreskin

***

kinda off-topic for this post, but I would like to offer you my sincere congratulations for overcoming the humiliation that the Khazars and their stooges inflicted on you when you were a defenceless child. (the Khazars always prefer their victims to be defenceless; for example, they delight in shooting children along the Gaza border fence.)

apparently, it’s all part of the plan:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Moses Maimonides

see also:

The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner

LOL that Maimonides thought it was a bad idea that a woman would love her man too much.

Maybe jews really are malignant masochists? The notion neatly explains some of the more dire aspects of diaspora jewish behavior in the lands of their generous Gentile hosts. From a reader,

Saw a decent argument that (((they’re))) pure masochists on a memetic level, always wanting to revisit the good old days of Deuteronomy when they fucked up on a tribal basis and needed heavy handed correction by God.

Nothing else can explain their sheer malevolence. Other middleman minorities don’t openly taunt the host populations, don’t beg for wipeout.

I disagree with that last part. I would say we are entering (for better or worse) an age in Western nations in which other minorities, taking their jew cue, openly taunt the host population. Bindis for instance have taken up the “taunt Whitey” banner with real gusto. This might not be a bad thing in the long run. NiceWhites can only take so much shit pushed in their faces before they abandon their niceness with the same gusto that their nonWhite taunters revel in their anti-White malice.

The other possibility here (to explain why circumcision was historically a jew thang), might be that the high average IQ jews inherited (thanks to occupational bottlenecks European Gentiles created to protect their hamlets from levantine imprint) conflicts with their equally inherited ravenous Middle Eastern libido, and into this unholy amalgam pitting the forebrain against the hindbrain the masochistic impulse in jews grew beyond normal bounds to accommodate the inevitable cogdis, and ritualistic circumcision was one manifestation of this internal battle. I hope this makes sense. (Maimonides seems to have understood what I’m saying.)

From that 1999 anti-circumcision research paper (brace yourselves for a poonami of realtalk):

Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newsletter. Respondents to the advertisements were mailed a survey to complete and return, the comments then compiled and the responses analysed statistically.

[…]

Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).

During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.’ […]

When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).

If a woman has accumulated enough rides on the cock carousel to have a penis preference, do not stop at Ho, do not collect nuptial vows.

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016). These women were more likely to prefer being on top during coitus to achieve vaginal orgasm (2.46, 1.21-4.98). They were also more likely to have an unaltered man as their most recent partner (1.74, 0.87-3.47).

The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners.

And finally, the coda, which could win prizes in literature:

These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own ‘bedding’ of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle’s neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed agaist the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners. This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].

Of course, this is correlation and potential selection bias, so it’s possible unaltered men happen also to be jerkboy men who maximally arouse women, but the uniformity of the results at least should give the mutilated man pause, as it indicates circumcision itself reduces women’s pleasure.

It’s really a counter-intuitive argument, because most people would assume that by diminishing through circumcision the sexual pleasure and ardor a man can feel, he would be less likely to stray and satisfy his over-torqued libido with mistresses. Instead, reducing his pleasure reduces his woman’s pleasure as well, and the sexual disappointment may contribute to relationship dissolution.

Putting the results of this study in the language of our oypressors, “informed consent” means the barbaric practice of infant circumcision must end. My boner, my choice.

Read Full Post »

Adorable American Beauty is the sister series to Exquisite European Beauty, and the purpose is the same: to celebrate and consequently encourage White women to embrace their White-bred femininity and to push away from the table (and away from beauty-destroying open borders third world invasion cheerleading).

The emailer who submitted Zooey for consideration in the Hall of Dame writes,

Really.

Glad at least one actress is just unapologetically, devastatingly feminine.

FYI pic is from Season 2 of New Girl, and before she birthed a White champion, i.e., her nubile prime. Sweet and quirky…squirky.

Read Full Post »

Hot off the presses, a criminally patriarchal research paper has concluded that men with higher income and status have more reproductive success than women with high income and status have in industrialized nations. First, to set the table, an excerpt from the abstract:

It is concluded that an evolutionary perspective helps explain reproductive patterns in modern humans and may thus make a valuable contribution in the assessment of urgent contemporary problems.

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all, across space and time.
– Le 156% Heartiste

Female hypergamy, female education, female economic self-sufficiency, low female fertility…choose any four.

In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.

In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.

Low status beta and omega males are bigger losers in this new world order than they were before under the rock solid pre-femcunt patriarchal system, because the women who would be theirs under the old rules have decided to skip past them for a shot at 1. the high status alpha or 2. a tub of ben and jerrys.

The biggest DARWINIAN WINNERS are the charming jerkboy cads and the sociopath hedge funders.

Post-America alpha males enjoy not only reproductive success (in an environment in which widespread use of contraceptives thwarts the ability to convert bangs into bangbinos), but sexual success:

Potential fertility — that’s a nerdy way to say “sexiness”. Men with high social and economic status in industrialized and primitive nations alike — HSMV alphas — monopolize the hottest babes, and probably more than their fair share of the plain janes too. The Pill and condom don’t thwart the sex act; those things just thwart the consequence of the sex act, and incentivize women to liberate their sexuality (which in practice means liberating themselves from beta males). Imagine how many little snot-nosed Heartistes (heartots?) would be running around creating kindergarten mayhem if the Industrial Contraception Complex didn’t exist.

How unequally is sex distributed in industrialized jizztopias? Very:

There are interesting eugenic/dysgenic possibilities to ponder from this knowledge. There is dysgenic selection pressure on high status women — at least as measured by income, social status, and their proxy, IQ — but eugenic selection pressure on their male counterparts, the HSMV alphas who are having more kids.

This isn’t a complete picture, though, because female mate worth is so much more tied into their physical beauty. Those HSMV alpha males are choosing less educated, less wealthy, lower SES “status” women who are younger, hotter, tighter, so by Darwinian calculation the end result is very eugenic: capable sons and pretty daughters. This is evidence that the West is beginning to pursue the patented CH BOSSS strategy of sexual market health and societal reinvigoration.

I’ve been warning about this stuff for a while, and I’m glad to see ¡SCIENCE! finally catching up with Heartistian observations. There was only ever going to be one effective response by men to the emergence of weaponized female hypergamy (and it wasn’t cuddly beta supplication).

Game will save the West….in one respect, by heightening its late stage contradictions and encouraging a change in course.

***

On the silliness of the “wage gap”:

…and the silliness of the feminist narrative about the “patriarchy”:

******

Some juicy excerpts from the paper linked in this post:

religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity…

***

In addition to the fact that close inbreeding carries genetic risks (discussed previously), this may also be the case (p. 485) for distant outbreeding, although the effects of outbreeding are far less clear…

***

…homogamy along certain characteristics has consequences as well. Particularly educational homogamy may be an undervalued risk factor, resulting in less permeability of social stratification and hence a stronger segregation of the social strata. This has negative consequences for “social cohesion,” increasing the tensions within a society.

***

In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”

Word of the day: Homogamy.

It is the secret Truth that shivs miscegenation propagandists dead.

…empirical evidence for a fitness advantage over generations by reducing the number of children and investing more in fewer children is minimal or absent. Evidence suggests that on the one hand, low fertility increases the progenies’ socioeconomic position, but on the other hand, it reduces long-term fitness.

***

In addition, different strategies of maximizing versus optimizing fertility may lead to a conflict between the sexes.

Aka the modren sexual market. The battle of the sexes has never been more pitched than it is now.

Read Full Post »

Riffing on this long-form neg, (is it working, Bri? DM me!), some bantz regarding Brittany Pettibone’s purpose and pleasure ensued between readers and yours cruelly. As a stand-in for the constellation of PIVnat alt-right thotties, Brit does nicely. NAMinxALT, yes, yes, but let’s face it, these camera-ready nonconformist coquettes must share similar characteristics (and characters).

If they’re categorizable as femmes fatales, which archetype would best fit them?

The Golddigger?

The Waif/Neurotic?

The Eternal Ingenue?

The Amazonian Alpha?

I’d need more time studying her…personality, but from what little I know and have seen of B. Pettibone, she’s a cross between the Golddigger and Neurotic femme fatale archetypes.

Jack McKrack writes,

I doubt she’s a Golddigger – she’s attractive enough 2 have hooked a wealthy man by now if money was what she desired. maybe…Famedigger is more accurate? or maybe she’s playing a long game of seeking fame that turns into more wealth than could be had by a more direct approach (marrying a dude who’s rich already but with a comparatively low wealth ceiling)?

Yes, she’d more precisely be a Famedigger, a subcategory of Golddigger. (Less flattering terms are fame whore, starfucker, groupie, renown hound, rep chaser, klieg queen, YidTube sensation, blue tick snip dick (for the males).) These kinds of women don’t necessarily marry or fuck for money, but they are characterized by a ruthless pursuit of their goals, and a fulfillment of their desires, which can be unremunerated social status rather than wealth. This type doesn’t fall in love very easily, because love tends to interfere with the aggrandizement directive. And many of the men they latch onto are treated as stepping stones to further their public exposure, which also works against love finding any purchase.

FYI the modren sexual market with its economic and cultural incentives to ride the carousel into the Wall somewhat selects against attractive women hooking wealthy men for a lifetime of comfort and security. That option is always in the back of the thot’s head, but more than ever before she is unmoved to urgency by its siren call. This will likely change when penury and menace sweeps Western nations once again.

Jack,

i’m real torn on this phenomenon as it pertains to the Maul Right. their T & A gets eyeballs where there normally would be none, but the Maul Right is rife with betas and white knights that are easily weakened and coaxed off message by Brit’s pouty lips or Lauren’s cosplay selfies. i disagree with Roosh on a lot but i agree with him on the imminent dangers here.

Taken in isolation, I don’t have a problem with cuties jamming the airwaves with their girlythoughts. In the aggregate, though, I agree that paradigmatic shifts in thinking and revolutionary movements are best led by men, of men, and for men, because men make the sacrifices in dire times. The women will, and should in a healthy sociosexual system, follow.

As for beta male thirst, yes it’s been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere that social media amplifies the thirst to pathological affliction, and likewise blows up the egos of oftentimes marginal SMV women who ultimately pay the price for their short-term ego boost by refusing to settle down until the settlin’ down’s out of reach for them.

Every girl has a bit of Famedigger in her. Not every girl can act on the impulse. Those that can, often do.

Famedigger and Woman are practically synonymous for the very simple explanation that women are ATTRACTED TO, AROUSED BY, AND LUBE UP TORRENTIALLY FOR famous men. That these women, when in the company of famous men, get to experience a little of that fame for themselves is icing on the handsome rake.

So most Famediggers swarm the spotlight because that’s where the famous alpha men are. Others, perhaps including our intrepid thots, seek fame for its own sake, and use famous men — specifically, beta famous men who aren’t at ease with their newfound HSMV and don’t know how to exploit it — to vault themselves into the public consciousness, where they can display their….minds….to a much larger audience of men. It’s every woman’s most cherished fantasy to be the object of desire of many (alpha) men, their coy protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Read Full Post »

When she gives you the doggy dinner bowl look:

Related, if a girl glances downward or upward when you pass by her on the sidewalk after making eye contact, she wants you to hit on her. If she looks sideways after you have made eye contact with her, she’s probably not interested.

If she bites her lower lip, I hope you brought a condom and a favorite public sex location.

***

Therajraj adds,

when you get a married girl to momentarily forget she’s Married.

If a man’s wife gives this look to any man other than himself…trouble brewing!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: