Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

A reader can barely contain his (her?) excitement.

Holy cow, CH! Do you realize what a smash a “rise of the sex robots” movie would be? How prophetic, how powerful,  how promotional of shiv-right values? I hope you’ve got something in the works, or at least a treatment copyrighted. Nobody has foreseen the dystopian ramifications the way you have,  as far as I know. Nobody is better talented to tell the tale. And certainly nobody deserves more to profit from his unique insights. Get scribing, my man!


I preen. It’s funny you should mention this now, M7, because I’ve recently been mulling the idea of a dystopian fright-fi book about a lovelorn beta male who genuinely falls in love with his Class Sharapova sexbot, and whose satiation tragically compels him to spurn the surprising affection of a flesh and blood plain jane who yearns for a family. My idea was for the story to focus on the uncanny intimacy that develops between the two main characters as their love (or maybe just his love, as the AI would not have yet progressed to undetectable emulation of human emotion), disturbing in concept yet tender in execution, pulses against a backdrop of civilization rapidly yielding to a cataclysmic sex market disruption that dwarfs the schism online porn and obesity had caused the prior generation.

It’s not like the real world isn’t serving up daily reminders that sexbots are coming, sooner than we care to think.

Certainly there have been a few movies that have tackled this subject, if tangentially or farcically. Her, Austin Powers, Blade Runner, Cherry 2000, The Stepford Wives, and the underrated indie psych-thriller Ex Machina come to mind. But none of these movies, except maybe Her and Ex Machina, really explored the sensual and psychological possibilities of sexbot love in context with the cultural upheaval that sexbots would doubtlessly unleash on advanced hedonistic civilizations. That’s where I hope to fill the gap, so to speak.

Read Full Post »

How rare is female beauty? The answer to this question has yuge implications for the functioning of the sexual market and the average man’s odds of landing himself a cutie-pie. Reader Wrecked ‘Em tries to get a handle on the raw numbers, and cleverly draws a connection to the normal distribution of IQ among humans:

If you take the HB10 scale to generally mean a normal distribution with mean = 5 and standard deviation = 1, it works out reasonably well.

7 = 1 woman in 44
8 = 1 woman in 741
9 = 1 woman in 31,574

With a global female population of 3.52 billion there would be 1,009 “10s” in the world. That’s a reasonable definition of an HB10: “one of the 1,000 most beautiful women in the world”.

Makes an interesting comparison to IQ…

7 = IQ 130
8 = IQ 145 (low bound for “genius”)
9 = IQ 160

Like IQs above 150, at some point it becomes difficult to “test” since IQ and beauty aren’t like horsepower — better to get them together and sort them into a closed-order ranking based on their own opinion of each other.

Let’s assume (justifiably) that the 1-to-10 scale of female beauty predominately applies to under-35 women. Aging has such a deleterious effect on women’s looks that the 1-10 ranking no longer sufficiently captures the over-35 woman’s negative contribution to the normal distribution curve of female beauty. There are so few 7s, let alone 9s and 10s, among women older than 40 that to include them in the data set would dramatically skew the beauty curve to the left side, where the has-beens reside.

Given the above age-adjusted correction, there is still a problem with Wrecked ‘Em’s statistical premise. To wit: If you live in a region with lots of under-30 women who haven’t let themselves bloat into lardasses, you might be surprised to learn that only 1 out of 44 of them qualify as an HB7 (or higher). The reality is different than a normal distribution of female beauty would suggest; there are way more bangable 7s strolling around our urban fertility sinks than 1-in-44. I’d say the number of 7s or higher in any given population of White, under-30, slender* girls is closer to 1-in-5.

What gives? Well, I propose that the female beauty curve for prime fertility women (ages 15 to 25) is right-skewed. That is, if excess adiposity is avoided, a larger share of fertile young women than is inferred under a normal distribution are cute enough to impregnate.

That right skew in fertile female beauty is hard to quantify, but readers are welcome to take a shiv at it. Now you can argue that one man’s 7 is another man’s 5, but the real world evidence refutes you; most men pretty much agree on which women are 7s, which are 9s, and which are LSMV pawns in your master plan to womanize the fuck out of this gay earth.

So we’re left with the problem of graphing the distribution of a primally fertile female sub-population that has more 6s, 7s and 8s in it than a normal distribution would predict. (Although perhaps not many more 9s and 10s; extreme right or left tail rarity isn’t budged that much by an overall skew in the entire demographic.) My guess is that between the ages of 15 and 25, the representation of HB7s is triple what you would find in a perfectly normal distribution of female beauty.

What about the left side of the female beauty curve? Meh, WGAF. But for shits and giggles, gross obesity (but I repeat myself) has clearly increased the ranks of women in the unfuckable 1-3 categories. Regular, height-weight proportionate unattractive girls (plain janes) still exist, but their relative numbers have been crushed (heh) by the growing (heh) class of fat chicks. In a healthy America, say, 10% of women would be 4s; in a super-sized America, only 5% would be 4s because half of the 4s would have gotten fat and demoted themselves to 3s and 2s and “I’d sooner pork an apple pie”s.

Perhaps, then, the Current Year prime fertility female beauty curve looks more like a camel’s double-hump: lots of, ironically, sexually invisible fatties, and enough bangable slender babes to keep men at least partially invested in making a go at it rather than surrendering entirely to Pornhub. As age gathers, the female beauty curve starts to resemble a normal distribution, until a sexual worthlessness inflection point is reached and nearly all the women bunch up on the far left-behind side of the curve.

*Obesity so badly damages women’s SMV that there are wide (heh) swaths of the USA where barely any young women are attractive enough to inspire thoughts of the bang.

PS Comparison of the extreme tails is revealing. My hunch is that the left tail of female looks is longer/fatter than the right tail. If 1-in-30,000 women are 9s, then 1-in-300 are 2s. And this mismatch accords with personal observation. It’s probably a consequence of the sheer number of genetic permutations that have to go right to produce a 9, as opposed to the relatively light demands placed on the God of Biomechanics to produce a 2. (Basically, Nature stops de-bugging her code, and lets the mutational load run havoc.)

Read Full Post »


That’s Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin. Photo was taken sometime in the 1970s, I’d guess.

As a psychological experiment, its raw unapologetic essence can’t be topped for rudely revealing the fundamental psychosexual difference shaping male and female desire. Both men and women — at least normal, sexually dimorphic men and women and not bitter androgynous blobs — would feel sexually aroused by this photo.

Which really says all you need to know about the sexes. Men are aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman submitting to a dominant man administering disciplinary blows to her backside. Men imagine themselves in the role of the man in the photo, and become excited.

Women are aroused by the sight of a dominant man exerting his uncompromising power over a vulnerable woman surrendering to her punishment. Women imagine themselves in the role of the beautiful woman in the photo, and become excited.

If you could only know one thing about women, this photo, and how men and women react differently to its stimuli, is sufficient to guide you through life.

Read Full Post »

Reader Mutant Seven gushes,

CH, your trolling of Joyce Carol Oats is one of the highlight of my day! I read your tweets with my morning coffee before work and they put me in a sunny mood for the rest of the day. She just keeps barfing up the same tony progressive cliches, and you just keep swatting them aside one by one. The time you suggested she may be suffering from toxoplasma gondii was a hilarious zenith, but today’s unrelenting rope-a-dope was like a marathon of mirth. Thanks for the good times!

Believe me, the pleasure was all mine. For those wondering what this is about, click here, or here, for representative excerpts of the CH-Joyce Traveling Shiv Show. Unfortunately, it looks like Joyce, finally!, blocked yer magnanimous soul-carver after a year of shiv twists that would have left a sane cat lady yenta reaching for her pills by day two of her Twatter torment.

I don’t have a particular animus for Joyce beyond her service to me as a stand-in for every aging shitlib spinster with the gall to think she can happily waltz into a rhetorical freefire zone without receiving a .50 caliber shiv to the id, and unload a Lifetime Channel’s worth of vapid (((anti-White platitudes))) while operating under the impression her boilerplate liberalism counts as deeply suppressed truths.

For all practical purposes, Joyce was my muse to abuse, as a lesson for the others. That lesson?

Their time as race equalism propagandists shielded from blowback by the media Hivemind and from inside insular liberal cryodomes scattered along the US coasts is over. There’s a new paradigm in town. The front line is everywhere.

Read Full Post »

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.


That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

Read Full Post »

This is pithy. Commenter plumpjack describes the multivariate correlates of the Shitlord Era.


all attention-whoring, approval/validation-seeking, politically-correct, manipulative, disingenuous behavior is to be OPENLY MOCKED.

The Shitlord Era is one vast and ecumenical trolling company, for whom all high T men will work to serve an alternative narrative, in which all men will wield a share of the shiv. All cuckservatives derided, all shitlibs discredited, all circus freaks abused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Trump, to be the Shitlord Era’s avatar.

“I have seen the face of Realtalk.”

You may very well have.

Read Full Post »

This song could be the rapefugee anthem. Listen to young women, really listen, and you’ll come to realize the ancients were wise to cut women off from political influence.

A quick Crimson Pilled analysis of the lyrics.

Ohhh Ohh Ohhh Ohhh Ohhhh Ohhhh

She’s orgasming just anticipating the noncommittal attention of a bad boy.

Ask me to stay and I’m not gonna leave
Don’t make me wait with my heart on my sleeve
Cause I won’t go ‘less you want me to
I’d surrender it all for you

She would sacrifice her first-born for the love of a bad boy.

Friends turn to foes I don’t know who to trust
You say I worry, I worry too much
But I can’t help what I’m feeling now
I just want us to be somehow

Is her bad boy cheating? Careless whispers! Suspicion of his unfaithfulness only intensifies her love for him.

I said there’s somethin ’bout the bad boys
That makes the good girls
Fall in Love

They are bad, ergo they are lovable.

Clear as a crystal or sharp as a knife
Words will be words ’til you bring them to life
Show the whole world that you’re mine alone
Tell them girls to go find their own

Female preselection boosts male sexual market value. She loves that other girls are after her bad boy, but her erotic power is so complete he ignores the others to be with her. Or so she tells herself.

(and if you’re no good for me)
Don’t leave me stranded

She can only take so much foot-dragging (measured in prime years wasted).

(and if you’re no good for me)
Don’t lead me on

Shit or get off the pot.

(and if you’re no good for me)
I’d rather feel abandoned

Better to have loved and lost a bad boy, than to never have known a bad boy’s love at all.

(and if you’re no good for me)
Please be gone

She has to beg her intransigent bad boy to dump her, because she doesn’t have the inner strength to do it herself. This is a good time to remind yourself that hot girls have no trouble dumping non-bad boys on the flimsiest of pretexts.

PS Zara Larsson, the singer, is Hey Nineteen in this video.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: