Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

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 »

First, some context to help explain the title of this post. Reader Arbiter passes along an anecdote about a sad sack beta male he knows, and why this means sexual market realtalk is still needed for hapless men.

[Johnny Tampon] made me think of a story I read at RoK by a guy who wanted to warn others to not make the same mistakes. He had had a wife who he broke up with, and as I recall she hadn’t slept with him but with other guys, and they’d had lots of fights.

After that he had considered himself wiser. But then there was a Latina woman at work, who had gone from guy to guy. Still he got lost in her eyes when she fluttered her eyelashes at him. They went out a couple of times, and then she sobbingly told him that she and her daughter would soon have no place to stay. So he BOUGHT HER A HOUSE.

Then she strung him along for a while, and he told himself he was so noble for waiting before he tried for sex. She always had excuses to keep him at arm’s length. If I remember correctly he eventually made it an ultimatum over the phone, and she went with him to the bedroom on his next visit, suddenly all eager. And then he noticed another guy’s smell on the bedsheets.

After much denial from her side he made her admit that her ex-boyfriend had been released from prison and he had been coming by for a visit. After which the guy stormed out. He also knew her sister, and the sister told him that the Latina was seeing her ex frequently, and that he wasn’t really an “ex”.

Even then, IIRC, he didn’t kick her out right away but let her stay there for a while. It was some story. Even though he wrote it saying he had now learned his lesson, it made you want to punch him for being so stupid. Who buys the office slut a house because of a couple of dates? After having been seriously burned before? Without even getting any sex out of it?

And some people in the alt-Right still say the manosphere isn’t needed. “It’s not hard to find a decent girl.” It’s not hard to make mistakes either, which many men do when they are told by everyone to shut up and settle. That’s the message from both leftists and tradcons – just settle. Only the manosphere tells men that it isn’t wrong to want more.

Pursuing a policy of settling — or its variation, “don’t think you can date out of your league” — before alternative self-improvement avenues are considered, is the battle cry of losers and advocates for powerlessness. And, as Arbiter notes, a philosophy of settling can push a man into making a lot of mistakes.

To the tradcons, leftists, and game haters: “wanting more” is not the same thing as “feeling entitled”. No one argues that men are entitled to the hottest babes without doing anything that would improve their chances of getting the hottest babes. Entitlement is the belief that the best things in life should just fall in your lap. CH, and game in general, teach just the opposite: that if you want the best things in life you have to work for it. In the case of women, this means learning what makes them tick and then giving them what they desire in a man. (Same is true for women who want to snag the best man possible into a long-term commitment.)

Replying to Arbiter’s comment, Sean Fielding wrote,

And men will go into denial over this outrageous shit with, ‘sure, but he must be an ugly weakling.’

We know better. It’s not totally random, but even handsome guys with plenty of dough can do these outrageous beta-loser acts.

The most memorable words I’ve ever seen at CH, words that changed me, went along these lines: ‘Always remember – when you supplicate to a chick, she sees you exactly the way you see a 300 lb land-whale – disgusting. And for the same reason – to weed out bad genes.’

At first, I just could not believe this. Some mestiza convict lover can’t possibly see a guy with spare real estate this way, can she? Sean Fielding is a fit, good-looking professional. Who could literally see me the same way I see a fatty? But I could not argue with the fact that the woman I’d been dating was not putting out. What if she did see me this way?

It gnawed at me. I read the archives. A few weeks later she called me an asshole. What would once have been extremely painful was now my proudest moment. She called me an asshole and five minutes later she had her clothes off.

Tradcons and shut-ins think that getting called an asshole by a woman means that all romantic possibilities are off the table. Proof that tradcons, et al, know not the workings of the female hindbrain. Like most things white knightists believe, the reality is closer to the opposite of their beta male religion. When a woman calls you an asshole, your chances of bedding her have gone up significantly. TRUE FACT.

Rejoice when you earn your “Asshole” badge. You have a right to be proud of it, because it signifies that you are making progress toward the goal of becoming a better, sexier man who is irresistible to women.

Better to be called an asshole in faux anger than to be hugged asexually in faux desire.

Read Full Post »

A reader came up with an excellent idea: use reverse psychology (the old-fashioned term for trolling) against the women who exploit beta male chumps for money and emotional support without giving the betas any sex in return.

The concept is simple. Whenever you come across an attention whore on social media bragging to anyone who will listen about the asexual lump she keeps around as a “great friend” to “help raise her child (which is not his)”, you slyly imply, or directly state if that’s your style, that she and her beta toy “look like a great couple together!! ❤️❤️”

Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “This is my best friend, Chodester McChode! He buys me stuff!”

Despicable You: “Aw you guys are so cute together! It’s obvious you two are in love.”

Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “Whaaat? No, we’re not together….”

Despicable You: “Stop trying to be so modest. We get it, you have a real catch, and you don’t want to make your girl friends jealous.”

Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “No, really… don’t get the wrong idea….. OMG I can’t belive you think that??!”

Despicable You: “Look at you playing coy. Come on, we can all see what a great match he is for you. You’re not going to do better honey!”

Etc, etc, insert shiv, etc. You can dial up the sadism as much as you like, and have fun while doing it. Bonus: I believe this will make a dent in America’s Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath population. Or at least a dent in their willingness to humiliate their pet betas online to throngs of cackling cunts.

Read Full Post »

There’s a sizable contingent of “red pillers” who believe that the male urge to have sex with a variety of women is, if you take their consternation at face value, unnatural. I never did get this line of attack against the degenerate poz. While I can’t fault the intention, the premise is based on a lie that feeds directly into feminist myth-making about the psychological sameness of the sexes.

This belief, and resulting admonition, that men are naturally monogamous and only desire poosy varietals when there’s something wrong with their mental state is not just wrong, it’s malignant, and will paradoxically cause a lot of men trouble within the confines of their monogamous relationships!

Reader superslaviswife echoes this CH sentiment and explains how the “cads are sickos” theory of the sexual market actually harms men’s ability to create and sustain monogamous relationships.

Something I do wonder about is the staleness of “the regular”. Many Beta males, as far as I have heard, are happy enough to get regular sex or sexual access, to see a naked woman daily, that the actual frequency, variety and duration of sexual sessions doesn’t matter to them. Here we get two problems:

1: Women need to see men as sexual beings constantly on the ready and on the prowl. You can’t be non-sexual 99% of the time and expect a woman to be aroused the remaining 1%. Even women with high sex drives who frequently initiate expect their man to reciprocate sexual cues, to signal he’s ready and warmed up. If we’re constantly slowly simmering, it takes a lot less to hit boiling point. This is why fostering affection doesn’t result in sex. At best it’s neutral. At worst it distracts us from being sexual. This is also why game is all about building tension: if you aren’t constantly sexual, the pot stops boiling and you could be anywhere from warm to needing to start over.

Women married to men with high libidos have to know that these men are also more likely to pursue additional outlets for their libidos.

2: If a man rejects sex from a woman too often, is rarely ready, wants sex once or twice a week because his T is too low and always wants a quick couple of minutes in the same position, ie, if he wants “just the regular please”, I can’t see how anyone would cope. From time to time, the regular will be needed. Maybe there isn’t much time, the other rooms aren’t available, you’re in a rough patch or a dry spell due to stress and just need to get the ball rolling again… But even then, when you know what’s going to happen you may as well open a book, to be honest. And if that’s your entire sex life, where’s the enjoyment? It’s reducing it to just a biological function, like buying macdonald’s instead of making a steak burger dinner.

This is a cynic’s view of relationship sex and durability, which means it has more truth value than the happy-clappy romantic view of sex.

Maxim #40: Men are strictly monogamous only insofar as their options for sexual variety are limited.

There are, of course, individual and race-based differences in the predilection for men to pursue multiple sex partners (concurrent or consecutive). But the general rule stands: Men, more than women, have strong NATURAL sexual urges to FUCK every pretty young woman they lay eyes upon. And men with OPTIONS will, often enough to put the lie to the “cads are sickos” theory, fulfill their non-monogamous desires.

The problem of stale relationship sex is intrinsic to differences in sexual desire between men and women. Over time, (usually about two years), a man will lose that groinal fire for his girlfriend or wife. This is inevitable, and coupled with the tendency of women to pack on the pounds and the nagger attitude after they have extracted commitment from a man, it should surprise no Realthinker that bed death isn’t solely a morbidly obese lesbian phenomenon.

The staleness of regular sex is compounded by further insults to relationship stability that are less physiological in nature than psychological. One, women, due to their hypergamous compulsions, will gradually lose attraction for their loyal and dependable male partners, unless those men initiate countermeasures to combat their women’s emotional and vaginal atomization. (Read “countermeasure”: GAME). It is a fact of LTRs and marriage that both men and women get complacent, which means men get BETA and SOFT and women get FAT and NAGGARDLY.

Two, if the character of the men that women are currently choosing to form long-term commitments is changing toward a SOFTER, EFFEMINATE, BETA NORM, than we will see more complaints from those women about their men’s ability to SATISFY them. And in fact I do think the character of Western men is changing to one that is less masculine and more supplicating.

My answer to this problem of stale “regular sex” is that men should not be penalized or admonished for desiring sex with many women (and sometimes fulfilling their desire), just as women are not and never have been penalized nor admonished for hypergamously desiring the best man they can get and for pushing him sooner rather than later into promises of lifelong commitment. This is a double standard — or if you prefer, a different standard — that is necessary to accommodate the differing psychologies and darwinian imperatives of men and women.

If a man is happy to be in a monogamous relationship for life with the woman he loves, then the anti-cad “red pillers” ought to get on board with the CH recommendation that these men would benefit themselves AND their women if they learned game aka the art and science of applied charisma, as a method of reinvigorating flagging relationships. But I doubt these particular anti-cad red piller types will ever see the light, because many of them nurse intense envy of men who bed desirable women and make no apology for it.

Read Full Post »

The Trumpening is quality awesomeness. A breath of political air so fresh it fills the lungs to bursting. I hope it lasts.

If Trump is riding high in the polls and attracting cheerfully wholesome supporters brimming with a genuine emotion they haven’t felt in decades for any GOP cuckservative, maybe, just maybe, it’s because Americans — normal, psychologically healthy Americans at least — prefer a Big Swinging Dick to a Frail Limping Wrist. In the land of the beta male feeb, the alpha male with brass balls is king.

As long as Trump kicks cuck ass and takes ruling class names, CH will post about him. If you don’t like it, go back to Univision.

PS Scott Adams on Jorge Ramos’ (a White Mexican elite) perp walk.

PPS I predict we see another bump up in Trump’s poll numbers following this latest display of effortless alphatude. Trump is like fresh water to a people parched from years roaming a cultural landscape full of supplicating manlets.

Read Full Post »

There’s a theory floating around alt-blogs that human IQ in the developed world has been steadily decreasing since about the dawn of agriculture. The working hypothesis is that agriculture enabled dense urban life to develop, and cities are known population sinks (lack of space/high cost/disease vectors all contribute to lower fertility rates in cities).

The thinking goes that cities attract smarter people, who upon settling into urban mimosavilles promptly forget the Darwinian Prime Directive and fail to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers. 1.5 sprog per hipster village yenta is a recipe for extinction. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I don’t know if I buy this theory of decreasing IQ in total, but if true, I can suggest another plausible mechanism that is far more pertinent today, now that disease threat and high child mortality have largely been eliminated. This mechanism is far darker than disease or child mortality, once you get to peering at it closely in your skull ham.

You could call this the CH-ian “The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion, Oh My!” theory of dysgenia.

The speculative specs: Evolution has slowly, and sometimes quickly, produced human populations with great intelligence (on average). As these population groups gained smarts, they reconfigured their environment so powerfully that their cultures began to exert more influence than the natural world did on how their progeny would evolve.

Gene-culture co-evolution became the order of the day. Civilization sprouted and flourished. And it was good. Until…

These groups of humans became so smart that they outwitted — for a time — the second evolutionary guiding principle of reproduction. They invented Pills and Rubbers and safe and cheap Abortions, thus allowing themselves the joy of sex without the joylessness of changing diapers.

Smarter people, having by their inherent mental dispositions a lower threshold for the tedious and boring tasks of infant care, stopped having so many babies. But smarter people USED to have more babies than dumber people! What happened since then? Well, when pre-20th Century smart people had sex — which they never found boring — they were often stuck with the consequences. Most of them simply accepted the boredom of child-rearing as a necessary component of life.

Once the Era of The Pill, Rubber, and Abortion began in earnest, smart people saw the wisdom, from their own personal hedonistic perspectives, of using these smarthuman-created tools to separate the consequences of boring child-rearing from the titillation of sex. End result: Fewer smarties having kids, more dummies taking up the slack, dysgenia in full black lotus bloom.

For the first time, perhaps, on a large scale, humans had made an end run around a Darwinian First Principle. Humans — some humans, anyway — had become TOO SMART and invented pregnancy-thwarting tech that also thwarted the cosmic, and divine, imperatives. The Pill, The Rubber, and Abortion may be making us dumber!

Hard double-blind, metabolically-controlled ¡SCIENCE! evidence for this “PRA” theory is sparse and mostly circumstantial, but it is out there. For instance, in a study of German parents, having a child lowered their happiness more than any other life change, including death of a spouse!

And of course there are the oft-cited stats of later age of first marriage and lowered fertility plaguing almost the entire Pan Western developed world.

There are countercurrents pushing against the PRA theory of dumbing down humanity. The Pill seems to alter women’s sexual preferences so strongly that they choose less masculine beta males as partners if they were on the Pill during the time of choosing. This would imply that these women would have more kids, Pill-disposed as they are to settling into family life with a beta provider. However, it could conceivably run the other way: Once married and thinking about having kids, women who get off the Pill might suddenly become repulsed by their babyfatted betahubbies as their ovulatory machine revs up again after a hiatus of many years. This could lead to an increase in divorce (which in fact has been happening throughout the West since the 1960s) and consequently a decrease in children (or a decrease in children born in wedlock).

Is the evolution of human intelligence self-limiting? If it is, will societies respond by banning the Pill, the Rubber, and the Abortion? Or will we just have to ride this one out for a few millennia, until the fitness maximizer pendulum swings back to the smart set? Either way, going on the way the West is going now, something’s gonna give.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,467 other followers

%d bloggers like this: