Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

Men (and lately women too, thanks to the endless sex denialist propaganda stream) underestimate the vast difference in physical strength between the sexes, and as a consequence also underestimate the psychological impact men’s size and strength has on women’s emotional state when in the company of men. The strongest woman would be no match for the average soyboy, and this fact of life has implications for how women have evolved to behave around men. Specifically, women are evolved to be both aroused and scared of male physical strength, and particularly so when alone with a man and no nearby white knights to aid her in case the man she’s with turns out to be a psychokiller.

Women have evolved this way because a dominant, potentially dangerous man is both a benefit and a risk to her. His benefit is obvious: in a harsh environment filled with predators human and animal, he can protect her. His cost is obvious as well, but maybe less so to the muff-struck girl: a dominant man may turn his ire on her if she crosses him or his entitlement or rage escape his self-control.

Thankfully for you readers, years in the wench trenches and a compilation of personal experience from hundreds if not thousands of aspiring womanizers who told their stories in online forums have revealed some extraordinarily potent pre-bedroom maneuvers to heighten a woman’s sexual arousal and consequently lower her inhibition.

The goal is to walk that fine line between a display of dominance which excites women and a menacing threat which scares women. Foreplay is maximally inflamed with a quick, yet unmistakable, hint of your manly power.

The move is simple. Grab a woman’s wrist HARD in the heat of the moment. Pin it against the wall, or against her shoulder or hip. This motion is AC/DC electricity, and as segue to sex it’s both boner and beaver fuel. You see, your dominance display will not only arouse her, it will arouse yourself seeing her submit so deliriously to your entitled whim and overwhelming physicality. Dominance is the limbic lube that both men and women secretly crave, the former for its powerful alpha penumbra, and the latter for its submission summoning sexiness.

Read Full Post »

Commenter chris and myself have objected to gay marriage on grounds that heterosexual marriage is essentially an anti-cuckoldry social rule codified into law, and gay marriage undermines that social rule by importing homosexual norms into heterosexual marriage. (This is inevitable if gay marriage is the legal and cultural equal of heterosexual marriage.) The consequence of gay marriage and its attendant norms will be the end of monogamy and the patriarchal nuclear family, which will destroy the most important lynchpin of civilization.

Coming to the same conclusion, but from a different angle, is Quads, who writes succinctly about the ways in which gay marriage upends the traditional order honed by millennia of evolutionary trial and error.

Gays of yesterday used to understand that they were in some way broken. It wasn’t just that they had a sexual dysfunction, but that they were excluded from broader social life. They could never produce a family, they could never be part of the basic unit of society. They knew it and embraced it. This is no longer the case.

Society has changed. Its basic unit is no longer the family, where men and women each play a part, where knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. (That was too bigoted.) Now it’s the individual, a citizen who pays taxes and consumes goods and services, who is society’s basic unit. This is all it means to be normal — this is what the social revolutions of our time asserted. Everyone is identical — men, women, blacks, whites, asians —  and everyone plays the same social role. In this atomized context, where marriage and sex are private behaviors, then gays really are Just Like Us.

Today’s gays see themselves as normal. Any bigotry against them is just arbitrary and irrational, because they can do anything you can do. They work and pay taxes and consume goods, Just Like Us. And to an extent they are normal, they’ve marinated their whole lives in a culture of atomized individuals. Marriage isn’t a ritual, something with social significance, but just an achievement, like buying a car or getting a diploma. So any combination of private reasons — tax benefits or a fantasy of being “married” some day — is justification enough. Gays are Just Like Us, their money is as good as yours. Gays are Just Like Us, and they’ll believe this even as they get fisted by a stranger in the airport bathroom.

Just Like Us is a pithy phrase that encapsulates the conflict Quads mentioned between socially significant ritual and individually rewarding achievement. In a society increasingly breaking down into being defined by its least common constituent parts (ie consumerist cogs), the normalization of and rationalizations for gay marriage will necessarily have a corrosive effect on heterosexual marriage, subverting the social oversight dimension of marriage and substituting it with a shrunken hyper-individualistic quality which reduces marriage to a private consumer purchase with no implication for the wider society.

Gay marriage is an empty sacrament of accumulation — a rite of crassness — without a broader and deeper connection to family or society, past or future, and without the gravity of acting as an occasion and a commitment enforcing a collective rule which exists for the benefit of a larger social purpose than the kitschy gratification of deracinated and atomized consumerist impulse.

Mark my words, we will pay dearly for the folly of passively acceding to the gay marriage fuggernaut.

Read Full Post »

Owing to its theme, I feel duty-bound to alert the CH readership to this very good post examining the interaction between technology and female hypergamy, over at a blog named Selonomics.

“Why does it appear that the vast majority of women prefer the same small group of men?”


In my model, I decided to test how simple mate selection strategies resulted in wildly different statistical distributions in each of the final selection pools.

In the simulation, men make their mate selection decisions by minimizing over the age of their prospective partners, whereas women maximize over the status of the men in their accessible vicinity.


Although the simulation results above show only the most extreme scenarios, one biased in the direction of the median man (Regulated Monogamy, or Patriarchy) and the other in the direction of the median female (Open Hypergamy), it is interesting to note that contemporary real world data looks a lot more like the extreme scenario on the female side of spectrum.

The author’s conclusions won’t surprise regular guests of the Chateau, but he spells them out lucidly and adds some insight into how social media and the technology which supports it have magnified female hypergamy and made it nearly virulent.

In summation, I found the following:

  • There is a strong outcome asymmetry in preferences between men and women when it comes to selecting a mate.
  • We don’t have to assume very much to see this play out in the real world, only that men prefer young women and women prefer high status men.
  • The positional trait (social status in this case), when amplified by both technology and the freedom to use those technologies, i.e. social norms favoring the Feminine Imperative (in Saudi Barbaria, women wear burkas and can’t use Tinder) the selection pool of prospective mates increases far faster for the median woman than it does for median man.
  • Given that women are primarily interested in status, which is a positional good, then any technology that amplifies your ability to be noticed by high status men, will also increase mating inequality. Consider, for example, how men do not benefit nearly as much from the scale offered by Tinder as do women. In the graphs shown below, Hypergamy is calculated as the difference in median in-degree (number of incoming links) between the two distributions.

In layman’s terms, this is the MOST IMPORTANT GRAPH IN THE WORLD. It shows the stark sex difference in how mate quality of the opposite sex is perceived. Start at the extremes: the top 1% of men and women will receive “likes” from nearly all members of the opposite sex. The bottom 1% of either sex will get almost no likelove. In between is where it gets interesting.

At a female attractiveness level of 80% (corresponding to an HB8 on the 1-to-10 hotness scale), only men in, roughly, the 97th percentile of male attractiveness will get “likes”. HB6s will give “likes” to men in the top 5% of male attractiveness. HB4s will “like” the top 10% of men.  HB2s (ffs) will “like” the top 25% of men. Men at the 20% attractiveness level will only get “likes” from the BOTTOM 2% OF WOMEN.

You see where this is heading. As far as female DESIROUS INTENT is concerned, the bottom 80% of men may as well be distracting nuisances at best and utterly invisible #MeToo potential violators at worst to the top 80% of women. That’s what unrestrained female hypergamy looks like. A few alphas bathing in a lube-slicked ocean of vagina juice, while the mediocre beta male masses languish in their masturbatoriums.

Of course, real life pairings don’t arrange themselves according to online “likes” (yet). One look around, and you can easily see that far more than 20% of men have some success with women. What accounts for the difference between online intent and offline action are a number of factors, the most relevant of which are:

  1. female resignation to the inevitable and frighteningly quick loss of their beauty and the romantic settling that most women who aren’t batshit crazy eventually accept as a part of living in the real world where men have standards
  2. holistic female attraction criteria that result in more complex mate quality evaluations of men in real life, face to face interactions, which contrast sharply with the artificially myopic female attraction criteria that inordinately emphasize a man’s dating app profile and best-angle photo (this is why Game shines IRL)
  3. porn and other sex substitutes that dampen the realization of female hypergamy by robbing middle of the pack women of valuable feedback on their allure

Social media amplifies female hypergamy by introducing more high status men to more women, and vice versa more hot women to high status men. Localism moderately contains female hypergamy simply by limiting the number of HSMV men in any given woman’s immediate environment, (which many women get around by moving to the big coastal cities). So Burnham’s critique of SCALE is apropos here, as a major factor in the development of runaway female hypergamy.

The THREE CULTURAL CHANGES that have had the biggest negative impact on beta male romantic fortunes have been:

  1. Urbanization
  2. Social media and online dating
  3. Female obesity

#1 and #2 increase beta male competition with alpha males (by proxy) which relationally lowers beta SMV, while #3 reduces beta male dating market leverage by shrinking their pool of acceptable prospects.

If we are to solve the crisis of incel soyboys, we have to de-urbanize the shitlibopolises, log off our gadgets while mocking the women and thirsty betas who remain addicted to them, and Make American Women Waifs Again.

  • Age in men tends to be a proxy of social status, where as age in women tends to determine genetic quality. Genetic quality is normally distributed, on a Bell Curve, whereas social status (and the wealth and income that results) is either log-normally or Pareto distributed in a population (What if Bill Gates Were as Tall as His Money?), following the truism that “20% of the men get 80% of the women.” While close to true, what my simulations actually show is that what is really happening is something closer to “20% of the men receive 80% of all female intent.”

He’s made an important distinction here. Intent isn’t fulfillment, but it certainly smooths the path. Formal social regulations and informal cultural regulations have historically been used to stymie the full and free expression of female hypergamy, at least in Eurasian peoples, because there was a gut instinct understanding that it was a bad arrangement to alienate 80% of men in an asexual purgatory and break the bonds of nuclear family formation by permitting women to waste years chasing the 20% of men they desire most. These traditional barricades against free-wheeling hypergamy loosened the link between raw female desire and domesticated female behavior. Women may not have liked it (though there is evidence in happiness surveys over time suggesting otherwise — aka the “tyranny of choice” paradox), but tamping down on their unfiltered and unobstructed hypergamous drive certainly was good for society as a whole.

Over time, the cultural and geographic constraints against hypergamy imprint via sexual and natural selection onto the racial genetic code, so that today Eurasians are more constitutionally comfortable with monogamy than are, say, Africans. But some universal traits still linger, and female hypergamy is one of them, shared by women across the world. This is because the force of sexual selection provided by the evolved hypergamous urge is such a powerful Darwinian mechanism to ensure survival that selection pressures against hypergamy were only able to slightly alter primal Eurasian female sexual proclivities in the direction of monogamy and intersex SMV complementarity.

  • Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.

It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.

In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.

As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.

A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.


Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.

I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:

In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.

In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.

Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.

One obvious outcome of reckless hypergamy in a sexually atomized mate market is delayed marriage and childbearing, and too many years spent in endless dating cycles hopping from cock to cock and job to job, only to surrender at the last with a few remaining years on the ol’ biological clock as a consolation prize for the unlucky also-ran herbling who has to eat the pain of wifing up a woman who historically would qualify as a road-worn spinster whore, a pain amelioration which he typically accomplishes by posturing as a white knight male feminist pretending it was his choice to leap at the flappy labia scraps thrown his way.

The good news, especially for readers of this blog, is that there are many Game techniques devised specifically to leverage female hypergamy to the benefit of men….push-pull, DHV, disqualification, outcome independent mentality, assuming the sale, etc. This is a benefit to the few individual men dedicated to learn Game, and more so to those committed to put it to practice. But runaway female hypergamy is a disaster for the West as a whole, after accounting for the few Machiavellians who can extract pleasures from its dwindling resource of feminine women. Female preference cascades in openly hypergamous societies are accelerating the lockout of beta males from the primest cuts of poon, while also locking out women from motherhood and happiness.

My next few posts will cover this explicitly. The Mating Economy is likely best understood as a series of feedback loops, in which a balance between Regulated Monogamy and Open Hypergamy maximizes the “socioeconomic growth rate” of a Civilization.

I’m looking forward to those posts. (To the author: If they’ve already been published, please link to them in the comments, and I’ll add the links to the post.)

Read Full Post »

Jayman writes in a comment to this post,

Hajnal line. It’s all about late vs early marriage. Northwestern Europeans married late (average age for women 23) for centuries. Eastern and Southern Europeans married much earlier (often in early teens for Russians, for example). This is a pattern that continues to this day, albeit at later ages across the board (the rank order remains fairly unchanged).

Right, and the Hajnal Line is now colloquially associated with differences in a bunch of other inter-european characteristics, such as clannishness, familism, nationalism, passivity, and fondness for watching from the corner stool. (Paradoxically, fertility rate is unusually low in Outer Hajnalia.) Anyhow, I wonder when the trend of Inner Hajnalia late marriages will bang up against the biological reality of the Wall. That is, given a choice, men aren’t really happy about marrying women with only a few years left of supple fuckability in them. Preference for younger virginal women is universal among men. And there are many biological reasons men prefer virgins over road worn sluts who’ve spent the better part of their salad decade warming up for their ludicrously ostentatious wedding day.

At some point the raw Darwinian calculus will re-emerge and there will be a pendulum swing back toward younger marriages with hotter, tighter babes who have oodles of residual reproductive value left.

Read Full Post »

Urbanization and the accompanying social disconnection have the effect of pathologizing female hypergamy, turning it from a useful Darwinian selection mechanism to an auto-immune disorder that robs women of their prime child-bearing years and elevates their risk of spinsterhood.

De-urbanization will throw a monkey wrench in the gears of the cock carousel and corral runaway female hypergamy. If you want to improve the romantic and marital prospects of beta males….that is, if you want more beta males to have access to relatively unsullied feminine women who forsake gogrrl careerism and avoid emotional pollution by shitlib hivemind propaganda in favor of family formation and hearth duties…you’ll support de-urbanization.

A de-urbanization program (aka a Heritage America Renewal Project — HARP) plus an immigration moratorium for a couple of generations are together the only long-term solution to feminist dysgenics. Federal and state incentives should be structured to support small city and town development, antitrust to break up megacorps…basically decentralization and de-scaling.

Infrastructure projects will help revitalize the US interior, making it more attractive for businesses and locals, which will limit the brain drain from rural regions to the coastal megacities. Ending immigration and thwarting the menace of Diversitopia will make good districts more widely available and thus more affordable.

Now if we can only solve the existential problem of female obesity in the heartland, we’ll truly have made America great again!

Read Full Post »

Jay in DC writes as a jerk who earned his jerkitude the hard way — by circumstance and experience instead of gifted to him by the cosmic overlord.

I unfortunately find myself walking down this same road. But I got here in an odd way. I was on the OTHER side of this equation for almost a decade. Law Enforcement and Prison were my job. The thing is, because you are dealing with literal animals all day, its adapt or die. So you get hard as fuck just like the creatures you have to “handle”.

This is also when I noticed the pussy starting to flow like mana from heaven. Couple that with already being a bit of a natural alpha and very decent looking (think young pre-insane Charlie Sheen) and yeah… I slayed vag for 2 decades straight.

In the last few years, I was on the OTHER side of the bars and that shit ain’t no kinda fun. Not going to get into the whole story but I nearly was killed in the process by overzealous cocksuckers who like to play “soldier” against US Citizens. (read: SWAT faggots)

Survived, but it just made what I already was much much worse. I have true killer instinct now because if I’m ever threatened in such a way again, I will put you in the fucking ground even if I’m going with you.

The thing is, this is a double edged sword. You usually have to soften this up around chicks because if you are ‘full on’ they will be afraid. Some natural charisma will leave them fearful but turned on. It is a balancing act for certain.

That last paragraph is crucial. Most men don’t readily grasp how entwined fear and arousal are in women. When men are aroused by the sight of a hottie, fear is not the emotion rumbling through us. There’s a bit of fear just before the approach, but that’s the fear of rejection and hurt pride, not the fear of physical harm, and it vanishes as quickly as it appears. Women….they’re different. Powerful, dangerous men arouse them, but these men also could hurt them, badly, in ways Mean Girls can never do. That fear is always present in women and it’s always bound closely with the men women find most alluring — the jerks, the assholes, the powerful, the strong, the sociopathic, the charismatic, the passionate, the unpredictable, the ambitious, and the reckless. The irresistible man is also the uncontrollable man, and women are fated to love the very men who could crush them as easily as they crush weaker men.

So when women say they are “intimidated” by sexy men, they aren’t lying, nor are they denying their sexual interest. A sexy man is necessarily an intimidating man, in one form or another, or he wouldn’t be sexy to women. Fear and arousal are hitched to the female id and work in concert to coax her to a fulfilling relinquishment to the insistent and desirous sex of a powerful man. Grrlpower is a temporary phase shift in the sexual market; a response by women to the emasculated soyboys who leave them cold. What women really want, beneath the feminist posturing for social media head pats, is to embrace their vulnerability and repose in their femininity, reflected through the overpowering lust of a man who doesn’t take to the leash.

This is why dangerous men have to walk it back and soften their hard edge, and why your typical beta male mediocrity has to find his inner jerk and turn it up. Without that element of fear, women won’t feel the white hot passion they are all capable of feeling for a man. But too much fear and women’s survival instinct will override their desire. (Not all women, though. Many such cases of women ignoring their fear response in favor of their furrow response, and paying the toll later.) This is where the fear-charisma axis comes into play; charisma, aka a self-knowing facility with teasing banter, relaxes women just enough to allow their fear of a powerful man to sublimate as carnality. This is why a woman will sometimes confess in the afterglow that the idea of you “having your way with her” turned her on so much. That’s the chord of fear you skillfully plucked in her which merged with the rhythm of her desire to elevate her to ecstatic surrender.

I loved that he was so powerful I was nothing.
– O

Read Full Post »

Audacious E had a couple of posts about chicks digging jerks, in which he trawled GSS data to confirm what is bleedingly obvious to anyone who’s lived a day in his life and has seen how differently younger, hotter, tighter women react to assholes and niceguys. The eye twinkle a girl flashes when a jerk teases her is unmistakable, and a stark contrast to the eye dullness she betrays when a niceguy properly courts her.

Some girls, we must admit, twinkle for prison yard shank artists. But most girls just want a man who doesn’t immediately return their phone calls, or who says stuff like “you don’t look fat in that dress…per se“, or who schedules three dates in one night, or who gives his girl a bag of Skittles for her birthday. Whatever the degree of jerkitude, chicks dig it. And it’s not just ghetto mamas going for black thugs. The jerk allure crosses racial lines.

White men who have done jail time report having had more sexual partners.

But maybe you think the jerkboy magic only works on lower class girls….the Jerks and Skanks Find Each Other theory of womanly desire. Not so fast, Tradcon Defender of Distaff Honor. In a follow-up post, AE graphed number of lifetime female sexual partners among men who have and have not spent time in prison, further broken down by social class:

The trend for jerks to have more sex partners than niceguys holds up across all social classes, from lower to upper. This is dynamite stuff….chicks in all social classes dig jerks in their respective class. (We can presume that each class of men draws from a pool of women who are in the same class, or close to it. Upper class jerkboys are likely scoring with middle and upper class cuties. Likewise, lower class jerkboys choose lovers from among lower and working class girls.)

Now, it’s fair to say that ex-cons are more likely to lie about their sex lives than are law abiding niceguys, but given that the disparities in partner count are significant (and exceptionally large among lower class men) it’s likely that these disparities would still exist even if we could control for inflated parter numbers by lying ex-cons. I’d bet, too, that lying about notch counts is more common among lower class thieves than among upper class criminals, which may help to explain the enormous difference in partner number between lawless and lawful lower class men.

An additional possibility — and one which I happen to think is correct — is that the infamous lust chicks have for jerks is attenuated in its intensity as one climbs the social class ladder. That is, all chicks dig jerks, but not all jerks are dug by chicks. For lower class chicks, the desire for jerkboys is more primitive, and only hardcore lawbreakers can satisfy them. As we move up in social class, women swoon for the more refined jerk, perhaps the man who, rather than have a gang sign tattooed on his pec, has an S&M playpen in his basement, or a honed skill for subtly bringing the typical woman’s sky high self-esteem in line with reality, or a flair for teasing that walks up to but doesn’t cross the line of personal insults.

AE adds an important footnote,

Interestingly, the deleterious effects of the sexual revolution may be neutralized by the salubrious effects–at least in this particular context–of modern contraception. While criminals and low-lifes do more fornicating, they do not appear to do more procreating. Among men aged 30 or older, those who have done time average 1.94 children while those who have not average 2.08 children.

The Pill and widespread dissemination (heh) of cheap and effective condoms has severed the link between jerkboy sexual success and jerkboy reproductive success. This is a fascinating development for the reason that it probably hasn’t happened at any time in human evolution before now, at least not on the scale we have experienced in the post-moderin West. The post-industrial sexual market endured a seismic blast to its balancing mechanisms, and no one knows for sure how this will play out, but I will speculate here.

Women and men remain guided by their primitive sexual appetites, inherited over millions of years in a pre-agriculture, Dunbar friendly environment. Women love physically and mentally tough men who act like they could protect them during dangerous times; men love prime nubility women who could violate age of consent laws in some states. Particularly for women, their appetites are mismatched to the current sexscape; jerkboys aren’t the “rational” choice anymore, because we have the State to protect women from predation by competing tribes and rapists.

But women still love the jerks. If there wasn’t a contraceptive revolution sixty years ago, jerkboys would have a disproportionate share of their sprogs seeding the following generations, as it likely has been for most of human history. Contraceptives broke the chain linking jerkboy reproductive success across generations. In the Darwinian calculus, this means fewer jerkboy genes in future generations. It may NOT mean fewer jerkboy-LOVING genes in future generations of Western women, though. Women who love jerkboys are still reproducing (perhaps on par with women who prefer niceguys), so presumably their genes would continue into the next generations of their daughters and grand-daughters…..UNLESS the niceguy betas they have kids with contribute genes to daughters that somehow influence them to prefer niceguys like themselves.

(Keep in mind that this is predicated on the observation that a jerkboy-loving woman, when she eventually settles down with a dupe beta male, suffers a loss of passion and zeal for living that accompanies settling for a dependable but boring partner who is less desirable than the jerks she loved utterly and completely back in her sexy teens and twenties. That is, women who settle for niceguys after a decade or more of jerkboy journeys aren’t very happy about their acquiescence to biological reality and their impending Wall impact, so their jerk-digging genes would sneak into couplings with oblivious beta niceguys.)

Here’s where it gets veeeerrry interesting. What happens when you have the emergence of a sexual market predominated by jerk-adoring chicks and boring beta niceguys, with very few jerks around to satisfy the cravings of the chicks surrounded by betas, because jerk genes have been mostly culled from the population?

What does an alpha cad-craving girl do when all her mate options are super swell beta dad types? She might do this:

The title of this post is a hint at what a contraceptively reconfigured future sexual market might mean for the vanishingly few jerkboys still on the loose in a world filled with niceguys and sexually unfulfilled women: poon paradise. In the land of the neutered soyboy, the ZFG jerkboy with one ball is king.

The Pill is having potentially cataclysmic, humanity-altering impacts that very few are willing to openly discuss or to prognosticate upon. MUH REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM is the unquestioned core tenet of secularism, and yet right under our foamy rhetoric a Darwinian tsunami is about to submerge the West in the effluvia of birth control pills, and the outcome may not be conducive to the sustainability of civilization.

We may lose our own jerk sons to the Pill and the Rubber, but we will have gained in the trade the jerk sons of alien tribes. Or we will over-domesticate ourselves and be sitting ducks for invaders. Or our women, uninspired by the weak niceguys available to them, will continue delaying marriage and childbirth until our people evaporate into anhedonia. Or we will morph into an androgynous consumerist slop that fills boardrooms while emptying bedrooms.

I’ll leave you with this crimson pilled portent: hormonal birth control use is associated with an increased risk of attempted suicide and suicide among women.

Among women who used hormonal contraceptives currently or recently, the risk of attempting suicide was nearly double that of women who had never used contraceptives. The risk was triple for suicide. The patch was linked to the highest risk of suicide attempts, followed by IUD, the vaginal ring and then pills.

There are correlations to disentangle before concluding that hormonal birth control itself causes the increase in rate of suicide and suicide attempts — for instance, women who use birth control may already be more suicidal than non-users, or the cock hopping lifestyle that birth control enables may be the factor contributing to women’s self-loathing — but an earlier study examining the same association found

…an alarming link between hormonal birth control and depression. Published in JAMA Psychiatry, that study found that women who used hormonal birth control had a 40 percent increased risk of depression after six months of use, compared to women who didn’t. Some types of hormonal contraceptives carried an even greater risk, and younger women were at even greater risk when using hormonal contraception.

If women are getting depressed as a side effect of hormonal birth control use, then that may also change women’s attitudes toward men, and what kind of men they want, and what decisions women make for themselves.

Whatever the knock-on effects of accessible and effective birth control on the sexual market, one thing is clear: we are living through a golden age for jerkboys. They are in demand, and they can get the freshest milk without paying for the cow (or the cow’s calfs). I don’t know how long this Jerkboy Paradise will last, or if it’s only a blip in the general trend toward an Androgynarchy and a dispiriting reduction in the sexual polarity. (#MeToo is a flare shot warning of a coming Androgynarchy in which men are psychologically castrated and women are encouraged to forsake their femininity.)

What I do know is that people who expected nothing substantial to change between the sexes or in society when we directly interfered with the helical Prime Directive are fools.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: