Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

Seeing a passion project through to the end. Excelling at a personal pursuit. Mastering a hobby or skill. Closing a big deal. Earning accolades from respected peers. And, yes, seducing and fucking a cute girl on the same night you meet her. These are a few of every man’s favorite things. The world-bestriding emotions each induces in a man are incomparable. In sone ways, these feelings are better than sex because they are longer-lasting, nourishing soul as well as ego and gonads.

But the greatest feeling of them all is something that only men can experience without regret or an asterisk. You bang a girl to a dizzying state of euphoria and full body exhaustion throughout the night and then again in the morning, delivering a limb-wrapped flaparoscopy so thoroughly destructive of bounds of propriety that you lose sense of where your body ends and hers begins, and you pause just long enough for breakfast before resuming a time-lapsed reenactment of every Discovery Channel rutting caught on film. Her body is a plunderland and you’ve just left her gash ashes to scatter to the winds. She can barely muster the strength to sit up for the goodbye kiss as a long smooth leg flops languidly over the side of the bed. Admiring your ransacked treasure one more time, you grin the grin of champions and strut out her door into the painfully bright sunshine.

Outside, you feel the warm sun reflecting off the sweat and juices that have adhered to every pore. You walk with a sluggish lope, as if in slo-mo, legs more akimbo than usual because a pleasant throbbing ache pulses through your crotch and demands room to breathe and heal. Happily, you acquiesce and every step seems like you are following along on a leash attached to your rolling rollicking reverberating balls. You are a Viking Berserker, carving a swath through the world with your two-handed broadcock.

Every girl you pass on your short journey home you greet with a devious smile and perhaps a finger gun and wink. They can’t help themselves as your conqueror’s testosterone wafts like VajslayerX nerve gas and stiffens their drop-mouthed gaze in your direction. One girl at a cafe table conspicuously uncrosses her legs at the moment you glide menacingly, tail up, through the savannah grass of her placid urbanite existence. Breathe deep the masculine fumes, watch shiny babes splooge their looms.

This is the greatest feeling in the world for a man, to ride in on a storm surge of your validated sexual energy and crest with froth and fury over the mundane lives of women. They can smell it on you and see it coming a block away, and you feel it, and it feels good man, for you know in that moment you could have any one of those girls if you chose to grace them with your attention.

There is no walk of shame for men like there is for women. There is only the Walk of Triumph.

Read Full Post »

Surplus women.
Male paternal investment.
Female dependency.

williamK explains,

You’re missing an ingredient.

A boner favorable female to male ratio is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for female beauty.

Due to the outsized spermatazoa-to-ovum ratio and the longer sexual market viability of men, you can never truly skew the female-male ratio enough. There will always be men who will give the less good looking women a throw occasionally.

Its not that given the choice of women, men only choose the most beautiful. No. Given the choice of women, men will choose all of them.

Even the ugly, fat woman was 18 and do-able once. (Especially in the evolutionary environment we’re talking with lower obesity rates). And that’s all it takes. She’ll get knocked up and pass on those genes.

What you need is an environment where women are dependent on men. This is most effectively imagined by food. If an African knocks up 50 women, its good for him. The women can gather food for her and the babies. He doesn’t have to see them ever again. An ancient Scandinavian does this, and all 50 women die on the frozen tundra with their fetuses and his genes die. They NEED him to win food for them because they can’t hunt or fish reliably and there’s no gathering to be done. (Now parlay this thought to racial differences in approach anxiety).

It is good ratio, but also male parental investment and female dependence that creates beauty.

Drearily for lovers of Truth&Beauty, the modern Western sexual market may select against the production of exquisite female beauty.

Surplus women?

Nope. If anything, there’s a surplus of men in the West. Infant mortality rates have dropped, technology has brought immense comforts, wars of attrition are largely one-sided affairs now, and there’s been an effective elimination of male-skewed early deaths from hunting and disease.

Male paternal investment?

Retreating. Presumably it’s still an innate disposition in White Western men, but shocks to the functioning of the sexual market have incentivized a gradual shift to caddishness and delayed family formation, especially at the margins where there are men who could go either way (towards a dad or cad lifestyle).

Female dependence?

Nope. This is the big one. As I’ve argued here before, female economic self-sufficiency like we have now in the West creates massive negative feedback loops in the Male Commitment-Female Commitment Worthiness relationship. And as williamK notes, female independence (in which women can feed, house, and clothe themselves) not only pushes women to emphasize fulfillment of their desire for sexy cads, but it pushes men to DE-EMPHASIZE their beta provider skills. Men don’t feel inspired to wife up self-sufficient women; men DO feel inspired to provide for and protect vulnerable women. And in en environment of female dependence, men will be careful to choose the prettiest women they can get, because they will be investing a lot in her. In contrast, an environment of female independence encourages men to spread their seed indiscriminately, because the pressure to provide for careergirl yaass queen shrikes has diminished.

Executive summary: The West is currently selecting against the efflorescence of female Beauty and selecting FOR the effluvia of female Ugliness.

Literally feminism means more ugly women and fewer beautiful women. Feminism is the ideology of Ugliness.

PS I have to disagree with one point williamK makes about men being willing to fuck anything that moves. It isn’t true. Like I’ve said before, I wouldn’t get carried away with this glib smear of male looseness. Eurasian men do have standards, which they exercise even when the have effectively limitless options in mate choice. Fat, ugly, and older women really do suffer a romantic and even sexual penalty in the modern dating market. So I’d amend williamK’s comment to say that a sex skew favoring men CAN be sufficient to move sexual selection toward producing more beautiful women, but that for maximum effect the emergence of widespread female beauty requires all three preconditions — female sex skew, male paternal investment, and female dependence.

Read Full Post »

Nestled in the quaking bosom of the Chateau comment section was a discussion about European female beauty and why it seems more often to float down from the mountain than emanate from the plain. I suggested that hot spots of female beauty from around Europe (and yeah sure the rest of the crappy world too) be labeled Boner Zones, riffing on the Blue Zones where the healthiest people live. Although now I’d like to change that term to Bone Zones, for its symmetrical quality.

for reasons that are a bit beyond my ken atm, striking white female beauty seems to emerge more often and with greater intensity of flourish from mountainous regions. though not always. if we designate hot spots of white female beauty — call them Boner Zones — then the big three would be the Italian Alps, the Ukraine steppe, and the Baltic seacoast.

A reader emailed with a reply addressing the likely causes for the eruption (heh) of Bone Zones in particular geographic and historical regions. Bottom line: it’s the sex skew.

Remember, ABD: Always be Darwinian.

Why would female beauty emerge anywhere? Because there is a shortage of men, and women have to compete for men, which is not the usual thing. Where do women have to compete for men? Where the men are engaging extremely dangerous occupations and lots of them get killed, occurred in Northwestern Europe over the centuries. Working in the mountains, logging, mining, fishing in the North Sea, all very dangerous ways to make a living. Or in places where there has been sustained violent conflict and huge numbers of men were killed off. Beautiful women in Kiev? World War I, Red Revolution, Holodomor, Great Purge, Barbarossa, Nazi occupation … . All of Eastern Europe is similar. The Baltics were especially hard hit.

Female beauty is nature reasserting life and fertility in the face of bloodshed and slaughter.

That’s a great final insight. Beauty is the flower of bloodshed.

At least for some peoples and places. Has endless bloodshed in Africa given rise to female beauty?

Generally, though, there does seem to be something to the hypothesis that native White European Beauty is unique in the world and uniquely arose from an environment that became the premature resting place for millions of its young native men, resulting in a veritable pornucopia of pussy for the men left alive who did what men naturally do with a surfeit of choice in women: they chose the hottest, youngest, tightest, and had a lot of kiddies with those proto-HBs.

I hate to leave a post viewed through a soft focus lens, so here’s a jarring depth-of-field corollary to whet your inner masochist:

In regions and in times that there isn’t any culling of men, and the sexes enjoy a stable, long-lasting 50:50 ratio that restricts male choice and in which women don’t have to compete for the hordes of thirsty betas begging for cummies, women evolve to become……

uh oh…..


Does this corollary remind you of a specific time and place?

If we are fated for Civil War 2, one upside is that in the aftermath white female beauty may return to the land of the twee, home of the knave.

Read Full Post »

Having brutalized the Chateau readership by draining the swamp to reveal the enormous gullet of the TacoToad creature, a magnanimous urge overcame me. I hope this post puts me back in good graces with the commenters who matter.

Continuing the CH series paying tribute to exquisite (and native) European beauty and triggering all the right envious haters, here is Senta Berger from Austria:

Would bang? Yes. More than that….

Would love.

In painfully related news, the Uglification and Devaluation of America proceeds apace. White Christians are now a minority of the US population.

A poem, by Contemplative Me:

Little by little
with foam fleck and spittle
the carvers and butchers
tore muscle from gristle
till all that was good
familiar and genial
bled of its life froze and turned brittle
and the hearth of your people
coughed soot ash and cinders
as home, kin, and myth
succumbed to the whittle

We have strip mined our Wealth, our Truth, and our Beauty from the homeland. If future generations of our posterity remain, they will curse us to their last breaths for damnable fools and malicious traitors.

Read Full Post »

Sexiest Vagnette

Read Full Post »

I’ll make the brief case here that the cuntventional wisdom is wrong about porn. It doesn’t raise men’s standards in real life women by visually and orgasmically acclimating them to hotter women; it lowers men’s standards by supplying an outlet of multiple hot digiwomen into which men spill their vitality and leaves them unmotivated to spend any energy acquiring a sole fleshwoman of impeccable femininity.

Porn probably raises the aggregate beta male thirst, and probably also raises the aggregate beta male disgust threshold for acceptable mates. (The higher your disgust threshold, the more you can tolerate a disgusting presence in your life.)

The old feminist-inspired argument goes like this:

Man watches porn featuring slender babes catering to his fantasies. This adjusts his expectations upward for real life women, because he can now only get off to women who are as hot and sexually voracious as his Redtube Lovers. He drops out of the dating market dissatisfied with the IRL heifers available to him.

Sounds plausible, but it’s (mostly) wrong.

The new and improved Chateau argument:

Man watches porn featuring slender babes catering to his fantasies. This reduces his urgency to find a sexy real life lover, an urgency which he would normally feel absent the steady stimulus of porn. Blue balls and T build-up that would occur in a pre-online porn environment act together to focus and energize a man’s sexual standards, because he’s not going to blow his one chance for sexual relief on a heifer or bitterbitch feminist. So he hunts for prime pussy with a starving man’s clarity of vision and intensity of purpose. But the porn-saturated man has lost that clarity of the hunt, and, depleted of his T, settles into a low energy, passion-less relationship of convenience with whatever skank or cow roams into his field of view. Or, if cowfraus are his only option and he has a shred of dignity left, he’ll commit to a lifetime stay in his masturbatorium.

This therefore is the negative double-whammy of widespread, cheap, easily available, hardcore online porn on the healthy functioning of the sexual market:

Porn simultaneously increases sloppy beta male thirst and decreases beta male standards.

The downstream effects of porn are notoriously bad for lovers of feminine Beauty: recklessly insincere beta male thirst bloats the egos of an ever-expanding horde of self-entitled fatties and sluts, and loose beta male standards discourages fatties, fugs, and unfeminine skanks from making themselves more pleasing to men.

Porn is beta malaise. Betalaise. The lethargy of body, mind, and spirit that porn induces in men, but especially in beta males who don’t have regular access to 3D hot babes and must live with the dreary knowledge that their pornlife is less a complement to an active dating life than it is a necessary substitute, dulls their seductive allure, atrophies their courtship skills, and weakens their internal drive to win the love of a sexy hot girl. The pornfed soyboy is content hitching his rickety pisswagon to an unfeminine careerist shrike or gargantuan blob because his porn habit rescues him from abject sexual starvation and the motivation to fill his ballbelly.

Delivered from the brink of sexual starvation by the drip drip of pornified dopamine hits, the betalaise sufferer misses out on the starvation-induced mental energy and clarity that would suffuse his loinsoul and push him inexorably towards conquest of a worthy woman. His hunger thus partly sated by porn, he surrenders his day-to0-day public existence to the passion-free comforts of a sluggish, insensate coupling with an uninspiring unwoman who is easy to keep around and who will by her dull presence slap his life story with the imprimatur of bourgeois respectability.

Related concept: Hormesis.

Read Full Post »

I love the long legs of tall slender women, but shorter slender women often have better overall bodies punctuated by pertly round asses and fleshy tits. Taller women tend to have leaner, less curvaceous figures and flatter asses.

This is my burden of choice. Lord help me carry on.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: