Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

The shapes of female figures have real world consequences, for both men’s capacity to experience pleasure and willingness to commit, and for women’s ability to leverage the sexual market to snag a winner man and fulfill their romantic needs. Given that men, unlike women, are neurally primed to get aroused and motivated solely by stimulating visual cues, it’s difficult to overestimate just how much a good body shape assists women in the promise of a healthy and happy love life.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a lie insofar as it presupposes every female body type is equally attractive. They aren’t. Women don’t have equal sexual or marriageable worth. Some body types are better than others. And one body type is so much better than the others that women who possess it can name their price.

The Anti-Gnostic, ruddy and taut from doing a yeoman’s job disinfecting that cistern of stupidity at Cheap Chalupas whenever the subject turns to mass nonwhite immigration, forwards a handy chart illustrating the four five female body types.

He adds for effect,

Female body types: hourglass, pear, banana, apple.

I’d add a body type of “rotund”, given the historically unprecedented numbers of fertile, obese females.

Never bonked an apple or a rotund. Ever. I’ve had some widely variant sexual partners, but if she doesn’t have inflection points that result in a definite waist, the right subinsular is just not going to be firing. No amount of drugs or desperation on earth could get me over that hump.

The recently added Rotund fifth female body type:

Who said America’s inventive spirit is dead? We’ve invented a whole new female body type!

Of the five, rotund is obviously the most disfiguring, and the ugliest female body type. A woman with this non-shape will suffer MASSIVE constraints on her mate choice options. Compared to less celestial women, she will have the least number of men pursuing her, and those who do will be the lowest value men. Her odds of spending many years enduring painful involuntary solitude are very high. Like her male analogue the socially clumsy nerdo, she will likely spend months, perhaps even years, in parched involuntary sexlessness. And any man she does manage to lure into her sticky, bulbous, pitcher plant vagina will be less interested in a longer-term commitment with her than he would with a woman of more human shape.

The Rotund female body type is so bad in contrast with the others that it practically deserves its own graphic. Correction: It needs its own graphic due to screen size limitations. So we boot Violet Blobbybarge into Jupiterian orbit where she belongs, and rank the remaining four female body types in ascending order of attractiveness.


Not nearly as atrociously repulsive as the Rotund, the Apple nonetheless squats lumply below the other three body types. Top heaviness works for linebackers, not women.


The Pear is interesting, because much of her sexual appeal or lack thereof depends on the distribution of her fulcrum fat. If her fat sits grotesquely on her hips like a hoop dress, and her ass juts like a National Geographic native, she will turn off more (white) men than the Apple-shaped girl. If she sports an incipient fupa, even worse. The entire deleterious effect is magnified if her narrow-shouldered upper body sways like a swamp reed atop the mountain of fat below.

But if the Pear’s fat isn’t obtrusive, and it rests gracefully and smoothly on child-birthing hips without too much distortion, the Pear can be quite bangable. Unfortunately, most Pears aren’t this lucky.


I expect this categorization to elicit the most opposition from the penis gallery. Men like curves, and will assume the Pear has more of those boner-inducing curves than the Banana. But that’s not how it always plays out. Bananas have curves that are proportionate to their overall slender body shape. The waist-hip ratio is what counts, not the absolute hip width.

Bananas are your archetypical athletic girls: Tall, slender and built like sex pistons. Bananas are overrepresented among porn starlets, probably because they have the optimal balance of higher testosterone-induced horniness and thin body shapes that arouse male viewers. If the Banana has a narrow waist to complement her lithe hips, and her torso isn’t overdeveloped, she will turn more men’s eyes than the Pear. However if the Banana is tubular, the Pear with pleasing pelvic padding will win more head-swivel contests.

Keep in mind that men with a keen future time orientation who are also seeking relationships will be better at projecting the Banana and the Pear into the future, whereupon they will see with mental clarity what happens to each type of body after ten or twenty years, and the Pear doesn’t come out looking so good under those conditions. The Banana typically holds up better, while the Pear turns into a Weeble.


And here we arrive, at last, to the goddess. My, but she is a tall drink of tumescence. The vast…. VAST… majority of men prefer hourglass-shaped women. Those perfect Playboy measurements — 34/24/34 and mostly unchanged in their boner-popping power since time immemorial — are so desired by men that women with this body type run laps around their sexual market competition.

The Hourglass lady is desired by the most men, pursued by the most high value men, and when pursued is solicited the most frequently by men with offers of long-term commitment. If she is also pretty of face, she has, for all practical purposes, unlimited sexual market options.


There it is. Women would do well to understand and accept the visual acumen with which men make their split-second judgment of women’s bodies. Men are frickin electron microscopes in human form when they’re visually assessing women’s figures. A centimeter here, a millimeter there, can mean the difference for women between suffering the awkward sexual interest of a spazzy beta or the passionate love of a smooth alpha. It can mean the difference between waiting for years for an Alex Pareene to propose in cubic zirconia, or weeks for a God of the Rod to gift wrap a bag of Skittles.

Read Full Post »

Animatronic host society leech Bryan Caplan took a break from spreading the ass cheeks of his nation to report on GSS survey data indicating that monogamy remains the norm among Americans.

The problem with sex surveys of this sort — i.e., the kind that ask in no uncertain terms just how slutty (women) or charming (men) you are — is that people lie. They lie to assuage their egos, and they lie to meet social expectations. And lo and behold, there are attenuating studies which discredit to some extent the reported results of sex surveys. This one, for instance, found that:

Men report more permissive sexual attitudes and behavior than do women. This experiment tested whether these differences might result from false accommodation to gender norms (distorted reporting consistent with gender stereotypes). Participants completed questionnaires under three conditions. Sex differences in self‐reported sexual behavior were negligible in a bogus pipeline condition in which participants believed lying could be detected, moderate in an anonymous condition, and greatest in an exposure threat condition in which the experimenter could potentially view participants’ responses. This pattern was clearest for behaviors considered less acceptable for women than men (e.g., masturbation, exposure to hardcore & softcore erotica). Results suggest that some sex differences in self‐reported sexual behavior reflect responses influenced by normative expectations for men and women.

Men overstate their number of partners to a small degree, and women understate their number of partners to a large degree.

Two anti-Hivemind (or pro-Red Pill, if you wish) conclusions can be drawn from this very special insight about human nature:

1. On the subject of sex, women are bigger liars than men.

2. There are more slutty women running around in the world than sexually parched betaboys think.

I’d add that, despite the above GrateFacts, it’s a good bet that lower-N count monogamy is still hanging on as the norm among Eurasian peoples. Well, serial monogamy, at any rate.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Rick250 uses a parable to illuminate the aesthetic and practical appeal of the Heartistian ideology of poolsideism.

Theres a certain zen aspect to poolside…

Pursued by a tiger, you scramble off the edge of a 60′ cliff managing to find a couple of vines to hold you from falling. Looking down, you see another tiger hungrily waiting below.
You notice that the vines you hold are slowly being uprooted. Its only a matter of time before you fall, though, you have done, and are doing, everything in your power to find a way out of this.
Beside you, you notice a ripe wild strawberry growing within reach. You pick it and temporarily slip away into a blissful state, thinking it to be as ripe and perfect as a strawberry could taste.

Characters in this parable:

You: A redpill alpha male
Tiger 1: Western society and its decay
Tiger 2: The Hivemind
The strawberry: A beautiful, feminine, sweet woman

The machete you forgot is tied to your back: Teachings, as found here at the Chateau

There is a fatalist inevitability inherent to the poolside philosophy, though in practice one can be poolside as a bright future crests or as a dark age descends.

“But what about your posterity?!”, exclaim the anti-poolside-ists. “Don’t you want to leave them with a chance to live in a civilized homeland?”

I get the impulse. But, thinking about it, when poolside time is up, there’s no wistful looking back at descendants frolicking in the limpid waters you left behind. You are obliterated, you and all your memories, your senses and hopes, to the infinite nothingness. The fortunes of your heirs will only matter to you when you’re alive, and at death the comfort derived from safeguarding your posterity will vanish just as completely as your poolside time.

I suppose it’s a lucky thing for the propagation of civilized humanity that few people think so logically about their mortality. How could this grandest of self-deceptions evolve? It makes one wonder if, perhaps, there is a hidden hand shaping the spirit of man.

Read Full Post »

Commenter dirkdiggly unzips in front of a mirror and ‘miringly unfurls this meaty tale of modern romance:

What fun it would be to make a “romcom” depicting a fiery romantic relationship as it actually plays out for the garden-variety CH apprentice…

Boy meets girl at a gathering of mutual friends.
Girl is objectively prettier than the guy, and clearly bored with her life and asteroid belts of hopeful orbiters, also present at the gathering.
Guy behaves outlandishly, or displays bold talent that sets him apart -no fucks given.
Guy negs girl, finishes her drink while she goes to the bathroom to gossip.
Numbers are exchanged. Guy writes hers on a napkin -loses napkin.
She calls after a few days of expectant waiting and overthink.
Guy “forgets” her name, but tells her that he remembers her hairstyle because it’s so common these days.
Girl asks guy on a date.
Sparks fly, fluids are exchanged.
Guy loudly poops immediately post-coitus, bathroom door open. Girl is fascinated.
Guy doesn’t call for a week. Smoke pours from girl’s ears due to hamster wheel tread stripping and transmission fire.
Guy texts “sup”. Girl swoons.
Casual sex ensues for six months. Guy avoids meeting her family.
Guy moves across country. Girl uproots entire life, quits job at Forever21, follows.
Girl arrives to find guy with new girlfriend…”babe I thought we had an understanding”
Credits roll to sounds of wailing/sobbing.

I’m drafting a script now, wonder which studio will jump on this “feel-good hit of the summer” first?

I’ll be setting up an indiegogo for those who feel compelled to donate.

This romantic scenario is far more common than the ones you see in typical rom-coms. But it would bomb at the box office, because women wouldn’t like it. Women don’t like depictions of love and romance that are too honest about the nature of their own sexuality. See, for example, Blue Valentine. Concealed ovulation should be your first clue that women are born masters at the art of self-deception.

Read Full Post »

A reader passed along a link to a post from what I believe is a satire website, called ‘The Reductress’. The post title is ‘Nicholas Sparks’ Wife: Romantic Gestures Are Not Orgasms’. It’s funny, if stylistically pedestrian.

“She really was my muse,” Nicholas said of the former lending company account executive, who he proposed to in a thunderstorm but never let try a girl-on-top position.

The humor is accessible because it does say something truthful about the sexes. Women say they love romance, and in certain contexts they do, but grand romantic gestures never did do nothing for their vaginas that a jerkboy attitude and an impudent boner didn’t already do.

Romance is dangerous beta bait. Books and movies have genres dedicated to the proposition that sappy romance wins women’s hearts and gines. I don’t doubt that women sincerely love immersing themselves in romantic escapes, but to extrapolate from that arid swoon a real world wet desire by women for pre-schtup sentimental schlock is an inference error that will cost you more lays than avoiding displays of romance altogether.

Don’t chomp the bait. Romance can’t spark attraction. It can only reinforce love. You will never part a woman’s legs with a love poem. Usually the opposite will happen; your LLoyd Dobler love sonnet performance paying loose tribute to the movie scene that shook your amour to joyful tears in a dark theater will have a decidedly less aphrodisiacal effect on her in the bright amphitheater of humanwave transmission.

Maxim #49: Romance isn’t foreplay. Romance is, at best, seasoning on an established sexual relationship.

Corollary to Maxim #49: A premature romantic gesture will have the opposite of its intended effect on a high SMV woman. Untethered romance is a DLV.

Hey, I’m a romantic just like most men. I’ve given myself over to the mush side on occasion, and it was nearly always a mutually enjoyable experience. The one weird trick I used to ensure mutual enjoyment? I never sapped it up with a girl I hadn’t yet tapped. I learned that lesson early in life. Save your romantic wanderlust for girls accustomed to your lumberthrust. They’ll be much more appreciative than the girls who have a band of betas lavishing them with jizz-stained testimonials of enduring obsession.

Reiterating, this is how women perceive romance:

Post-sex romance = surprise love.
Pre-sex romance = sex-starved ploy.

Naturally, the demanding male logos asks, “Then why, if women don’t tingle for romantic twaddle, do they devour representations of romantic twaddle?”

You’ve got to consider the psychological prestidigitation of the female mind. There are two self-medications being administered here.

One, when a woman melts during a romantic movie, she’s not thinking of Bob the Beta photobooth weirdo wooing her as if she were Amelie in her own little gay Paree. She’s not even thinking of a sexy but strangely asexual alpha man doing that. Instead, she’s metamorphosing the romance porn into relationship victory. A cute girl has little trouble getting sex from a man, but converting that coin of the clam into a long-term investment is exponentially tougher. Male romantic abandon, viewed from this perspective, is cause for a victory dance by a woman who now has evidence she succeeded taming the dude. This female perspective is always tinged with a tacit subconscious understanding that sex was already happening, or destined to happen, somewhere out of immediate sight, and it was therefore the allure of her nonsexual charms that truly won the man over.

Two, women have a queer ability to imagine themselves as the protagonist in rom-coms, even when the protagonist is a man (as they often are). This is a bit of inverse projection by women, as they identify with the lovelorn “beta man” who is desperate to capture the love of the emotionally distant “alpha woman”. The male character’s romantic exertions remind women of the efforts they undergo to win the commitment of the hard-to-get alpha man. In this body swap, women see something of themselves in striver Romeos, especially that something which speaks to a woman’s craving for acknowledgement of her feelings. But of course, what women don’t see is the involuntary sexlessness that typically bedevil beta male characters, because women can’t relate to incel with the ease that they relate to insol.

Read Full Post »

Many readers forwarded this NYBetaTimes article about men dropping out of the workforce. The author listed several factors aggravating this War on Men trend.

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.

Thank you, mass immigration and Wall Street wunderkinds!

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

All of these are doubtless contributing factors, but as with most Hivemind reporting on the topic of men dropping out, there is a studious avoidance to analyzing the role that women, and their marital worthiness, play in men’s choices. I will explain below.

Men today may feel less pressure to find jobs because they are less likely than previous generations to be providing for others. Only 28 percent of men without jobs — compared with 58 percent of women — said a child under 18 lived with them.

A misleading stat. Divorced women get custody of children, and men pay child support. So some number of these no-employment men living alone are indeed providing for others, just not in the way they would prefer.

A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 could be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood.

Women initiate 70+% of all divorces. Who’s retreating from marriage and fatherhood, again?

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas.

Yes, mass immigration and automation are certainly demoralizing to unemployed men who weren’t born with the capacity for abstract thinking and symbol manipulation, but you know what else is demoralizing to men? Fat women, single moms, and sluts looking to settle down after a lifetime cocking up.

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children.

Cost of getting a degree = runaway credentialism.
Cost of staying healthy = following the government low-fat guidelines.
Cost of hiring a nanny = embracing the DIOK (dual income, one kid) lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

Corn and porn.

So many conservative social commentators, like Ross Douthat, fail to account for feedback loops in the sexual market, and how that trickles up and affects the economic market. They have a blind spot about women, preferring to lay blame for all society’s woeful indicators at the feet of men, so that they may continue polishing the pedestal of their faire maidens.

But men react to opposite sex cues just as much as women do. Think of men as having two engines of motivation, one internal, one external. The internal engine is self-starting and self-perpetuating, and it evolved to confer upon men a shot at raising their status so that they could attract more and better women.

The external engine is context-dependent. Visual cues fuel it, and it puts out more power the more enticing visual cues are fed into it. This engine, too, is a product of evolution, but it is more easily short-circuited by negative environmental inputs that were rare in the millennia when evolution was working to perfect both engines.

Men’s (white men’s, at any rate) external engine of motivation looks around, surveys a landscape teeming with land whales, single moms, and sluts, and decides that, hey, working their asses off in a crappy, low-wage job for a shot at wifing up George Lucas’ pelican gullet is the dictionary definition of a raw deal. Throw in the growing ranks of single moms, even the thin fuckable ones, and the women who have amassed considerable premarital histories on the cock carousel and are therefore less likely to stay faithful or to avoid the divorce altar, and men’s motivation to perform for these female losers dwindles to nothing.

Now add the finishing ingredient — porn — and you have most of what you need to know about why marriage rates are falling and men are dropping out of the economy, particularly among the lower classes. (The upper classes have more stable marriages because getting married later in life circumscribes the availability of tempting extramarital options, especially for older wives. Plus, upper class women are generally thinner and hotter.)

Dropped-out men may not be consciously happy about their non-employment and increasing alienation from society, but subconsciously they are making very rational cost-benefit decisions based upon real world incentives and disincentives. In 2014 America, cheap online porn is more rewarding than an expensive fat wife, and disability insurance more rewarding than working at a paint shop for $9 an hour. Change those two inputs — make both American women and American wages more attractive — and you will begin to see men dropping back into contention.

Read Full Post »

Leading sociologists like Charles Murray have examined the social phenomenon of cognitive stratification — the generational separating into two classes, or even subspecies, of the smart from the less smart. It’s considered a bad thing (and I agree) because an IQ elite will not just amass an unequal amount of national wealth, but their precious IQ genes will get trapped into a small caste instead of spread to some degree around the general population. There is also the issue of dysgenic fertility among the overeducated women of the cognitively gated class.

The causes for cognitive stratification are manifold, but there’s one very plausible mechanism which I have yet to see discussed by mainstream white knights pundits.

The Southerner writes,

attractive 21 year old white women exist for marriage? By the looks of things they’re all in college capitalizing on their smv, therefore wasting their fertility and become un-marriageable (and untouchable). I don’t think I’ve ever seen a young post high-school white woman not in college and who wasn’t at least overweight.

Can someone tell me I’m wrong?

One of my theories is that female obesity is a big (heh) contributor to cognitive stratification of SWPL elites from other whites. If more working class and lower class women were thinner and sexier, more lower AND higher class men would happily marry them. This is particularly the case for those sassy smart lower class girls who could easily entrance lonely high IQ SWPL bachelors if these girls weren’t all so goddamned fat.

The same goes for single moms, even the thin ones. Men are loath to commit to single moms, sensibly figuring that her little bastards are romance killers and there’s no upside in raising another man’s fly-by-night spawn.

The sub-elite classes are filled with fatties and single moms, and this goes quite a ways to explaining the abandonment of marriage by the men who have these loser women as part of their social milieu.

Unemployed and unemployable men, driven by mass brown world immigration, are doubtless a factor in declining marriage rates among the cognitive outcasts, but due diligence should be paid to female obesity and single momhood as equal, if not greater, contributors to the decline in social stability of non-elite whites. The only reason I can think that this tenderhearted Heartistian worldview is studiously overlooked is because it gives conservatives the hives to shift some blame onto women and their poor life decisions.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,174 other followers

%d bloggers like this: