Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

White man-black woman couples are exceedingly rare. Not as rare as asian man-black woman couples, but close to that level of rarity. In the past year, I can recall seeing maybe five WM/BW couples.

Given the small sample size, it’s difficult to identify patterns and generalize about the traits of WM/BW pairings. But I will try. Here’s what I’ve noticed (take it with a grain of salt-n-pepa).

– The White men drilling for oil are usually big nerdy galoots. They are tall and burly, but walk with an ungainly lope. Nevertheless, they could probably win a few fights if their lives depended on it. (Being big, however nerdy, also helps stay the impulsive beatdown fists of any black men who see the Towering White Nerd with his black girlfriend.)

– If I had to guess based on appearance alone, I’d say the White men with the black gfs make a reasonable living and aren’t likely to stray.

– The black women in WM/BW couples aren’t particularly facially pretty, but they are all thin. And they don’t have steatopygous ghetto glutes. Their figures resemble the bodies of well-muscled, athletic White women.

– The black women dating White men are very dark. Almost purple. This might seem strange, but their dark skin contradicts their facial features, which tend toward less prognathism and more toward a Horn of Africa caucasian-ness. Don’t get me wrong; they will never be mistaken for dark-skinned White women, but their black features are more exotic than urban hood rat.

– I suspect the black women dating White men are African immigrants, or 2nd or 3rd generation removed from immigrant parents, going by their skin darkness, noticeable lack of permanent scowl, and fashion sense (which is understated and in line with the style norms for White women).

– I have never seen a WM/BW couple with a mystery meat kid in tow. The couples’ rarity of occurrence might explain this, or…… the White men jump ship before marriage and kids loom large in their black girlfriends’ minds.

My theory: White men who date outside the race do it for the exotic bedroom pleasure factor, not for the affordable family formation reason. A White male shitlib will never admit this, but when thrust comes to buns the arid subconscious calculation of the inherited traits, positive or negative, of any mixed race child will give him pause. And the typical White male shitlib, for all his virtue signaling, secretly knows the score on race and genetics.

So, one may ask, why don’t White women who burn the coal make the same subconscious calculations before shitting out a mocha chip? First, mudsharks are generally low sexual market value; fat, ugly, dumb, and low class. Without black men to service them, they might never get laid and conceive a child. Second, women can be their own worst enemies when a dominant or charming man raises their horny level. Women don’t get climbing-the-walls horny very often as a rule, which means that once aroused they are capable of making horrible mistakes of judgment.

Cheers!

PS It’s my impression that, despite the rarity, the numbers of WM/BW couples have increased in recent years, keeping in line with US Census Bureau data that mixed race couples have increased by a nontrivial number in the past two decades. The Council on Igloo Affairs cackled with glee.

Read Full Post »

Can we spare a moment for some brisk Realtalk that’s liable to send a certain contingent reaching for their smelling salts? Facials are hot. The giving of them, if you’re a man (or a man not named John Scalzi). The receiving of them, if you’re a woman (or a man named John Scalzi).

Check that, if you’re a certain kind of woman.

Depraved though facials may be, there’s no denying the act’s electrifying sexual charge. A facial is the Pollock splattered symbol of incontestable ownership by the man of his woman. It isn’t the Christian thing to do, but damn me if the devil’s bedroom blueprint isn’t a schematic leading straight to the jizz-soaked id.

The catch-22 is that the woman who will eagerly welcome into her face and upturned eyes the beatific brandishing of your white hot boner brew is not the woman you’d trust to leave alone for more than a week without a champion series labia lock set to impregnable.

It is the reality of woman: she who most excites your manly humors is she who least assures your manly honor.

My advice: If you love a woman, and you love the idea of giving her a facial, try it out. If she allows it, but only after expressing an initial and thereafter rolling reluctance, (i.e., she puts up some resistance and isn’t parting at the lips to try it again), she’s your long time gal instead of your good time gal.

Read Full Post »

If you get the opportunity to snort c*ke off a girl’s ass, only one thought will go through your mind, blandly and iteratively.

“Here I am, snorting c*ke off a girl’s ass.”

The whole experience is meta to the max; audience to your own theater. The arietta will be accompanied by a syncopation of contrived eroticism, which nonetheless won’t much diminish its melodic exhilaration, because something beastly and primal is exposed by the indiscriminate consumption. But the passion, tacitly scripted, will in recollection seem quite silly the next day under the harsh glare of a noontime sun.

hi, nsa!

hi, nsa!

Read Full Post »

Charles Darwin – yes, that guy – once drew up a pro and con list for getting married. His list is reprinted here, in readable format.

darwinmarrynot

The standard Chateau view of marriage is that it is a raw deal for individual American men, as currently constituted, (it wasn’t always thus). However, there are good reasons for monogamous, heterosexual marriage to continue as a cultural norm and societal buttress. Ol’ Charlie hit on a number of the pros. It’s really not a good idea to have children outside of marriage, particularly over the long term (single mommyhood erodes civilizational capital). Over the short term, it’s still a bad idea unless you belong to one of the few human races in the world (think: Swedes) who can handle having children within an unmarried, cohabitational context. (The verdict is out on how sustainable the Swedish method is, considering how quickly their evolved suite of mental characteristics compels them to hand their country over to the kebab crush.)

fr tho, Darwin’s other marriage pros could nearly as easily be gotten with a live-in long-term girlfriend, but to give him credit that was most certainly not the case back in his day. Also,😆 at “Better than a dog, anyhow”.

A lot of Darwin’s marriage cons are inarguable; men must betray their masculine urge to wander and explore once they are hitched to home and wife. Most men aren’t keen about keeping themselves in good graces with relatives; women have much more affinity for nurturing family ties. It is absolutely true that wives, and to a lesser extent husbands, get fat and lazy after marriage. A wife and family are a responsibility that will cut into a man’s free time, (many men are ok with trading in their free time for the comforts of domestication). Less money? Sure. (Don’t be fooled by the lure of a double income. Wives – and long-time cohabitating girlfriends – will just spend twice as fast and twice as much what they spent when they were single.)

Darwin was very concerned about an increase in his “anxiety” from marriage, as he wrote it twice. Potential marital money problems vexed him, too. The provider beta was a real catch in Darwin’s day that isn’t as true today. Women didn’t HATE HATE HATE betas back then with the same bubbling spite. But the ability of a provider beta in the Darwin era to leverage his provisioning skill for prime poon meant that he couldn’t slack off and give his date a bag of Skittles for her birthday, and recline smugly knowing a blowjob was coming his way regardless. Jerkboy Game in Darwin’s time probably had more limited appeal to women than it does today.

Read Full Post »

A critically important topic scissored through a recent CH comment thread: What if we could view a woman’s bush as a window to her soul?

Someone posted a pic of a nude German woman in Cologne protesting against the Muslim #rapefugees. (Public nudity appears to be a favorite protest tactic of late stage Teutonic White women).

pumpanddumpbush

PA responded,

I’m being quite serious and not prurient when I say this: her protest would have more visual impact if she had a full bush rather than a shaved clam.

I can’t take a woman seriously as a woman [if] her crotch looks like an aged preteen girl’s.

Shaved vaginas have been a thing for at least a decade now, possibly longer, but no matter how many women jump on the naked mole rat bandwagon the image of a completely shorn mons veneris will always emit a perfume of puerility, a fragrance of frivolity, a scent of selfishness, an essence of egotism, an incense of immaturity, and a tang of treachery.

PA then posted a pic of a woman sporting what was in his consideration a well-formed bush, a bush that inspires men to poetic acts of devotion, and with equal emphasis exhibits by its sexy cilia both a charming, girlish vulnerability and a seductive, adult femininity.

marrybush

Tying it all together, Carlos Danger remarks,

PA, I’m old enough to remember guys who really really liked a hairy hairy bush. What you showed is a very modest and feminine natural bush. I had to point that out because no one sees it anymore. That bush is marriage material bush as a matter of fact.

A small, well-contoured, and decorously delineated bush is also a leading indicator of youth and prime fertility. That, more than any other, is the reason it is maximally arousing to the maximum number of men. A shorn bush evokes prepubescence (not good for reproduction) and a big unkempt bush is the misty jungle canopy of the aging beauty whose hormone profile tipped over and capsized into androgen-dominant, estrogen-recessive territory (also not good for reproduction).

We all know the Marry, Fuck, Kill game, right? (If you read this blog, you should.) Well, this post subject is the bush league version of that pickup game. The trim, tight and White bush in the second photo above is marriage material bush. Perfect in every way, like Baby Bear’s porridge; not too porny, not too hairy. Turns you on with just a hint of the good stuff hiding underneath, and keeps you around with its fluffily faithful promise to eschew nose piercings, tramp stamps, race cucking, and mudsharking.

The naked mole rate in the first photo is a pump and dump candidate. The non-bush is the slut’s beacon to the world’s wave-tossed cocks. Safe harbor here… for the night.

What about the type of bush that screams out “Kill me!”?

bushhead

The growly über-bush also goes by the name “antifa bush”. This is because the kudzu of beaver bush is a nightmare vision that one will often see, if one should be so unfortunate (or hard up), on antifa females (the approbation “woman” feels wrong to apply to them). (So I have been told and can easily surmise; no first-hand experience with it, thank you very much).

antifa

A hundred bucks says she’s got a woolly mammoth in her man panties. Yeeeuck. Kill. Kill. Kill the bush. Off the cliff, with a push.

Read Full Post »

Reader IHTG passed along this photographic progress report of a girl who, presumably, improved herself from a flatbread plain jane 5 (PJ5) to a lordotically pleasing HB8 by hitting the squat rack and improving her posture, (and by discovering the allure of the come-hither smile).

I say “presumably” because I don’t know the provenance of this photo. It’s possible, though unlikely, that she got Brazilian butt implants. Also, photoshop, but I don’t see any telltale giveaways.

However, what she has done to her body by improving so dramatically its ability to arouse men is something I have seen happen to women who hit the squat rack for a couple of years. Yes, a commitment to the king of exercises — the squat — will, without exception and at any age, carve a better ass out of a woman. The squat is truly a girl’s best friend. I have yet to see a girl at the gym who spent any significant time squatting with anything less than a temptingly tap-able turdcutter.

Oh, and don’t be a fatty, ladies. (sadly, it needs to be said)

***

PA protests,

I agree with the spirit of the post but that steatopygous ass is disgusting.

Yesterday coming up a subway escalator, I saw a perfect ass. It was intoxicating. Leggy girl in jeans. It looked a bit like this:

I agree (as would most White men) that the girl in this photo has a nicer body than the kardashianette above. Slender, tight, and pert without the gross hindquarter ostentation typical of the jungly women. I should probably clarify (for the record): Redhead with the bubble butt is more fuckable than Redhead with the flat ass. Butt Redhead with the 2014 vintage ass is just right. (You can see lots of pics of Redhead here on her Instawhore.)

Steatopygous primate asses are all the rape rage right now; likely this reflects a combination of Western negro worship and a shift in the sexual market to r-selection strategies which emphasize presentation, sluttery and good-to-go authenticity. A truly beautiful White European women’s figure tends to exhibit plumpness in the breasts and ass in balanced proportion, anchored on pleasingly wide birthing hips and retaining a decorous femininity that allures rather than assaults.

Read Full Post »

This is a shibboleth-smashing study sure to give ugly feminists (but I repeat myself) and game-hating tradcons the hives.

Attachment Styles of Women-Younger Partners in Age-Gap Relationships.

Women have evolved to seek an older mate, however, research has shown negative opinions toward these relationships if the age-gap is significant. The most popular opinion is that women who date men that are 10 years or more their senior have an unhealthy relationship with their father. We investigated women-younger partners in age-gapped heterosexual romantic relationships to see if they differ in attachment styles when compared with women in similar-age relationships. We predicted that women in age-gap relationships will be predominantly securely attached, because it is evolutionary beneficial for women to seek older mates, and that there will be no significant difference in attachment styles between women in age-gap versus similar-age relationships. The common belief that the women who choose much older partners because of having “daddy issues” was unfounded in this study. There was no significant difference in attachment styles between the 2 groups, and 74% of the women in age-gap relationships were securely attached. Results are consistent with the limited literature on age-gap relationships regarding attachment style and relationship satisfaction. This study adds to the growing body of literature on attachment style and offers insight into the less-explored age-gap relationship dynamic.

There’s nothing psychologically unhealthy about an older man seeking a much younger woman or a younger woman loving a much older man. “Daddy issues” is just the butthurt bleat of envious beta males and bitterbitch aging females desperately trying to pathologize a natural expression of love and passion-inducing sexual polarity.

This is yet more laboratory proof from the whitecoats affirming the field observations of the common man; in this case, that women place less emphasis on men’s physical attributes than men do on women’s physical attributes, and more emphasis on other attractive male traits like personality, social status, resources, dominance, self-possession, confidence, and maturity.

So men, go ahead and fall in love with that barely legal beauty. You have less to worry about her motivations than you do about the jealousy and resentment you’ll provoke in everyone else who can’t stand to see you happy.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,589 other followers

%d bloggers like this: