Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

I once dated a hot little minx who was the spitting image of this chick.

In a slinky dress and made up, she would turn heads. Beautiful face, curvy hourglass figure, long legs, pert tits. Men AND women would check her out (former with lust, latter with envy and curiosity and proxy attraction for the CH with her) when we were out together.

But there was a problem. She was an illusionist hottie. Back home, clothes off, her body betrayed a surprising patchwork of unsightly flaws; thigh and ass dimples, creeping cottage cheese, an incipient fupa, and blotchy skin tone (probably from a bad diet). Even in dimmed light, I could see that the road to vajhalla would be a bumpy one.

She didn’t lift weights, and tragically she was one of those girls who could have benefited immensely from weightlifting instead of counting steps on her ClitBit. She was the poster girl for yoga pants as the push-up bra for the booty.

None of her body flaws were deal breakers. But there was just enough taut-less terrain wildly out of sync with her after hours glamour that I could never make peace with the whole package. The world saw one woman; I saw another. Sure, I loved showing her off when out on the town, but my pride was tainted with insider knowledge of the grit beneath the glitz.

It got to be that near fling’s end, I was looking for excuses to leave post-date with the intention of avoiding sex with her. {ed: judge me harshly.} Once, I made a cuddle suggestion when she started heating up during foreplay. COSMIC POLARITY INVERTED.

This woman created the worst dickonance —

dickonance: an incongruous feeling caused when intense arousal for a fully clothed woman clashes with deflating desire for her disrobed form.

— in me I have ever had to compartmentalize. I loved going out with her and soaking up her beauty when she was dressed to the nines, but I was indifferent to sleeping with her afterward. It was never that bad, but the wickedly unfair juxtaposition was needling me to the edge of insanity — I felt like Nature was playing a cruel joke on me, robbing me of the one nonnegotiable pleasure of a hot woman’s love: her stimulating naked form. The wedge between us widened to a chasm of unspeakable provenance.

She never knew the real reason it ended. I supplied a plausible explanation for my receding ardor that required no recourse to the state of her maculation, an explanation which in fact made me out to be a very bad person but bad in an understandable OH GEE ANOTHER NONCOMMITTAL DOUCHEBAG way and not bad in an OH FUCK YOU ARE THE DEVIL INCARNATE way. A few female tears I can handle. A deluge of waterworks that wrack the body and shake the shoulders I prefer not to witness. Or, worse, she might lunge for the kitchen knives in a blind rage.

I had no intention of revealing the stark nature of my un-caged id. She didn’t merit any meanness, so I committed relationship seppuku.

When it ended, friends asked what the hell I was thinking. “She was a hottie! What the hell were you thinking?” was what they said. I lied that we had incompatible personalities. I doubt they bought it, (no one really buys it when a man claims a relationship ended because of personality issues), but I was not eager to sully her lady-honor by exposing the pocked underbelly of our separation. I expose it here, anonymously and obliquely, because I suppose I’m seeking absolution. To confront one’s superficiality is fun and games in abstraction-space, but not so fun in real life with real lovers and their real hearts on the line.

The duality of man is his endless struggle to embrace, and to reject, to free, and to tame, the animal of him.

Read Full Post »

The Daily Stormer, a major maul-right tributary coming close to perfecting that balance between sincere shitposting and humorous ironic detachment, has a hot bake on Natalie Portman’s ugly sister and her Cosmo column imploring Reptile-American women to dump men who aren’t enthralled to be sharing snatch space with a vibrator.

When you do decide to let him in on the fact that you own a vibrator that you would also like to use in bed together, there are two possible reactions: He’s either overcome with joy that your sex life is about to get even hotter (and wants to start immediately), or he’s, well, weird about it. He might say it feels “a little unnatural,” or ask if his penis and sex skills aren’t enough. And if he does, he’s in trouble.

Because if a man is anti-vibrators, you should absolutely, without question, dump him.

Yeaaah, this is dumpsthatneverhappen.txt. I saw your photo, Julia Pugachevsky. The pug part is right. Don’t flatter yourself. If you managed to snag an aryan shivsa with something on the ball there’s no way in hell you’re dumping him. Especially not for something as trivial as refusing to fuck you if you have a purple saguaro pressed against your benumbed clit. And lo and behold, like magic!, her goyboy borefriend looks like he came prefitted with a choke collar.

There’s a whole genre of femmefic tumblrrhea written by Fake Hotties — fat sows, fugs, and striver plain janes — that amounts to egregious wishful projection that the authoress is an independent, empowered, orgasm-demanding riotgrrl HB9 who came here to chew gum and fuck two dicks at once, and she’s just about out of gum. As fiction, it’s so transparently bad that it boomerangs back on the girlwriter. As Whoreschach Test, it’s a perfect mirror of the girlwriter’s bitter heart, revealing a lying phonyfuck cunt who either has never held a man for longer than the time it takes him to get his whiskey dick operational, or is stuck with a mangina cucklet who reminds her by his irritating omnipresence of her low SMV.

Girls who proudly flaunt their vibrators are best avoided as investment properties. If she can’t be bothered to put up at least of facade of modesty, she doesn’t respect your desire and needs as a man. (Hint: most men prefer to save their exclusivity for chaste women.) This goes double for chicks who insist that men tolerate the additional company of an artificial penis during lovemaking. If your girl is that desperate for sexual relief while fucking you that she needs the assistance of a vibrator, she’s either a world-beating slut with a carnal appetite that will guarantee her straying, or you’re not doing anything for her. Either way, this kind of girl should never be promoted from occasional cum receptacle.

Seguing to the title of this post, the final word (in my estimable opinion) on the topic of eatin’ pussy was written off-handedly in this archived gem of Chateau consilience.

Eating a girl out anytime during the first few weeks of dating is beta. When you eat a girl out, you telegraph your incredible horniness for her. Men normally do not want to go down on women and bury their mouths in that fetid, humid mess unless they find her so overwhelmingly hot that they can’t help themselves. Women instinctively know this, so they correctly gauge that a man who goes down on them on the first date must feel he’s with one of the best he’s ever had. This, in turn, will sour a woman’s attraction for a man, since no woman in the history of the universe has ever felt raging lust for a man she believed lower than herself in value.

Cunnilingus later in the relationship is absolved from this rule, because you have already demonstrated your manly ability to use her strictly for the piledriving hole she is.

I’m not anti-eatin’ pussy, but men should be aware of the risks involved (both disease and psychological feedback arousal-damping risks). Very broadly, alpha men don’t eat pussy. Beta men do. And if a man is eatin’ pussy for any reason other than his own pleasure — say, because he feels obligated to help deliver his woman the elusive O which his dick and jerkboy je ne sais cocq can’t summon — then odds are good that he is an appeasing beta male who must endure tongue cramping and oral abscesses to sufficiently please his woman. And if that’s his station in the relationship, his tongue ain’t gonna save him from her inevitably checking out.

There are exceptions to the eatin’ pussy rule. When an alpha male is so overcome with animal lust for his HB9+ that he’s compelled by inner forces to dive downtown and sniff the intoxicating aroma of springtime snapper, then we can say that he’s not beta-tizing himself by the act. Still, it’s smart poon-swooning policy to refrain from chowin’ on the downy before spending a few months crustin’ the cumcatch basin.

Read Full Post »

This is a grosspost. If you don’t want to read it, feel free to sashay over to gay bodybuilding forum MPC, where they’re just as gross but pretend to be offended by it.

Every Asian girl with whom I’ve lain (small sample set, tbh) has stuck a finger up my ass during a blowjob, or tried to. Talk about HELLO KITTY. One waifu rooted around down there like a tunnel rat in the ‘Nam jungle.

Wassupwitdat? Anyone else notice that Asian girls have an odd fascination with the male anus (manus) as a portal to mutual pleasure? Or so they envision it. Personally, I was not a fan. One Chinese-American girl looked genuinely crestfallen (as best one can discern emotion on an Asian’s face) when I recoiled and retracted from her probings with Kegelian thrusters set to escape velocity.

I wonder too if this is a fetish peculiar to Asian chicks as an group…or only to Asian chicks making sweet rove to the White Man. What’s the Asian equivalent of a mudshark? Chaddragon? Paleface pirate? Crackerjacker? Ivory poacher? Milk mugger? Frosted Flip? Bang wan wang? Bleached Lee? Fat Man and Little Koi? Ghost in the vajeen? Occiwench? Wog-eater? Epicanthicc? Ah, I see that the slang for it is Potato Queen. Meh.

Anyhow, maybe Asian girls always feel like they’re batting out of their league with White men, and presumably are compelled by the perceived SMV imbalance to extracarnally impress White men with that attention to physiologic detail only an Asian can grind out when the hind’s out.

Or Asian girls are magnetically drawn in by the anus region with a force matched only by gay homosexuals. Any Asians out there in the CH reading audience, man or woman, who can add their nuance to this…fissuring topic?

Read Full Post »

There are a few pervasive sexual market myths that cry out for the tender vivisection only a Chateau house lord can lovingly execute. One of these myths is the notion held dear by sour grapes LSMV men that hotties are dead fish in bed.

Reader Passer By comments relevantly,

i remember when an ugly woman (skinny, though) was asking for advice in some men’s forum. She wanted to know if men are going to prefer a pretty woman that rarely makes sex over her, that can offer great sex. The men told her that they will prefer an ugly woman (with good looking body), if she can make great sex, over a pretty women, that rarely makes sex.

So you could give that advice to such women. Sex up!

The men in that forum are lying. It’s what men do when they want to help a distressed woman feel better about herself. But when the rubber meats the hole, men will betray their stated lofty principles and experience hotter, better sex with a hot woman than with a plain jane. Because of this real world dynamic, men will expend a lot of energy seeking one night stand sex with hot women over relaxing in the confines of a secure relationship with a buttaface who puts out more regularly.

Commeter Tarl inserts a pointed shiv,

If you are so ugly that no man will ever climb in bed with you, then your ability to “make great sex” is irrelevant.

True, and it’s a false dichotomy anyway. An unrealistic hypothetical. The “dead fish in bed hottie” is another one of those dumb feminist and butthurt beta male ego-assuaging foundational myths that has no bearing in reality. Hot chicks are actually more passionate in bed because they know their beauty is a turn-on for men, and they get turned on by watching their men lose control. A mind-body arousal feedback loop sets up that can escalate a hot woman’s carnal passion to heights that ugly women only read about in female porn (aka romance novels).

And it’s even more dispiriting for ugly women than that. Not only are hotter women generally MORE sexually wanton in bed than are ugly women, but men are primed to PERCEIVE a hot woman’s sexuality in more glowing terms than they would a plain woman’s sexuality, EVEN IF the plain woman objectively possessed a broader repertoire of sex positions and wider flexibility to accommodate those positions.

There really is no end to the ways in which being a beautiful woman is better than being an ugly woman.

***

I suspect the dead fish hottie myth first circulated among beta male strivers who had accumulated some experience bedding genuinely hot women. Hot women have hot woman standards, which can play out as sexual indolence on the rare occasions when a hot woman hooks up with an uninspiring beta male. Rejection stings, but sexual rejection is a scythe to a man’s soul, and many such betas cut down by the turtled snatch scythe will rationalize a hot woman’s lack of sexual enthusiasm as her own character defect. The male rationalization hamster exists, though we may say the critter is slower and smaller than the female version.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Karl Marx (fitting) wonders if sexual shame is the real reason why good-looking men with no Game fail with women.

Are you not conflating mental problems with no game? Most good looking guys who can’t get laid have some sort of mental hangup. If parents embed deep sexual shame into their sons no amount of PUA tactics can save a man.

Garden-variety introversion and dullness are common afflictions and not indicative of “mental hangups”. Sexual shame is a useless Freudian concept that has almost no basis in reality outside of weird religious communities and mentally ill autogynephilic trannies.

You go to great lengths about the effectiveness of shaming women, fat people but consider sexual shame “no basis in reality”?

Shaming “women”? No, shaming “fat women”. And the reason is obvious: fat kills romance dead. But I have never met a man who did poorly with women because he had some deep-seated “sexual shame”. That’s not how it goes for the vast majority of men who have trouble getting women. Just the opposite really; men have NO sexual shame and a great desire to FULFILL their sexual craving, but lack the courage and acumen to satisfy their lust. The tension between their sexual SHAMELESSNESS and their sexual FAILURE is what causes them to swallow black pills by the mouthful and grasp discredited Freudian gobbledygook to rationalize their incel torment.

How you are treated throughout your childhood affects you your whole life.

Hm, a loaded statement that, while containing nuggets of truth, has come under fire from geneticists who haven’t located any strong correlation between shared environment and life outcome. The evidence appears to be heading in the direction of genes piloting the ship of fate, with environment (parents and peers) playing a smaller role as co-pilot.

Anyhow, social shaming of boys will never be powerful enough to override their later sexual desires. Like I said, most men aren’t deviants acutely ashamed of their insolent boners. What they are is supplicating, fearful dullards who place pussy on the pedestal thinking that will help them get laid, and yes that should be shamed by better men who know it’s not what women want.

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of Reb, a very, uh, vivid anecdote of life after nofap.

Every 7 days is what I heard. I went no fap in jail a few times. I had the power of an animal. Fucked the first blond woman with big tities whom I approached when I got out. She was on birth control so her pussy sprayed the kid out like a plate of spaghetti two days after.

There should be a healthy balance between nofap and gofap. Strict nofap is an ascetic demand too great on the male body, unless the man is supplementing his literal downtime with a rigorous protocol of vajfap. But gofap — constant and unregulated personal indulgence of fapping — poses risks to a man’s health as well, mostly I’d guess through gradual wearing away of psychological defenses against crippling self-doubt. The gofapper is typically a man who struggles in the acquisition of the preferred vajfap release, so each crabbed-hand fap over time reinforces limiting beliefs in his sexual and seductive prowess.

The optimal ejaculation frequency is therefore going to be lower for gofappers, higher for nofappers, and like baby bear’s porridge, juuuuuust the right amount for vajfappers. There’s something to be said for “cleaning the pipes”, but more to be said for laying pipe. Really, there’s no upper limit on vajfap; the healthiest (in every measurable way) men I know vajfap like it’s their last. If there’s attractive vaj that wants fapping, the good and honorable vajfapper will never turn it down. Hedonism has its privileges.

Read Full Post »

Although the old trope of the undersexed husband has been around for ages, it wasn’t quite accurate, at least until recently. General Social Survey warriors like Audacious E had dug up data showing that married couples have more sex than singles. (Forgive me for not finding the relevant post, I’m a lazy SOB).

I can recall objecting to the GSS sex frequency data on the grounds that it exaggerates the sexual wantonness of married couples compared to singles because the population of singles includes all the no-sex, fap-happy incels dragging down the sex frequency average for their group. I suggested this asexual albatross would conceal the incredibly-high, curve-busting sex frequency rates of unmarried alpha male cads who are following the “girlfriend and fling” formula for happiness.

While I can’t at the moment recall any posts I may have written confirming with data any factual basis for my objection, I can report that a recent study, via our resident gold star artist Captain Obvious, finds that there was a decline in sexual frequency among married or cohabiting American adults from 1989-2014.

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Regular guests of this brazen retreat won’t be surprised by the relative sexlessness of the Millennial generation, a screechy, androgynous, narcissistic generation which from nearly every vantage point appears to be the most useless lump of Americans to ever squib outta their mommas’ womb chutes.

Nor will readers be surprised by the finding that old farts who look like raisins with eyes have less sex than virile youts who can still flaunt their sexual dimorphism.

What’s interesting is mentioned in the last line: sex frequency is down over the period because there are more unpartnered people having no sex, and partnered couples are having less sex.

So….the incel demo is exploding. That would seem to confirm a CH observation of the sexual market; namely that the prolonged unmarried phase of courtship (aka the cock carousel) is supercharging female hypergamy. A lot of single in the city ladies are sharing HSMV men and leaving less charismatic beta males in the cold. That explains the male incels. The rise in female insols is explained by the concurrent rise in obesity (and aggro-feminism). Fat chicks and annoying chicks really do have less sex than slender, feminine babes, because men also exercise choice of mate.

The remaining mystery is why married and cohabiting sex frequency is decreasing. Captain Obvious writes,

Shitlib & Libertardian geeks and nerds at /. were sounding thoroughly Red-Pilled about this – talking about Phuckerbergbook, SSRIs, pr0n, the decline in earning power, an omnipresent sense of trepidation & cowardice & fear pervading much of the population, etc etc etc – and one dude even div0rced his wife over her iPhag Addiction: https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/03/07/2313232/americans-are-having-less-sex-than-20-years-ago-study-finds

Yes to all of that as causes for the sex frequency decline, but again I must humbly suggest that the primary causes are female obesity, female economic self-sufficiency, and the multigenerational drop in testosterone.

Female obesity: men are visually stimulated to bedroom action, and men really are disgusted by the sight of a female fatbody. Men, and especially White men with options, will fap to porn before bouncing dick-first into a fat chick’s belly brûlée. The obesity epidemic shows no signs of letting up, and that’s gotta have an effect on the national GCP (Gross Carnal Product).

Female economic self-sufficiency: women are aroused by powerful men with resources to spare on them, and they are turned off by powerless cash-strapped men. Women who are in less need of a man’s resources are also less sexually interested in men who don’t make substantially more than they make (or have other compensating traits). If husbands’ incomes have decreased relative to wives’ incomes, then there will be a shift toward wives desiring less sex from their husbands. It’s biomechanics all the way down.

Testosterone decline: this one is self-evident. Lower T means lower libido, for men but also for women. Since men are the initiators of sex (especially within the confines of a long term relationship), a low libido man will initiate less frequently, and his woman won’t take up the slack (women have a lot of pride about their ability to passively rouse their men to ardor, which is why they don’t like making the first move). If there’s lower T in women as well (a small amount of testosterone does affect female libido), then that would kill the passion just as quickly. Finally, low T men are just a plain turn-off to women. I have read studies which found women preferred the musky scent of sweaty shirts of men with high T.

All of this is leading to sex-starved husbands and the high divorce rate, because no matter how sacred your marital vows if hubby ain’t getting any his guilt about checking out of the marriage evaporates in a haze of 31 Redtube tabs.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: