Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

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 »

There are three abiding truths about chicks and their attraction for jerks.

  • Women have always had, and will always have, a big place in their hearts for charismatic jerkboys.

  • The romantic allure of charismatic jerkboys is stronger than the romantic allure of dependable niceguys, in nearly all circumstances.
  • There are environmental conditions that can repress or amplify women’s innate love for jerks.

In this post I make the case that we are living in a Golden Age for Charismatic Jerkboys.

Note: I did not say we are living in a Golden Age “of” charismatic jerkboys. Rather, the age is ripe for jerks, should they assert themselves, to exploit the presently configured sexual market to their hedonistic benefit.

It’s not a surprise that, among those nethers-deep in the American dating scene, there is a shared opinion that jerks do especially well with women. It’s neither a coincidence that this opinion has disseminated through the dank and vile with the same gusto that the overarching culture alternately chest thumps and whimpers its way toward a new norm of masculinized women and feminized men.

All one need do is peruse the SJW oeuvre on the usual striver media outlets for accumulating evidence of an epidemic of low T faggotry sweeping through Millennial manlets. Men, White men mostly, have become cringing, feminist boilerplate reciting, race cucked suck-ups to every group making a claim against their impudent White male privilege.

Opposing this gathering effeminacy are the women, who seem hellbent to secure the blessings of frat bro licentiousness to themselves and their twerking posteriors. No one seriously argues that megaphony feminists aren’t mostly a collection of ugly manjaws with masculine behavioral profiles. But there remained hope that screeching feminist stridency was a niche market, leaving the wider society unscathed.

That hope may be premature, if vagnettes like this one recounted by Jonathan Haidt, the popularizer of the five moral senses that distinguish shitlibs from normals, are indicative of scenes across the fruitless plains.

Mean girls and cowed boys. A sure recipe for sexlessness and false rape accusations, leavened with romantic entreaties for pre-kiss consent forms and Title IX Damegeld.

This is the manginarrific milieu the amused jerkboy find himself navigating. And if he is perceptive, he’ll know this means his time is now.

How so? Think about the CH maxim that the best way to understand women is first to accept the disconnect between their words and actions. When leaned-in careerist tankgrrls shriek against slut shaming, the patriarchy, and phalloaggressions, as sycophantic eunuchs scrape and bow before the clitdick juggernaut, these women are really projecting a mournful need for the ministrations of the very type of men they hold up as exemplars of chauvinist misogyny.

The weakness and effeminacy of the males around them is the very triggering (or one such triggering) that impels women to lash out at men in the aggregate; and, as is the wont of the supremely rationalizing sex, to lash out specifically at a fantasy simulacrum of the exciting, dangerous, sexually irresistible badboy who is regrettably missing from their alpha-parched lives.

The charismatic jerkboy will stand out as a sexual savior from among this melange of mewling manboobs. His product, so rare and valuable in a sexual market saturated with softies, will be sought after with a vengeance by economically self-sufficient and urban heat island-anonymized women intoxicated to apoonplexy from the merest whiff of unapologetic, sexually entitled alpha maleness.

We are currently living in an environment that is amplifying women’s desire for jerks. What was once a latent female lust, controllable with the proper societal and peer inputs, for the ZFG jerk has exploded into a delirious hunger that no social control, even if it was available and willing to be deployed, could possibly dampen now.

Women HATE HATE HATE weak men, with the same passionate revulsion that men HATE HATE HATE uglyfat women. Of course, few women have the cognitive awareness or discipline, or the sadistic stones, to come right out and say they hate male weakness, so they engage in a little of the ol’ ultratransference of their negative feelings onto socially approved targets of hate, i.e., sexy patriarchal jerkboys.

So every time there’s a public showing where beta manlets once again perform down to feminist lapdog expectations, the howl of women for the heads of wished-for patriarchs on spikes intensifies. And, every time an amused jerkboy steps into this chaos to plunder the down under, he walks away from the scene of his 50 shades of crime glowingly reviewed by those very same shrews. In fact, his pleasure vessels might send him a post-cortical thank you note for his efforts to restore their faith in mankind.

Lesson for aspiring jerkboys: Stop paying attention to what women say, and start giving them what they truly, deeply, want. Your journey begins on your feet, instead of at hers.

Read Full Post »

Continuing on the theme of “WOMEN…THEY REALLY ARE NOTHING LIKE MEN”, another study (h/t Arbiter) finds that not only are rape fantasies common among the female of the species, but, contrary to conventional tradcon wisdom, it’s the HIGH SELF-ESTEEM women who have the most frequent and pleasurable rape fantasies.

This study evaluated explanations of rape fantasy in a sample of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a sexual fantasy checklist which included eight types of rape fantasy, participants’ detailed descriptions of a rape fantasy they have had, a rape fantasy scenario audio presentation, and measures of personality. Three explanations of rape fantasy were tested: openness to sexual experience, sexual desirability, and sexual blame avoidance. Women who were higher in erotophilia and self-esteem and who had more frequent consensual sexual fantasies and more frequent desirability fantasies, particularly of performing as a stripper, had more frequent rape fantasies. Women who were higher in erotophilia, openness to fantasy, desirability fantasies, and self-esteem reported greater sexual arousal to rape fantasies. Sexual blame avoidance theory was not supported; sexual desirability theory was moderately supported; openness to sexual experience theory received the strongest support.

It appears women have rape fantasies because… wait for it… it TURNS THEM ON. Which makes sense. Fantasy is based on real desire. (For proof of this, ask yourself when was the last time a woman admitted she fantasized about sex with a dutiful beta provider.)

Rape fantasies aren’t reactions to negative real life experiences or evidence of imbalanced psychologies; quite the opposite, rape fantasies are the domain of women who think highly of themselves and are comfortable with their sexuality.

Arbiter interjects,

Yet another finding that contradicts the feminist worldview. The women who like sex the most and are the most daring, are the ones who fantasize about rape the most. These are the toughest women, the most independent women.

Feminists claim that “rape is about control”. It is “a way for men to control women”. In that case it should be the women who feminists consider traitors who have the most rape fantasies, shouldn’t it? The women who are the most “submissive”, women who are obedient slaves to the evil men, shy and afraid, quiet as a mouse, “seen but not heard” and all the things feminists imagine about conservative women since they don’t know any. Instead it’s the toughest women who enjoy rape fantasies the most, since rape is about sex, not the “patriarchy’s” control.

What’s equally interesting is why women who are lower in sociosexuality and in self-esteem have fewer reported rape fantasies. Maybe they are less honest about their true desires, thinking them shameful? Or maybe they simply have lower libidos than more erotically feminine women, and this is reflected in their lower incidences of the sorts of sexual/romantic fantasies that preoccupy the female hindbrain.

Read Full Post »

…and fantasies are based on real desires.

The nature of women’s rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents.

This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates. For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week. In contrast to previous research, which suggested that rape fantasies were either entirely aversive or entirely erotic, rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive.

When fantasy becomes all too real, women’s true desires still shine through like a heartlight.

Among college-aged women,approximately 40% of rape victims report continuing to date their attackers (Wilson and Durrenberger 1982; Koss 1989).Women’s positive expectations for a relationship correlated to self-blame and reduced anger in response to coercion (Macy et al.2006).

Pulp romance novels featuring badboys, jerkboys, and yes, rapeboys, are a $1.4 billion-a-year market (consumed almost entirely by women). Erotica-slash-porn for women is by far the most popular book genre. This tells us something very profound about women and their sexual nature that frightens feminists and tradcons alike. But we shouldn’t shy from confronting sex differences, however distasteful or discomfiting, just as we shouldn’t shy from confronting uncomfortable truths about race differences.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,542 other followers

%d bloggers like this: