Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

The title of this post suggests a wordy exegesis, but readers may relax because the connections between the thematic elements aren’t difficult to explain.

The cause-and-effect arrows go like this:

War reduces the number of young men in a population

==>

Fewer men skews the sex ratio to favor men’s preferences

==>

A sex skew favoring men means more women available for each man

==>

More sexual market options means increased male choosiness for better-looking women

==>

Better-looking women produce better-looking daughters, ensuring more beauty in future generations.

Conversely, a sex skew that favors women (more men than women) intensifies beta male thirst, because there are fewer women for men to fight over. Men operating in such a parched sexual market will blast online fatties with horrible anti-Game and wife up sluts and single moms. Fertility will collapse from all the men “dropping out” to be one with their fapatoriums, and many ugly, fat, feminist women will find lsmv mates and bear ugly children, ruining the aesthetics of future generations.

Greg Cochran inspired this post with his comments about the insane post-WW2 female-tilted sex skew in Russia, which likely contributed to the Communist wasteland’s eventual collapse a generation later.

Cochran provided a handy dandy graphic to drive home the point about sex skews as an under-appreciated factor in large-scale geopolitical events.

In 1950 in Russia, there were 62 men for every 100 women in the 25-49 age bracket (prime reproduction years). This was the closest earth has come to a Poosy Paradise. An ugly, broke, charmless man in 1950 Russia could pick up 9s and 10s with no Game at all, and have them coming back begging for more of his situational alpha male love because he would have natural Dread Game from his near-limitless options.

In 2017 in Russia, that number had climbed up to 98 men for every 100 women in the 25-49 age bracket. Poosy Party’s over, but a Russia Enlightenment begins.

In 1950, there was a male-favoring sex skew in almost all of Eastern Europe, particular along the Eurasian steppe extending from the Baltics down to Crimea. Post-war Germany, unsurprisingly, also had a sex skew favoring men, although not as pronounced as that experienced by the Soviet Union and its satellites.

By 2017, the sex skew in almost all of Allied Europe has favored women (more men than women), and Russia has bounced back to near numerical reproductive-age parity between the sexes.

Cochran writes,

[The map] shows the sex ratio ( males per 100 females)  of the population aged 25-49 [sic] in a number of European countries in 1950 –  the adult men that do most of the world’s work. Those that produce more than they consume. In Russia, that number was 62, likely lower than anywhere else in the world.

I think one could truthfully say that one reason for the failure of Communism in the Soviet Union was that the heart of the country had been torn out.  Something similar happened in France, in the 1920s and 1930s. People would talk about some problem that need to be solved, or some desirable innovation, and explain that it never happened, because the guy that should have done it died at Verdun.  But it was worse in Russia. And it’s not just the dead: a lot of guys were crippled –  so many that they made Moscow look bad, and therefore were exiled to Central Asia for appearances’ sake.

In part, the Soviet Union failed because  ” an assegai had been thrust into the belly of the nation”. This makes a half-decent excuse: but it would be a better excuse if the Soviets hadn’t done so much of it to themselves.

Still: look at what Khrushchev had to work with.  He had released most of the zeks, wasn’t running show trials, undoubtedly wanted to make Russia great again: but the young, strong, independent-minded men he needed were scarce. Some had died of typhus or famine in the Revolution, some had been shot and buried in Kuropaty Forest. More had died at Vyazma,Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin.

Back in the 1950s, Russia was a lot weaker than it looked.

Yes, but Russia was stronger in one respect: A new generation of Russian beauties was being born.

Cochran may object on genetic computational grounds, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that today Russia, the Baltics, and the EE steppe countries have famously beautiful native women. Those regions went through a male meat grinder (that’s male privilege for ya), and out of that came rapid and intense sexual selection for an exquisite female beauty that has astounded the world.

As often happens, when men lose, women win. And then the surviving men get to enjoy women’s winnings.

Now that Russia has its core of young men restored, go long on the country’s prospects. Thankfully, once a high average female beauty is genetically established in the population, it tends to stick around for many more generations. Russia, not China, may be the story of the 21st Century.

The male-heavy sex skew in most of Europe and America now is an ominous portent. Excess men, each with no (feminine) woman to call his own, suggests a present and future West dominated by beta male thirst, intra-tribal skirmishing, foreign entanglements, rampant polygyny and a consequent growing incel subpopulation, and ugly unfeminine women acting like hard 10s. Mass migration of third world males into the West only exacerbates the problem.

We have entered the Age of Schisms and Solo Jizms.

***

It’s Meme Monday!

PS Must-read: Confessions of a Public Defender (Dindu Nuffins all the way down).

***

vfm#7634 clarifies,

Caveat: a population with excess women also needs low rates of out-of-wedlock births and single mommery. After all, the U.S. gr0id population is also woman-heavy… but still butt-ugly.

Very true. A male selection pressure acting on an abundance of females would have to include 1. male standards, 2. a social stigma against polygyny and 3. an innate disposition toward monogamy (and the concomitant male investment) in order to beautify proceeding generations of women. Otherwise, men will just pump and dump more women instead of invest in higher quality women, and leave a hellscape of single moms in their wake.

Eurasian men meet all three preconditions (generally, with some exceptions for high sociosexual men at the margins).

***

zeta male pondscum cracked me up with this sardonic aside,

Well, since a weak man like me is unlikely to last long in the coming civil unrest, i want you all to know that i bequeath to you all the beautiful young ladies whom i wouldn’t have stood a chance with anyways……

Read Full Post »

WINTER CHAN KISS THIS LAND WITH YOUR FROSTY LIPS AND CAST OUT THE ONE SEASON ITINERANTS AND SUN-BAKED COLONIZERS

If inventions of the White man didn’t exist, there’s a very high probability that the polar vortex shattering records across the northern states would cull a disproportionate number of the resettled tropic-evolved gifts of love.

The best maul-right argument for addressing and reversing global warming* is that it will create an environment favorable to Whites and hostile to invasive tribes.

J.R. strips away the rhetorical fluff,

Europe and North America were cold and hostile places

we invented central heating, AC, supermarkets, and fast food

so now you can easily make it 70 degrees all the time
and have a constant and steady supply of cheap food
that requires almost no effort or intelligence to acquire

we’ve basically recreated Africa

Which means we’ve recreated a dysgenic breeding environment, which affects Whites as well.

HARD ENVIRONMENTS CREATE STRONG MEN
STRONG MEN CREATE EASY ENVIRONMENTS
EASY ENVIRONMENTS CREATE WEAK MEN
WEAK MEN CREATE HARD ENVIRONMENTS

From a reader,

A single winter without modern heating and many northern states would be 99% founding stock again.

A snow-kissed lass.

Seasonal mood music: “Winter Chan“.

PS Twatter has banned users from tweeting “Learn to Code” at fired whorenalists. From Aquinas,

All effective rhetoric will be banned. It is a new axiom. If your online campaign does not end in some kind of banning, then you know it was not effective.

I’m strangely proud that I was among the first wave of Twatter bannings. (And then the second and third waves.)

PPS Since we’re on the subject of snow white purity, if demographic destruction is baked in the cake (see: France, Scandinavia, Anglosphere), then it stands to reason that many if not most of the beleaguered Whites in those rapidly transforming countries would respond by abjectly placating their POC replacements. Once the Fuggernaut becomes unmanageable (IT’S ALIVE) Whites will try to rationalize their dispossession absent the will to fight. “Not to worry, these new vibrant miseries imposed on us by a hostile elite are actually good for us! I’m so happy! Couldn’t be happier!” This is the shitliberalism central tenet. Defying this tenet means you are, in essence, calling out White shitlibs as cowards. That is why they screech in pain.

PPPS My soul is the North.

My heart is the South.

My head is the Midwest.

My erotic anime collection is the West.

***

*I won’t get into the thickets of anthropogenic global warming theory here, except to say that

a. the earth is likely warming a bit, but not as much as warmists claim.

b. humans are probably responsible for some of that warming, but exogenous sources such as solar cycles are downplayed or ignored by shitlibs.

c. shitlib laysoys and shitlib scientists exaggerate the threat (and goose the data when they think no one will hold them accountable — see: NASA, NOAA).

d. we are entering a solar minimum period which will counteract any global warming effects for the next thirty years or so.

e. detached polar vortices are theoretically explainable by current AGW theory (a smaller high latitude-low latitude gradient in upper air temperatures allows the jet stream to meander more wildly, allowing “pieces” of polar air to plunge southward), but of course shitlibs have poisoned the science by retroactively explaining any climate variation, hot or cold, wet or dry, as evidence of AGW.

f. AGW is the substitute religion for shitlibs, and like all zealots they have embraced the apocalyptic overtones of their religion and can’t tolerate heretics. Their AGW religion is rivaled in intensity of belief only by their race denialism religion.

g. In the meantime, the best solution to AGW is mitigation. That includes nuclear power, sea walls, and northward migration, among a bevy of other rational responses to the threat. It DOES NOT mean killing the modern economy by banning oil or requiring governments to give every person in the world a $7K subsidy to buy an electric car. Solar and wind power can fill energy niches, but can’t scale up without massive state subsidies. Batteries are of limited use and cause their own ecological problems. The only energy source, as of now, that can compete with oil in terms of EIEO, is nuclear. If a shitlib you know is against nuclear energy, then that shitlib is not serious about her global warming hysteria.

***

I’ll admit I laughed.

Read Full Post »

Possibly inspired by CH posts exploring the connection between jizz payloads and love, reader SRC introduces the concept of the Orgasm Ratio:

One of the most important things when having sects with a girl for the first time is to never be the first to cūm. If she gets off several times before you, especially after more than one encounter, it flips the sexual adequacy frame on its head. Control the orgasm ratio.

As a general principle, I agree with this, but there can be times when the rule doesn’t apply (see below).

The Orgasm Ratio is essentially a hard-to-spoof proxy for the SMV Ratio. If our premise is that men cum harder and quicker with hotter women (tumescently plausible), then a man who cums first is likely with a woman who is his sex-specific SMV equal or better. He can be said to have NO HAND, while she holds all the leverage over which direction the hookup will go.

If a woman senses this SMV disparity in her favor (she will), then over time she’ll resent her man who reminds her by his premature ejaculation that she can do better. This feeling in her — and his recognition of it — will erode the relationship, until rupture.

In love, the time from rapture to rupture can be surprisingly short, and usually catches the man off-guard.

Getting off first tells a girl two things, equally ominous to you as complimentary to her. One, she knows she arouses you. This flatters her. Two, it causes her to wonder if she’s aiming too low. She resents you for this.

The first night together is the most important time to establish an advantageous orgasm ratio. This is when the tone is set that will color the relationship should it develop. You cum first, and she knows she can use her sex to make you dance. Knowledge like this is corrosive to pussy tingles.

But if you can hold off until she cums first, second, and third, well now she’s primed to think of you as a god among betas, a man with whom she can hardly control herself. A properly calibrated orgasm ratio is a major DHV-to-SMV positively reinforcing feedback loop. With each night together that you heroically delay your release, she will cum harder, and faster, as your value explodes to fill every cranny in her brain.

Added to this primal limbic mix is a dread that slowly consumes her; she fears you may not be “all that into her”, otherwise why the seemingly preternatural ability to delay your payload? Now, as SRC wrote, the sexual adequacy script is flipped. All flings begin with the unconscious, biologically driven premise that the woman is “giving” her body to the man, who is “enjoying” it. She is always sexually adequate; he is always proving his sexual adequacy. But the man who communicates his SMV through a leisurely journey to completion, while allowing his woman to orgasm multiple times atop his tutelage, has essentially co-opted her sexual role. He is giving his boner; she is enjoying it.

The benefit of this is obvious. She now is the one trying to prove herself to him, that she can sexually please him, and the downstream effects of her sexual anxiety are innumerable and delightful….home-cooked meals, generosity of body, heart, and even purse, loyalty, faithfulness, unbreakable love, an eager to please disposition, a sudden awakening to the power of MAGA….

When does the orgasm ratio rule not apply? Every so often, as a gift to her, it helps lubricate the relationship and alleviate tension to “lose control” of yourself. A woman likes to know she arouses her man so much that he occasionally goes primal on her, tearing at clothes, ripping at panties, groping at flesh, slamming against walls and mirrors and headboards, and finishing in a violent crescendo of spent lust.

If you do cum first during the first time in bed — and you will if you’re hitting above your league — the momentum can be saved with a short refractory period and a workmanlike second effort.

And if you fail at this, you’ve still won.

Read Full Post »

A 50-year-old French author named Yann Moix plainly and truthfully stated that most women are sexually and romantically worthless by age 50, and that he, like most men, prefers the “extraordinary bodies” of much younger women.

A 50-year-old French author has sparked outrage by claiming women over 50 are ‘invisible’ to him.

Yann Moix, a TV presenter and prize-winning writer, said it is ‘not possible’ to love a woman his own age and that he prefers ‘younger women’s bodies’.

‘Come on now, let’s not exaggerate. That’s [over 50] is not possible … too, too old,’ he said in an interview with the French edition of Marie Claire.

For a man to love, he first must lust. Old broads don’t inspire lust, so they don’t inspire love, unless they have been married to the same man for a long time and have built up a protective buffer of his affection.

‘The body of a 25-year-old woman is extraordinary,’ he added. ‘The body of a woman of 50 is not extraordinary at all.’

He added that he preferred to date Asian women, particularly ‘Koreans, Chinese and Japanese’.

Naturally, his tsar bomba of realtalk triggered a cacophony of cantankerous catlady caterwauling. Peak Shriek, I call it. This was the best part of the Moix Outrage; the impotent screeching and wailing provoked by what amounts to very banal observations of the human condition. Nothing puts a smile on my face like a wrinkled old pussyhatter blowing a forehead vein.

Get a load of these id droppings from the butt-chafed shrews:

The sexist comments have drawn widespread criticism on social media.

One posted: ‘Yann Moix is 50 and I bet he’s single and no one wants him. Women over any age are beautiful and age shaming is pathetic like he is.’

The Cryfecta:

  1. sour grapes
  2. self-deluding platitude
  3. hilarious same-sentence self-contradiction

More:

By outing himself as a tacky old stereotype, Yann Moix has rendered his entire body of work invisible so I’m cool with his uninspired opinions 🙂

“old stereotype” I thought age was just a number? Like most chicks, she judges a man’s accomplishments by his devotion to sucking up to the whorethodoxy. She’s cool with that *ADDS OBVIOUSLY TRY-HARD SMILEY TO PROJECT INDIFFERENCE*.

Women over 50 don’t want to read or buy your books either.

I’m sure his heart will go on.

Phew! Women like me are breathing a sigh of relief that in another year and too we will be ‘too old’ for bad rubbish like Yann Moix. At last we can breathe in peace. Thank you universe — Deepali Nandwani

The lady doth breathe relievedly too much.

‘People in glass houses!…..have you looked in the mirror?….you don’t look a day over 65.’

Refuting ageism with…ageism.

Twitter users also shared photographs of women over 50, including Halle Berry, 52, Sandra Bullock, 54, and Cindy Crawford, 52.

HAHA oh my sides. How fuckin predictable. Deny biological reality by….posting pics of extreme exceptions to the rule. Exceptions who, btw, were still much hotter when younger than they are in their 50s.

Responding to the outrage, he told RTL radio, he was not ‘responsible’ for his taste in women.

This is the shiv that cuts deepest. Women want SO BADLY to believe that men can change the shape of their desire to find uglier, fatter, older women more attractive, but here comes a very bad man to remind them that men’s arousal is an unconscious, evolved compulsion resistant to social engineering, which just happens to point HARD in the same direction across all cultures and times: toward alluring young beauties.

The comments to this article in the World’s Foremost Newspaper of Record are full of spitting mad catladies who can barely contain their existential pain in between snarls of snark, but refreshingly the comments generally support Moix. For example, check out the ratio of likes and dislikes between the best-rated and worst-rated comments.

Best-rated (from a woman):

A lot if men think like that. He has just vocalised it. Speaking as a 53 year old woman, he is right in most cases. My body is not the same as it was in my twenties, it has more lumps and gravity takes it toil despite my healthy lifestyle, so of course a twenty something woman will seem more desirable. The same is true of men though. My OH goes to the gym and takes care of himself but his body is different to his 20 something self. However, we are not just our bodies. Attraction takes place due to a myriad of reasons, personality, wit, intelligence. I would not want to see this French guy’s naked body either, but might want to take a look at his son’s! There will be 20 something women reading this and distancing themselves from this, thinking that ageing will never happen to them, but it will. My advice to them, never find validation in another person’s gaze. You are more than your looks.

–2216 upvotes, 53 downvotes

Worst-rated (from a man):

He is absolutely right. There is nothing like the feel of young skin and flesh. Who wants an old broiler when there are so many young chicks out there. Well done for saying it, Sir.

–168 upvotes, 281 downvotes

The best-rated comment essentially recapitulated Moix’s point and earned a 42:1 like-to-dislike ratio, while the worst-rated comment did the same with fewer and funnier words and earned a 1.7:1 dislike-to-like ratio.

In short, the indignant deluded are greatly outnumbered by the cheerfully awakened.

Read Full Post »

Vixen signaling.

She looks like she has enough experience to know.

Trevor Goodchild provides the capstone,

This is the ideal Clownworld female. You may not like it, but this is what peak hypergamy and lack of social feedback loops looks like.

Remember the CH post about men experiencing better sex with hotter women? ANALogously, women experience better sex with more inconsiderate men. This isn’t a looks thing for women. A handsome niceguy won’t rock her womb like a beat-up jerkboy will. The Aloof Asshole Attitude is the special romantic ingredient that adds heat to a girl’s pink pleat.

Gently make love to the typical Americunt? Get outta here with that softbore coring. Toss her around like a rag doll and slap her face with your dick? Now you’re cooking with fash!

PS That thing to the t-shirt girl’s right? I bet it calls its dog “ruth bader ginsbark”.

***

Segueing the topic of this post to Game, Bdog comments,

I heard that exact phrase from a girl I met at a hostel last night (maybe it’s a meme? I wouldn’t know).

Here’s how it happened:

Halfway through the pickup she called me an asshole. I agreed and pointed to an omega guy nearby and said I would introduce her to the dude, since I’m an asshole and he looked super nice.

That’s when she said: ‘Yeah but nice guys cant fuck.’

No need to say what happened later that night.

Btw I 100% recommend offering to hook your target with another guy during pickup – it’s an incredibly powerful attraction spike.

Co-sign. This is a great reframe when a girl INDIGNANTLY *wink wink* calls you an asshole: Agree & Alternative.

SMASHER OF THOTPUSSY: “Yup, I’m an asshole. But that [omega male] over there looks nice. Right up your alley. I’ll introduce you to him.”

GIRL: “Wew, I’m sliding off my seat!”

***

From commenter sartaglo,

The shirt is available in XXL, for those with massive cognitive dissonance.

Read Full Post »

A few readers suggested it was time for another female beauty ranking contest. I agree. In these Ugly times, we need all the moments of Beauty we can get.

The same rules apply as in earlier Female Beauty Ranking posts:

…rank order the ten photos below, assigning a number between 1 and 10 inclusive for each photo. DO NOT USE A NUMBER MORE THAN ONCE. The photos are in no particular order. [Pics were chosen that] represent a woman at each point on the 1 to 10 beauty scale.

The best way to do this without biasing your ratings is to first look at all the photos before ranking them. Then go back and judge like a god. The idea behind this rather pleasurable exercise is to demonstrate the conformity of men’s attractiveness standards…

[…]

I also predict, as before in the first female ranking exercise, that the most disagreement will occur in the middle rankings — 4,5,6 — where a woman’s looks tend to blend in with the masses of other women along the fat part of the bell curve, and at the very upper end where great battles will be fought to decide who is the 10.

I’ve avoided posting pics of grossly obese or very old women, because fat and age obscure any natural facial beauty. For the most part, obese women and old women are zeroes on the female SMV scale.

BONUS:

Girl Next Door ranking:

PS This entire post is an Easter egg of sorts.

***

The Easter Eggs, in order from top to bottom:

A young Melania Trump
Alexandria Of-Color
Nancy Pelosi’s daughter
Yuki the sexbot
Masha Gessen
David Hogg (lightly airbrushed)
Allison Mack (head groomer for Nvxium sex cult leader Raniere)
Rebecca Reid (new media feminist and distantly former model)
Elke Sommer (Swede, and first name of the very first girl who made me feel all funny inside)
Stephanie something yada yada (just another dumbshit feminist)
Mollie Tibbetts (sacrificed to the Diversity God)

Read Full Post »

A man can lust for a slut.

But a man can never truly love a slut.

That pang of disgust will always be there, pulling at the bonds of intimacy, until a split or a quiet loveless resignation resolves the dissonance.

***

Men are disgusted by sluts on a visceral level when commitment is being considered, because a slut represents a cuckoldry risk to the man who should make the mistake of honoring her with his monogamous sacrifice.

***

Fatties don’t lust for fatties.

Feminists don’t lust for soyboys.

And now…science SEZ…

Sluts don’t want to be friends with sluts.

College-aged women judge promiscuous female peers — defined by bedding 20 sexual partners by their early 20s — more negatively than more chaste women and view them as unsuitable for friendship, finds a study by Cornell University developmental psychologists.

Notably, participants’ preference for less sexually active women as friends remained even when they personally reported liberal attitudes about casual sex or a high number of lifetime lovers.

From a reader, “study defined promiscuous as 20 partners by early 20s. that’s how far we’ve sunk…”.

Twenty partners over a LIFETIME would have qualified a woman as an unmarriageable slattern not so long ago.

Another reader,

I don’t know if women hate anything as much as they hate competition.

Nothing drives down the price of women lower than other women willing to give it away for free. Even sluts know that it only takes a sluttier woman to start a race to the omega male bottom.

Darth Curmudgeon agrees,

A single slut in a world of virtuous women would be a potent force. A slut in a world of sluts is just, well, a slut.

The frenulum always swings back.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: