Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

Remember that unfunnygirl who performed a social science experiment up to the rigorous standards set by academic feminists everywhere, an experiment in which her results were presented as evidence men don’t want casual sex any more than women want it? Femcunts rejoiced, because femcunts will rejoice at whatever slender reed of feels gives succor to their pretty lies.

Dr. Jeremy, from Psychology Today, responded, vindicating the original Clark and Hatfield study finding that men are fantastically more agreeable to the prospect of casual, NSA sex than are women.

The difference between actual social science research and these pseudo-experiments is that, with real research, there are experimental controls put in place to reduce bias and alternative explanations for the findings. For example, the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study standardized what was said by the experimental assistants to ask for sex, so that each participant received exactly the same believable message. Specifically they said, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

Additionally, Clark and Hatfield (1989) used multiple experimental assistants to control for differences in attractiveness. Also, the assistants were asked to only request sex from believable partners (college students, relatively the same age, and attractive to them). Finally, participants were approached during times when they were most likely to have free time for sex (weekdays and not between class periods).

We see none of these experimental controls in the pseudo-experiment video. The woman is inconsistent with her approach and how she asks for sex. Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request. She also approaches many men who are not plausible sex partners for her, who are busy with their day, or who are otherwise unavailable for immediate sex.

Nevertheless, when she does approach men that she finds sexually attractive, who are plausible sex partners, who are available, and her request to them is more complementary and believable, then she more often gets a yes (for example, see video at 1:54 with guy in blue shirt). In fact, simply taking the men out of the analysis who are clearly considerably older than her (10), state they are too busy to go with her immediately (9), say they have a girlfriend and cannot have sex with her (12), or tell her they are gay (3), begins to increase her probability of getting a yes to sex (28/66 = 42%). If she only approached men that she actually found sexually attractive, used a standardized and believable request for sex, and hid the camera too, then it is quite possible that her rate of success would be even higher and better match those of actual studies that used such experimental controls. In fact, more recent experimental studies, following those controls and protocols, have indeed found similar results as the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiments (for more, see Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-54.

Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behaviior, 31, 453-458.

Feminists — ah, fuck it, let’s just say all women — will never be convinced by logic or reason to accept that there are deep, abiding differences in the psychology of the sexes. Women are built by evolution to fool themselves as much as fool men to their true natures, because complete enlightenment and the pained introspection that would follow could sabotage the Darwinian prime directive to attract and monopolize the top alpha sperm and resources.

Read Full Post »

The Chateau has been a destination for Crimson Pill pilgrims a long time, yet confusion about the functioning of the sexual market continues bedeviling a fair number of click-by readers. And not just at CH, but at other ostensibly Realtalk outposts. A recent example of this entrenched ignorance comes from a commenter at Alpha Game, who is under the impression that a woman’s looks are *less* important to marriage-minded men than to fling-favoring men.

It is probably a bit true that men will make some trade offs in favor of intelligence and other factors against looks in a long term partner relative to a short term one.

But that would be like choosing hot but crazy for a weekend but putting for a bit less hot but sane for a wife.

Of course looks are less important in a wife than in a one night stand. But only in a holistic sense. You don’t really care if a one night stand can read or count past 10 without taking her shoes off. You probably would care the mother of your children can.

“Of course” looks are less important in a wife? Da’Fuc? I don’t know how one could hold this opinion when the real world evidence points in the complete opposite direction. Take a tally of all your married male friends. If you’ve been friends a while, you’ll be able to compare their ex-girlfriends to their current wives. I bet nine out of ten of them have wives considerably hotter than the average of their ex-girlfriends.

The reason why this is so is simple: When a man is seeking to settle down with a lifelong lover and mother of his future children, he wants the BEST DEAL HE CAN GET. If he plans to invest everything in one woman, you bet he’ll make sure he’s getting good return on investment.

It’s similar to buying perishable goods versus durable goods. Toilet paper? Yeah, you don’t want it tearing apart in your ass forest, but you won’t care much about the advantages of 10-ply over 9-ply. You’ll buy a good value TP, a brand that’ll do the job but won’t cost more than a decent cheesesteak.

But a more durable good, like a car? You will care about every detail of that purchase — looks, power, efficiency, reliability… “leg” room. You’ll spend a lot more time mulling over your auto options than you will your TP options.

It goes the same with women. A one night stand or a short fling? Sure, you want the hottest girl you can get, but you’ll make sacrifices if she’s good to go. Maybe you allow yourself to tolerate a one point beauty deduction for a two point increase in sexual availability.

But a potential wife… ah, that’s serious business. Now you definitely want the whole package — beauty, youth, femininity, dependability, fidelity, and smarts that are in the ballpark of your own intelligence. Emphasis on beauty and youth.

Christ, people, use your heads. Do you really think the typical man would be LESS concerned about the looks of a woman he’ll be staring at for YEARS?!

Oh, but you know a man who married poorly. Yes, those men exist… they’re called betas with no options. Men with options are VERY discerning about the women they will bless with their full devotion. You can bet that uglier women, fatter women, sluttier women, and crazier single moms have as much, and likely more, trouble finding a marriage-minded man who isn’t a total loser, as charmless beta males with nothing to offer but their wallets and sympathy hugs have finding a merger-minded girl who just wants to have fun.

Read Full Post »

It seems hard to believe, immersed as we are currently in a miasma of equalist lies, that there were ever times in America’s rapidly receding past when people shared a generally realistic appraisal of the sexes. But there were. And America’s fruited plains were once populated with Realtalkers. A reader forwards a link to Realtalk, 1920s-style. The subject is “Petting Parties”, which were all the rage during that time.

Soon the lovey-dovey wingdings were popping up all across the country. Southerners sometimes called them necking parties. They were called mushing parties in the West; fussing parties in the Midwest and spooning everywhere, the United Press noted later in 1921. Eventually some flappers began referring to party-petting as snugglepupping.

It’s almost weird to read about a time when America was so culturally unified, and this despite massive waves of Eastern European immigration happening then.

A game-aware nugget of Realtalk is tucked into the story:

“Girls like to be called snuggle-puppies,” one school administrator told the reporter. “They grant the boys liberties. Encourage them to take them and if the young chaps do not, they are called ‘sissies’, ‘poor boobs’ or ‘flat tire.’ ”

Heartiste Poon Commandment XIII: Better to err on the side of too much boldness rather than too little.

The beta male orbiter was known to women long before our time. He was that “sissy” — an apt description — who couldn’t bustamove when it most counted. That 1920s beta male stumbled and fumbled and waited patiently for unmistakeable signals from the girl until she grew bored with him and alighted for a better man who knew how to travel the landscape of her hindbrain.

Related: Fat women were never attractive to men. The “perfect woman”, according to an 1890s leaflet, was slender and feminine, not a hint of fupa or manjaw on her. America the Beautiful, where have ye gone?

Read Full Post »

CH answered this post title’s question already in the seminal “Dating Market Value for Women” at-home quiz, and in this post defining the qualifications of the “alpha female”, but feminists and male feminists continue to insist against the bleedingly obvious real world evidence that men desire smarts in women over and above all other mate value considerations. For instance, the latest garbage study purporting a strong male desire for female IQ is about as flawed as a self-report sex survey can get.

Instead of writing a draining exegesis on why smarts don’t matter much to women’s romantic fortunes —

executive summary: a woman’s IQ has little impact on her short- OR long-term desirability to men unless she’s beyond the comfort zone of intelligence compatibility with the man she’s dating; i.e. around 15 or more IQ points above or below the man’s IQ

— I’ll just reprint a Telegraph commenter’s witty response on the topic.

awesome research – it validates the view that porn has no future on the internet

So much feminist-friendly “””research””” has upon later inspection turned out to traffic in horribly flawed premises and methodology that it’s a good bet to prejudice any social science study issuing from an Anglo university with at least one Scandinavian- or Eskimo-sounding female name in the author list as worthless.

UPDATE

Commenter Arbiter does the hard work debunking this feminist study that I wasn’t willing to do.

All right, let’s take apart the Telegraph article:

1. Journalist Sarah Knapton has talked to a Professor David Bainbridge. So you would expect some strong scientific research to back up his claim, right? No. “Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for.” You don’t even get to see the surveys. Nor do you get any mention of the fact that what people say in a survey doesn’t mean it’s true, especially not in a leftist climate that pressures them to ignore nature.

2. Bainbridge sets up a strawman to attack: it’s “large breasts and long legs” vs. intelligence. This is even in the title. He knocks large knockers by saying it’s not big breasts men want but symmetrical breasts, and he knocks long legs by saying it is straight legs men want, not long ones.

Ergo, men value intelligence instead of looks! Right? If you ignore the little fact that he just mentioned physical traits that men desire: symmetrical breasts and legs that are not crooked.

Far down in the article we also get this: “However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips..” So the “men really look for intelligence, not beauty” theme that the article starts with is nonsense, even by the writer’s own admission. But this comes far down in the story.

3. The real “proof” to grab people’s attention is George Clooney. The article begins with a picture of him and Lebanese wifey Amal Alamuddin. Sarah Knapton writes under the picture: “Despite dating a string of attractive women George Clooney settled down with human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin”. They are mentioned again farther down in the article, and Alamuddin’s picture appears again.

No longer do you need to study thousands of people, you only need to look at one person’s choice. If you are the science editor at The Telegraph.

But not even this one example proves anything: Alamuddin doesn’t look bad for her age. She also no doubt shares Clooney’s socialist preferences, and his anti-White ideology served well by marrying a non-White. So looks, check, and compatible personalities, check. Furthermore, that she is a “human rights barrister” doesn’t mean she would be brimming with intelligence for Clooney to lust for. Probably she just has enough intelligence to be close to him on the scale.

Alamuddin is one of the worst exhibits the feminists could use to buttress their “men love SMRT women!” psychological projection. She’s hotter than 90% of women her age. And, lest the fact escape anyone, she’s also 17? years younger than Clooney.

Read Full Post »

Besides a wispy thatch of blonde pubes cresting a slow wave of inflamed pink, this might be the most beautiful thing I’ve seen all week.

Early this morning, an anonymous person or persons put up posters around Columbia University—in the 116th Street subway station, outside of Tom’s Restaurant, on stoplights and construction walls—emblazoned with the image of student Emma Sulkowicz and her now-iconic mattress. Since September 2014, Sulkowicz has been dragging the mattress around campus as a protest against the school’s handling of her rape allegations against another student. (That student, Paul Nungesser, has since sued the university.) This morning’s posters accuse Sulkowicz of making it all up, dismissing her as “Pretty Little Liar” with the caption “Emma Sulkowitz” [sic] and “RapeHoax.”

A new Twitter account, @FakeRape, has been tweeting pictures of the posters for the last five hours. Another poster, picturing Lena Dunham sticking her tongue out, is clearly part of the series, emblazoned “Big Fat Liar,” with the same #RapeHoax hashtag.

A graduating army of Chateau Heartiste shock troops likes the feel of their heavy scrota, and the joy of placing their stones on the chins of malicious feminist cuntrags. For this reason, the Columbia University anonymous Realtalker™ earns this edition of Shiv of the Week.

Shame, mortify, and ostracize feminists until they slither away to their dank bedrooms in solidarity with their bruised egos, or they self-deliver in the gloom of their despair. Cantankerous and cancerous feminist attention whores fear nothing more than total social expulsion. When the tide finally turns, and it will, even their closest sistren will betray them for the mercy of the cool mean girls.

Read Full Post »

Commenter irishsavant puzzles over a seeming contradiction at the core of Game philosophy.

I acknowledge that I haven’t taken a formal course in Heartisteology but surely there’s a blatant contradiction here. How do you square the primacy of a woman’s need to be desired with the dismissive treatment inherent in the Alpha game plan which seems to be the only way to win a woman’s heart?

The contradiction is neatly resolved once you accept the essential conflict of women’s romantic longing for the desirable man who will deny the prerogatives of his own desirability to embrace monogamous commitment to her.

Women need the desire of a man who is himself desired. This contingency is responsible for much of the contradictory nature of female intention that befuddles inexperienced men. Yes, a woman loves the idea of the man so struck by lust that he loses control around her, and yet she knows that a man’s lustful abandon means nothing if he surrenders himself to any willing provocation. His surrender means so much more when it’s wrested after a string of battlefield victories, and his self-pride is at its zenith.

This is the impetus for the female attraction to men who walk the line between strong sexual intent and cavalier dismissiveness. To solicit a woman, then push her away, then coyly reconsider, repeated as necessary and with emphasis at each step added or removed according to its reception, until the passionate coda, is the formula for winning seductions.

A woman wants to be desired and taken, but she also wants to feel like she, alone among women, is capable of inflaming that desire, and what better proof of her power to arouse and capacity to awaken well-fed beasts to the hunt than the beast’s initially cagey appraisal of her worth as prey?

Executive Summary: Male desire is a conflagration. Female desire is tinder waiting for a match.

Read Full Post »

Readers sometimes ask, “CH, if you were imprisoned in a cage of domesticity, how would you deal with the cramping of your style? What would do when your old lady is a faint echo of her former pumpworthy glory?” I’ve always half-glibly said, “liquor and hookers”. Now a reader happily affirms the essential ingredients of the CH recipe for the good life. We’ll call it CAP:

Careerism, Alcoholism, Promiscuity.

drunicusrex writes,

Careerism plus functioning alcoholism plus promiscuity is perfectly fine in men, so long as they support their families well, and raise strong, intelligent children.

It’s also very possible as a married man to enjoy a few drinks, keep a mistress discreetly, and be a fine father.

Most every wife will peter out eventually, in either looks or libido (often both) and yet a strong, successful guy is supposed to give up sex after two or three kids pop out?
I think not.

Careerism, alcoholism, and eat pray fuck are disastrous in women. That shit ends marriages PDQ, and certainly trashes any maternal or parental instincts. Fuck that. Women who act like men make truly ghastly moms. (And stay at home Dads getting in touch with their metro side are questionable to say the least.)

Traditional sex roles = happiness.

So now wifey is falling asleep in the couch. Earlier from outside the window I saw some college girls heading out for St Pat’s stroll past our yard, towards the bars and shops around the corner.

Our little resort/college town does, in fact, have nearly as many temptations as any big coastal city.
But I have things to do at work tomorrow ….
perhaps I’ll just go out for one or two….

Executive summary: You reverse the sexual polarities at your peril and great risk to your family.

A self-confident culture on the upswing features a lot of men following the CAP formula for happiness. A few drinks, a young pretty mistress, and a diligently pursued passion (which could be a career or a hobby) is the secret sauce that inspirits men and motivates them to continue providing for their dutiful wives and paternally assured kids.

But, a sickly, self-negating culture on the downswing reverses this formula. Men become women and women become men. All sorts of crap flows outward from that toxic strew.

Careerist men: Strong, attractive, admirable.
Careerist women: Unfeminine, bitchy, untrustworthy.

Imbibing men: Fun, charming, sociable.
Imbibing women: Slutty, crass, poor mothers.

Promiscuous men: Happy, contented, appreciative.
Promiscuous women: Deranged, restless, divorce risks.

You’ve been warned.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,297 other followers

%d bloggers like this: