Are Messy Girls Easier Lays?

Reader “Trajan” opines:

You tweeted about sexual excitement lowering a women’s disgust reflex. Is there a corollary, that a women with a lower disgust reflex has a higher sex drive? More masculine perhaps. Anecdotally, chicks with messy bedrooms are easier lays than ones with well-organized bedrooms.

Female messiness — of her bedroom, her bathroom, her car, her finances, her thoughts — is a leading indicator of sexual looseness. Beam with expectant joy and grab your tumescent pride when you step into a girl’s roomful of clutter, because you, my friend, are about to rocket down orgasmic highways of limitless pleasure.

In my personal experience, there’s no doubt that messy girls are good to go. They love sex, and they love it sooner rather than later. The myth that clean freaks have a lot of repressed sexuality that will rain down on you once unleashed by some psychological schism is just that: a myth. Maybe they have repressed sexuality, but why would you want to volunteer your valuable time and energy coaxing it out of them? Skip the therapeutic endless foreplay required by anal annies and head straight for the sloppy janes.

It should go without saying that the qualities that make messy girls great lays also make them horrible girlfriends. Once you’ve tapped that a few times, you’ll be surprised how quickly you tire of her slovenliness. Disgust, while it is mitigated by sexual arousal, is still a goddamned powerful emotion. You want to lose a boner fast? Step on one of her used tampons in the bathroom that she tried to toss into the trashcan with her girly-armed throwing motion, but missed and didn’t bother picking up. This has happened to me. I spent fifteen minutes scrubbing the sole of my foot until it was raw.

And messy girls are high cheating risks. If she can’t be bothered to care about her living space, she won’t be bothered to care about pleasing you. She will be as sexually impulsive as she is spatially impulsive. A scatterbrained woman has a scatterbrained vagina.

It’s interesting to see science confirm what we all know intuitively and observationally. Women who live in squalor don’t exercise stringent self-control in other areas of their lives. Just try not to focus on the pile of skid-marked panties on her bed. It’ll kill the mood.

Read Full Post »

Male Choosiness, Female Beauty And Monogamy

Here’s a hypothesis that I haven’t seen elsewhere: More beautiful women will be found in monogamous cultures, or among monogamously-inclined races.

Where women don’t (or can’t) sleep around, and where men are expected to assume a heavy economic and emotional responsibility for the women they woo, men will be choosier about the women they date and marry. Monogamy selects for male choosiness.

If you’re a man, and you’re limited to dating only a few women in your lifetime, and there are onerous familial and cultural pressures to marry the first or second woman you date, you are not going to throw away your one shot at a girl — not to mention all those resources you accumulated to win her over — on an Amanjaw Marcuntte. You’ll take your time assessing the available female goods, and aim for the hottest babe you can get. You’ll waste little time or energy spelunking slutty fat chicks or mustachioed feminists.

Over eons, this results in the more monogamous races and cultures of humanity producing more beautiful women. Of course, seismic shifts in the mating market have been underway for the past 60 or so years, so I expect a future of less beautiful women, on average and proportionate to their overall numbers, compared to the recent past. The one exception to this uglification trend will be the total bifurcation into a female beauty oasis of the 1% ruling class from the Gorgonian masses.

Relatedly, I am familiar with the theories that cad societies where men hypervigilantly (and hyperjealously) guard their women from alpha male interlopers, and geographic regions where high parasite loads influence the sexual selection process so that beauty — a sign of health and lack of genetic mutations — is favored, produce more beautiful women.

Arguing somewhat orthogonally to my monogamy-male choosiness theory is the theory that skewed sex ratios which favor men would produce more beautiful women over the generations. Such societies would be notable for their polygyny, de facto or de jure.

Perhaps all these theories reinforce each other, such that we would find the most beautiful women in countries with established monogamy norms, higher parasite loads, and sex ratios favoring men (caused predominately by men dying young, or otherwise taking themselves out of the sexual marketplace). Where we won’t find the most beautiful women, or any halfway-decent looking woman, is among the readership of Jizzebel or Feministing. Their high parasite load is offset by their self-selecting loserdom.

Read Full Post »

182 Days Of Blue Balls

Are happiness and sex antagonistic? A new study reports that couples who waited to have sex were happier in the long run. (Usual caveats about the accuracy of Daily Mail reporting apply.)

A study of hundreds of couples found those who waited to have sex were happier in the long-run.

Women particularly benefited from not leaping into bed at the first opportunity. Marriage also seemed to make them happier than co-habiting.

The researchers said delaying sex gave couples time to get to know each other and work out just how compatible they were.

Without this period of courtship, judgment can be clouded, leading to couples falling into unfulfilling long-term relationships. […]

Analysis of the data clearly showed the women who had waited to have sex to be happier. And those who waited at least six months scored more highly in every category measured than those who got intimate within the first month. Even their sex lives were better.

The link was weaker for men. However, those who waited to get physically involved had fewer rows.

Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder? Would seem like it. But not so fast.

First, I’m not surprised women who waited — or, more precisely, made their beta boyfriends wait — were more satisfied with their relationships. Women are psychologically, and ultimately biologically, predisposed to prefer holding out for sex, because it allows them more time to judge men’s mate quality and investment potential without risking a pregnancy by a man who might flee the next morning. There are very good evolutionary reasons why a woman would make a suitor wait as a test of his commitment to her. A man who is willing to suffer 182 days of this:

…is a man who is likely to stick around after she pops out a newt.

Second, selection bias. Does waiting to have sex really make couples happier, or are couples who are more likely to wait for sex also more likely to be content and fight less within long-term monogamous relationships? I suspect the latter. The kind of people who empathize easily and go along to get along are also the kind of people who have the patience of a saint. I bet people like this also have lower sex drives. It’s doubtful that sex itself, or refraining from having sex, is the causative factor in their happiness.

Third, some recent studies have shown that men derive their happiness within relationships from their lovers’ happiness. That is, when their women are happy, men are happy. The reverse is not necessarily true. So a woman who has held out for sex to make an “unclouded” judgment — and isn’t it funny that women think more clearly when abstaining from sex, while men think more clearly when sexually fulfilled? — is more likely to be happy with her choice of man, and consequently her happiness will infuse her man’s happiness level. But a man would be just as happy with a sexpot who put out early and often as long as she was happy with him (and faithful).

The biggest problem with this study is definitional. Happiness is not love, and it’s not sexual attraction. Love is passion. Happiness is contentment. Love is volatility. Happiness is calm acceptance, even noble resignation. Love is dizzying crescendos. Happiness is rhythmic tempo. Love is hope. Happiness is the relinquishment of hope. Similar contrasts can be made between happiness and lust. Conflating all these as if they were of equal merit, or equally valued, is misleading.

Most couples do not wait 182 days to have sex with the goal of maximizing their mutual happiness, and so we can conclude that most couples are willing to forego long-term happiness for short-term ecstasy. Our revealed preferences indicate that happiness is not high on our mental checklist of values or emotional states.

It’s an intriguing hypothesis, though, that the happiness women gain from lengthy periods of enforced abstinence they sacrifice in sexual and romantic satisfaction. The committed beta provider that female-compelled (and it’s rarely male-compelled) abstinence selects for comes at the cost of losing the sexy alpha cad that female-compelled abstinence selects against.

Maybe some massively underacknowledged subculture of preternaturally abnegating abstinent Evangelicals exists of which I’m only dimly aware that skews the average time couples spend in sexless purgatory well into the double and triple digit days, but in the world I live in — the one that’s pretty much a given in any community that isn’t orthodox religious — a 60 day wait for sex is nearly unheard of, let alone a 182 day wait. In fact, a wait beyond three weeks is pretty much folly for any man dating your typical SWPL chick; by that time, she will have moved on to fucking some dude who actually turns her on. Even the women who say they want to wait longer than convention would react with disbelief if a man told them he would be willing to wait six months before having sex. It’s that weird.

What good is long-term happiness if you can’t even score the short-term thrill? There’s the rub. As a man, you are really rolling low odds by pursuing, or, more precisely, by abiding the woman’s pursuing, the “wait to elate” strategy. The far-future happiness and relationship stability that a long sexless courtship might offer is greatly outweighed by the high risk that you de facto castrate yourself to the woman you are chastely wooing. You’d be a fool to avoid the bedroom for very long, when there is a good chance some other man will distract your girl’s attention during her prolonged bout of purity. And an even better chance you’ll accidentally say or do something during the dry months of your courtship that extinguishes the spark of her attraction for you.

This severing of happiness from sexual triumph, for both sexes, is one of the great unrecognized repercussions of the past 60 years of our Wild West mating market. And it seems like this is exactly the way most of us want it.

Read Full Post »

The Allure Of Male Dominance

Men feel powerful lust from dominating attractive women, the same lust women feel from submitting to the domination of powerful men. But most men will never admit to this. Not because they agree with the myths of feminism, but because most will never be in a position to enjoy the sublime pleasures of dominance over women. A complete lack of acquaintance with dominating women, and a dearth of opportunity to do so, psychologically castrates weaker men until they embrace, at least in theory, the opposite of what they truly desire. The embrace of anti-desire, the dark matter of joylessness, offers respite from an otherwise unrelenting daily reminder of their sexual and romantic failure.

Read Full Post »

Another Hot Russian Babe

Further proof that Russia and nearby provinces run a surplus of slender, beautiful women.

It must be something in the wuuuudka.

This post is not an exercise in glibness. The evidence — men’s penises — strongly suggests that Rus women are, objectively and proportionate to their native populations, the most beautiful women in the world. The Dnieper-Dniester region is, anthropologically, the Fertile Crescent. The pussybasket of the world. The cradle of cuteness. And I say this partly from personal experience.

The question that needs answering is not, then, where are the world’s hottest babes, but WHY do the world’s hottest babes bubble out of the DNA froth like sexy sirens emerging from the hillocks of this particular vast agricultural plain?

My preferred theory is increased male options. The great wars decimated the ranks of the Eastern Front’s men, so much so that the men remaining alive had their pick of the poon. And when men have mating options — whether through the gain of power and charisma or through the luck of living during a time of favorable sex ratio skew — they almost always choose young, slender, pretty women. The Rus men chose wisely.

But a reader has informed me that überbrain Greg Cochrane recently undermined this theory when he computationally concluded that not enough time has passed since the great wars for the miracle of organic eugenics to work its magic and push the Rus women toward elevated heights of beauty. I remain, respectfully, unconvinced.

Whatever is happening over there, we will discover the cause of this beauty bounty, and spread its blessings to all the world’s men till there is a hot chick in every pot, and a babe in every backyard.

In the meantime…

Read Full Post »

A Little Pain Warms The Female Heart

As the Kristen Stewart affair (re)confirms, women, particularly young, slender women with high mate values, possess a seeming masochistic tendency to seek out relationship drama and wallow in it. All women have this urge, although the degree to which the urge expresses itself varies in its intensity among women. A very rough estimate by yours truly puts it at 1/3 women crave sadistic assholes (who may even beat them), 1/3 of women are drawn to men who provide non-thuggish but nonetheless insecurity-amplifying drama, and another 1/3 are put off by thuggishness and prolonged drama-inducement but who do enjoy some minimal amount of relationship tension, whether manufactured by the man or organically arising from his higher value relative to hers.

Furthermore, this craving for asshole men diminishes slowly with age, and with declining beauty. The elicited excitement and allure of the jerk tends to be strongest in very pretty, slender women aged 16-25, and weakest in ugly women over age 35. The reasons for this dynamic are obvious: very attractive and maximally fertile women — that is, those women with the most options in the sexual market — are best able to capture the attention of an asshole, and extract commitment from him. Older, uglier, fatter women are not even on assholes’ radars; their options are limited and their ability to extract commitment from men is kneecapped, so they tend to de-emphasize their longing for badboys and emphasize their appreciation for the secure reliability of lower value niceguys.

A few feminists are only now beginning to grapple with these hypergamous truths of female nature, not least in part because of the efforts of alternative blogs belched up from the bowels of hell, like this one, but they have yet to fully imbibe the meaning behind the evidence that confronts them. Many of them will attempt to scaffold their tattered ideology and hide the beast from their sights by making feeble assertions to the contrary, with no evidence in hand, that for instance, to pick a classic example of the genre, men “like drama-inducing bitches just as much as women like drama-inducing jerks”.

Well, ain’t that an ego salver! Too bad it isn’t true. There is very little real world evidence, either in the scientific literature or in anecdotal observation, that men crave relationship drama and the bitches who can give it nearly as much as women crave the badboys who can give them drama. Dark triad traits? Benefit men’s desirability; do nothing for women’s desirability, or even hurt it. Female groupies for male prisoners? So well-known that there are even websites devoted to letting women air their grievances with the prison system and detail their efforts to get conjugal visits with their killer lovers. And then of course, there are the women who, despite plenty of resources and peer pressure to guide them to better choices, freely opt to love and love again abusive men who turned their faces into mashed pulp.

Men do not share with women this masochistic compulsion for relationship drama. Men who are stuck with abusive women are often losers who know they couldn’t find another woman to save their lives. Men who have options will leave bitchy women without a second’s thought. Men, in fact, are the total opposite of women in this regard: the typical man will usually RUN AWAY FROM bitchy women in favor of sweet, feminine women, given equal looks. Even given unequal looks, most men will choose, for example, a sweet, caring 7 over a bitchy, sadistic 9, at least for long-term consideration. (For a one night stand or short term fling, men will put up with some shit in exchange for the pleasure of defiling exquisite beauty.)

So it is with this sex difference in drama-seeking in mind that the theme of this post emerges.

Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.

You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.

The more beta you are, and the hotter your girlfriend or wife, the more necessary will be the application of drama inducement game (DIG).

Reader David Collard comments:

I have written a poem about virginity and defloration, mainly to annoy skanky feminists:

http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/first-draft/

As I have said before, deflowering my wife was unpleasant, and painful for her, but I am glad I got to do it, not some man before me. […]

I have seen a serious scientific (evol psych) argument that the pain of childbirth gets a woman to bond to her child, and the pain of defloration gets her to bond to a man. On the other hand, my wife says my deflowering her put her off sex for quite some time. She had a very tough hymen.

It is an intriguing theory that women are, in some primal sense, attracted to the freeing chains of pain. The pain — physical or emotional — seems to release in woman animal lusts, which then stampede beyond her control. This loss of control is something women secretly yearn to experience, and the alpha males who so delight them are the men most adept at stripping women of their superficial veneer of control.

David writes that childbirth and defloration are both major masochist milestones in a woman’s life that also represent pinnacles of pain. In the crucible of this pain (physical in these two instances), a bond so powerful, so unbreakable, is formed, that the woman will be forever merged in psyche, soul and snatch with the child and the man, respectively, who visited this pain upon her. I believe this is the best argument there is for beta males to actively seek out and deflower virgins, for the resultant bond will be so strong that they can then coast in their betaness for many years afterward without threat of cuckolding.

“Anonymous” writes:

Quoting Kristen Stewart: “I feel boring. I feel like, Why is everything so easy for me? I can’t wait for something crazy to fucking happen to me. Just life. I want someone to fuck me over! Do you know what I mean?”

So, she wants to play some Russian Roulette? Why are women so masochistic? You have a tenuous alpha/beta analysis when it isn’t even 100% clear that Alpha’s are better for survival or fitness then beta (why are there so many betas if alpha is the better gene)? I won’t quibble over this because your pop science has a much more serious problem. The central problem with female fitness in modernity has nothing to do with alpha/beta but is delayed pregnancy. What are the psychological consequences of going 15-20-35 years after menstruation and failing to get preggers? Ancient women were ALWAYS pregnant, like in stone age societies. Women are designed to be constantly knocked up and hauling 5 kids. How can their psychology pull the 180 to barren femcunt lawyer slut? Or barren and bored slut actress? You don’t think this makes them masochistic freaks? They are built for pain (pregnancy and hauling kids). Your Alpha/Beta analysis works, but the bigger issue is masochism and other psych problems from being chronically barren.

I understand anonymous’ wrenching repugnance at women’s callow and seemingly self-annihilating unimpeded sexual behavior, but that is a confusion remedied by a widening of perspective and a depth of experience. This odd drive by women for the powerful, charming, dominant men, even when it threatens a solid and secure relationship, must have served some benefit to our distant female ancestors, including the mothers of the infinite mothers of your mothers.

But then, as anonymous rightly states, there has always been, until relatively recently, a natural curb — an auto-pilot emergency brake — on this female hypergamous impulse, that would engage when the impulse became destructive. This natural curb was PREGNANCY. Ancestral women used to get knocked up quickly, at very young ages, and then be burdened with child after child until the wall removed from them the last hope of fulfilling a latent hypergamous urge. A Kristen Stewart, shorn of the props and rebar and condoms and abortifacents and Pills of modern society, would not, in the ancient times, have had the luxury of chasing down and fucking multiple alpha males to satisfy her id-shaped itch. In times bygone, her downlow would have meant the abandonment and eventual death of her child by her beta provider (Robert Pattinson) and the ostracization by her tribe’s women. Her alpha lover (the director) would not have agreed to help much in the raising of the children she had borne from previous men. There would not have been a media-savvy slut-excusing PR machine, aided and abetted by feminists and manboobed robots, to carry her through the ordeal to a safe landing ensconced in the lap of a replacement alpha male.

Instead, a modern Western Kristen Stewart gets to skip all that pain that would have been hers in prior eras, and indulge her hypergamy nearly free of consequence. Perhaps anonymous has a point; the mitigation to almost total irrelevance of this primal pain that was once the birthright of women has rendered their sex so psychologically scarred, so emotionally gutted, that they deliberately seek destructiveness in their relationships to feel anything at all. This destructiveness, once harnessed, feeds on itself, and there is no cure save sexual obsolescence, which must come, as it does for all women, sooner than they think.

The barren woman. The spinster. The pathetic partying cougar. The slutty alpha female. The delayed marriage and childbirth. The 0.5 child SWPL mother. Is it all coming together in a vortex of unhappiness and self-despoilment? Is the answer a reconnection with the animal spirits — and the animal dangers — that used to animate our free choices?

Kristen Stewart and millions of women in similar circumstances as hers will realize their fates too late. Worse for them, the Robert Pattinsons of the world are beginning to wake up and realize their fates as well. The interesting times are just beginning.

This post sealed with a kiss for Billyboy Bennett.

Read Full Post »

Porn Is A Portent Of Sexbotopia

Sexbots. The very word sends chills down the spines of low sexual market value women. They fear competition or, worse, replacement. Even hot babes will suffer blowback from widespread use by men of realistic sexbots; the pool of desirable men remaining in the human mating market will have shrunk in proportion to the women who have the looks to snag them. Expect the “Russian Phenomenon” to sweep across the American landscape: ugly, irresponsible drunkards inexplicably snagging trophy hot blonde bombshells.

Sexbots that can simulate real women are still one silicone foot in the fantasy world, but the tech is rapidly progressing. Whoever said necessity is the mother of invention was wrong; the male sex drive is the mother of invention. (Though, I suppose you could argue that satisfying the male sex drive IS necessity.) So, for now, the agog crowd can rest easy that no major sexbot invasion is about to storm our shores.

But, interestingly, we can get a preview of what a sexbot-serviced future world will look like by turning our jaundiced eye and drained dicks to the effects that porn is having on the 21st Century man.

If it is true (and I happen to believe that it is) that modern porn — ubiquitous, on-demand, high definition, free hardcore porn — is a supernormal stimuli the likes of which have never been experienced by men at any point in human history until now, then we can make a reasonable leap of logic from our current porn-saturated world to a world full of sexbots, and what the toll will be on society. Sexbots will take supernormal stimuli into uncharted territory; dopamine receptors may very well explode aneurytically.

A reader starts us off on the speculation:

Is porn turning men into lazy bums? Might explain the effects of supernormal stimuli. Money won’t much help them get a girl, the women in porn are hotter than anything they could get in the real world anyway, and it seems to have bad effects on motivation overall. Why should men do anything?  Not the recipe for a healthy society.

Assuming porn is making men lazy, apathetic and demotivated, imagine what life-like sexbots who resemble Emma Stone will do to men! I can easily foresee a future where masses of betas and omegas become shut-ins, telecommuting for their sustenance while getting their lust (and mavbe love; have you seen bronies?) needs met by artificial babes who, on the internal male balance sheet, are a more fulfilling choice of sexual partner than the chubby human female 4s and 5s with tankgrrl attitude they could get in the flesh. And with a lot less effort and shit tests.

Men’s happiness doesn’t seem to have gone down however. Though I have heard that there is a bifurcation in male happiness with lower class males losing ground while upper/upper middle class men staying the same or getting happier.  But I’d have to confirm that.

Are lazy, apathetic, demotivated men unhappy? Surveys show women are the ones getting unhappier the deeper we get into the feminist and sexual revolutions. If lower SMV men are getting their dopamine fix via porn, their overall level of happiness might not budge. The unhappiness flowing from low status would be countered by the happiness from orgasmic fulfillment and fooling the id receptors that a high quality mate has been successfully courted.

Whatever the consequence for men’s happiness, it’s a plausible hypothesis that widely available hardcore porn is both a bad omen for the maintenance of civilization and a net plus for rape and molestation rates, which go down with the rise of porn use.

If porn is having this presumed deleterious effect on men’s libidos and passions, sexbots will intensify that (possibly dysgenic) trend a thousandfold. Maybe sexbots will become a form of Danegeld, where the shrinking elite utilize them to pacify the massed lower classes with robotic intimacy. Or maybe sexbots will free the r-selection id fully from its cage, as millions of sexually sated betas, their needs met and their urgency diluted, hit the bars and clubs spitting game like champions of the Aloofness Olympics, on women who have found themselves in competition not only with other women, but with robot women. (Cue “Don’t Date a Robot!” Futurama vid.)

Alternatively, in horrified response to the swarm of sexual release outlets hijacking the minds of men, strict religious orders may institute draconian rules to shield their members from the onslaught; coupled with their higher birth rates, in a few generations we could see a much more God-fearing Western world, and these days of secular miracle and wonder will seem then a distant nightmare concocted in the heads of perverse dystopian writers.

Some free thinkers may ask, “What’s the equivalent of modern supernormal stimuli for women? What dopaminergic threats hijack the pleasure centers of women’s brains and render them incompatible civilizational partners and incorrigible entitled mating prospects?”

Answer: 50 Shades of Gray, tabloids, Facebook, OkCupid, pulp romance novels, pretty much everything on TV, high glycemic carbs.

These are the fantasy and orgasmic outlets for women. Women’s supernormal stimuli differs from men’s in form only; the function is EXACTLY the same: to provide deep, pleasurable limbic massages that can’t be had in the dull, boring, uninspiring real world human sexual market. And the effects on women’s spirits, I will argue, are actually WORSE for society than those effects caused by porn on men’s willingness to brace the support beams of civilization. For a woman whose senses are in thrall to the sexual delights of  fictional billionaire sadists, the ego uplifts of beta male supplicating social media, the instant gratification of carby calories, and the fantasy worldview reinforcing messages of gay and feminist-dominated trash TV, is a woman who is too obese, too self-absorbed and too demanding to make the sacrifices required of her to please a husband and raise a family of more than 0.5 kids.

Sexbots will only have an indirect effect on women, for women are by nature less visual creatures than men, and won’t be drawn to the corporeal pleasures offered by rudimentary AI Jude Law model #3,465. What sexbots will do is widen the already growing chasm between the sexes, until only the fittest of the fit — and fitness is whatever gets one’s genes to the next generation, whether beneficial to civilization or not — can successfully leap across it to woo a human companion in the way that our genetic overlord intended.

Read Full Post »