Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Over in the comments section of a Mangan post about the possible direct health and happiness benefits of marriage, The Anti-Gnostic writes (replying to another commenter),

The biggest upside for men of marriage over cohabitation is that breaking up is harder in a legally recognized union. Since most breakups/divorces are initiated by women, making it harder to separate benefits men more than women.

I’m going to venture a hypothesis that most break-ups of cohabitation arrangements are initiated by men, and most marriage break-ups are initiated by women.

Divorce itself is not hard. You file a paper that says the marriage is over. Women will get the children, because the man will have a harder job with longer hours, and most households don’t have enough net worth to fight over.

I’m not sure how you came to your conclusion.

CH is on record stating that the incentive structure of marriage has changed to favor women’s discretion. That is, wives are now incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. The data — especially the “wives initiate 70% of divorces” figure — strongly suggest that the CH view is the correct one.

But constitutional white knights — you know who you are — claim that figure could just as easily mean that 70% of husbands are shitty spouses. Well, maybe. But that interpretation is no less speculative than the opposite, and in fact is less sustainable under scrutiny, because the simpler explanation for the 70% female divorce-initiation figure is that men and women are about equally represented among the crappy spouse demographic, but women initiate more divorces because they perceive that a host of benefits will accrue to them from severing their marriages. Husbands, in contrast, perceive no such benefits, and are thus more loathe to divorce even when their wives are insufferable.

One way to test this hypothesis, as The Anti-Gnostic implied above, is to look at which sex initiates more non-marital break-ups. If men really are crappier partners than women, then the break-up initiation rate will be roughly the same inside and outside of marriage. The break-up initiation rate should skew approximately 70% in favor of women in whatever form of relationship they’re in. The premise behind this assumption is that a person’s romantic character or “livability” traits are fairly constant throughout life.

Using the variable FAMPER3 (“During the last year, did you… 3. Break up with a steady boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance?”) from the General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, we find that men broke up their non-marital relationships almost twice as often as did women.

GSSbreakup

Surveys about people’s sex lives are distinctly untrustworthy, but the GSS does give us a peak behind the curtain at trends in relationship dynamics. As claimed here at the venerable Chateau, it would appear that women have more to lose from breaking up non-marital long-term relationships and more to gain from breaking up their marriages, (and vice versa for men.) This makes sense to any astute observers of the sexual and marital markets; women are on their best behavior prior to marriage, before they’ve gotten a boyfriend or fiancé to sign on the dotted line and tacitly forfeit HALF. A woman’s peak attractiveness window is much shorter relative to a man’s attractiveness window, and this incentivizes women to make nonmarital relationships work until such time that money has changed hands and kids have popped out.

Men, on the other hand, have a lot more to lose in divorce, and a lot less to lose in nonmarital breakups, and this male-peculiar incentive structure is seen in the differing rates of breakup initiations by sex in and out of marriage.

To put it in Heartistian terms…

Maxim #30: Men can leverage their commitment far longer than women can leverage their sex.

Skeptics may note that the GSS question as posed doesn’t specifically ask who initiated the breakup, but the wording strongly implies it. (Perhaps a Master GaSSer could fine tune the data at his pleasure?) But the very fact that there is a sex difference in breakup rates between nonmarital relationships and marriages is ample evidence that social and legal incentives can influence the motivations of men and women.

The substantiating evidence so far, in surveys and in the field, is that women are more responsible for the rise in divorce, and that their self-justification for divorce has gotten more fickle and more self-aggrandizing rather than less.

A final note: If you look closely, you’ll see emanations and penumbras of female hypergamy in the GSS results above.

Read Full Post »

Cuck Up

Cuck up, idiom, slang, origin: Chateau Heartiste.
1. Variation on the “man up” theme; to demand of a cuckolded man that he support the bastard child of his cheating wife or girlfriend.
2. A taunt directed at a beta male to ostensibly shame him to provide for the child of another man’s seed, often delivered by ugly feminists and low SMV white knights who are projecting their fear of mass beta male abandonment of a sexual market skewed by law and custom to satisfy the preferences of women and women alone.

Courtesy of reader Waffles, a (probably fake but still illuminating) story on Reddit that serves as a wonderful microcosm of the murky churn at the bottom of the sexual market, where fat sluts dupe manboobed omegas into race cuckoldry.

Off topic but will be appreciated by the CH crowd. Over on Reddit a debate was going on after some guy posted this. His kid came out black. There apparently were actually people telling him that he should “man up” and take care of the kid as his own! Delusional.

The OP:

I did not walk out on anything. It is not my responsibility to raise a kid that did not come from me. I may sound like an ass, but I can’t believe the people who said to raise it as mine. Imagine your wife finally getting pregnant, only to see a different race pop out, and you realize it’s not yours. I am not raising that kid, however enjoy your free karma.

definitely not master of her domain

Some choice replies:

Some white babies do come out looking black though, sometimes you gotta let it air out for a little bit for the complexion to even up.

:lol:

At least your wife had the decency to fuck a black man, so you could tell she cheated on you. So you’ve got that going for you, which is nice.

Womb half-full.

Did you drink grape soda the day before?

Science!

Before you lawyer up and sue for divorce, I would ask you to take a step back and a deep breath. Try to remember that it isn’t the little guy’s fault.

Cuck up… “for the children”.

I must ask, are you mad that the child is not yours; Or is it because the child is Black?

Because racism is the true moral outrage here.

He has your palms.

at least he has a chance to get laid before he turns 30

You laugh, but every other relationship depicted on televagina these days is essentially a warmly accommodated race cuckold fantasy. Sorry White knighters… white women eat that shit up.

Read Full Post »

cold russian on the restrictions diversity organically imposes on discourse,

Dialogue is naturally limited under the condition of diversity. Atomize any further and it gets down to kindergarten level, pretty much “Don’t say that bad word!” dictated in baby talk. All of this for the upkeep of a lonely society where you say “Have a nice day” to the black receptionist at the dentist’s office or where the Asian at the sushi place puts on a cheery voice to greet you. Anybody who wants to make a living out of writing has to tip-toe around this issue, or else face the anger of a bunch of blacks who feel disrespected, and signaling whites who nail you for the highest kind of evil possible in their perpetually abstracting minds.

There are actually two negative forces at work on Western social cohesion and comity: Diversity and diversity elevation. The first, the actual ratios of different people within a single geopolitical and cultural space, reduces trust and bonhomie by the action of observable behavioral and temperamental differences, particularly if those group differences are unequally suited to thrive in a complex modern society. The second, the glorification of diversity by status whoring whites and their non-white pawns, infects otherwise normal daily politeness between different peoples with a patina of coercion and resentment.

In an ethnically and racially diverse society the natural fissures created by the compressed diversity are exacerbated by secular-religious belief in the unassailable value of diversity and by proselytizing of diversity as an unmitigated good exempt from criticism. Organic diversity strains social connectedness, but diversity elevation draws a spotlight to that strain through the inhuman demands it makes of people to dumb down their dialogue and ignore what their lying eyes tell them.

So, for instance, the necessary upkeep of saying “Have a nice day” to a black receptionist in a diverse but psychologically healthy society is easy politeness no normal person finds objectionable that gets twisted into something darker and more resentful — like a false confession under duress — in a psychologically damaged society that denies one race their identity while exalting the identities, real or fantastical, of every other race. The most delicious irony of the diversity inquisitors is that their very fervor to stamp out heretical thought is driving the natural wedges of diversity deeper into the body politic.

Read Full Post »

For those optimists who don’t think lying liars and the mendacious ideas they propagate matter, President Barry Kenyatta-Downlow Obama today signed two executive orders addressing the so-called “sex pay gap” myth that feminists have been menstruating over the national discourse for decades. In one order, federal contractors will now have to report how they allocate their wages by sex and race to the Inquisition government.

Ideas matter. The public megaphone matters. The pay gap as it is exploited by feminists and their shit lapping allies is entirely explainable by organic forces manifesting from innate sex differences. Hoped-for UGH MISOGYNIST discrimination has got nothing to do with it. Once adjustments are made for variables like occupational choice, downtime, part-time work, leave, hours worked, and natural sex-based variation in ambition and conflict resolution, the pay gap DISAPPEARS. In fact, some studies have shown that, after these adjustments, women actually make a little MORE than men on average.

Why is this important? Because the policies that evil ideas generate are actively harmful to the people who don’t personally benefit from the lies. You can lay at the crooked labia of feminist ideology the consequences of futile efforts to correct the “pay gap” in the name of helping women “lean in”. Employers have a new pointless cost to cover, and undoubtedly they will shift some of that cost onto their male employees. They suffer, consumers suffer, government efficiency (such as it is) suffers. Social distrust leeches into every facet of life. And, in the THX-amplified CH-widescreen picture, lower male wages undermine the marriage market.

Tell me again how feminism is irrelevant. With a straight face.

Yet there are normally clear-thinking scoffers who, emotionally shackled to their manicured knee-jerk caricatures of anti-feminists as *derp incel bitterboys*, fail to grasp what’s happening right before their eyes. Or, grasping it, disregard the tangible evil in favor of fantastical theoretical journeys to the “source” of the evil, which, they reason, is the only recourse to eliminating the influence of deranged and feels-propped ideologies shaping government policy RIGHT NOW.

CH is well-versed in the pleasures of excavating downward through cultural detritus to find the root causes of feminism and it’s parent evilology Equalism, and of offering solutions. Being “anti-feminist” and being a “root cause-ist” aren’t mutually exclusive; if anything, these stances are mutually reinforcing. And, procedural note, managerialism is likely not the ultimate source of feminism; that dishonor more likely belongs to genetic changes brought on by NW European excessive outbreeding.

But yeah, go ahead and spend your sadistic capital mocking anti-feminists as one after another feminist proposal sees the light of day and earns public acceptance and protection from realtalk ridicule. Meantime, see how far talk about “managerialism” severed from the actual lying propagandists thriving within the managerialist system gets you with the voters. Nah, I prefer my shivs aimed for the solar plexus, at the filthy fucking liars pushing their gruel down a gullible people’s throats.

I get why some men dismiss the threat of feminism. Some are low intensity suburbanites happy to have settled for dutiful and loving frump wives who cook for them and pursue lifestyles totally removed from the sphere of feminist babble. Others date cutiepie sorority types who haven’t so much as uttered the word “feminist” their whole lives. Still others have been out of the dating market for ten or twenty years and have lost touch with the energies that guide women’s mate choices and the pro-feminist social lubrications which younger urban SWPLette women easily imbibe and regurgitate.

To these men, white knighting comes naturally because they don’t see any direct line from the easygoing women in their own lives to the feminist assault on innate sex differences and, ultimately, on Western civilization. And yet, when the reasonable women they know enter the voting booth, a majority of them vote for feminism-loving politicians, and the skew is especially pronounced if they’re unmarried. If that gives you hope, do note that single women are a growing demographic cohort.

The day-to-day details of the non-confrontational, marginally empowered, platitude parroting woman hardly impress as antidotes to seismic feminist lies when job purges for crimethink are becoming the norm and government policy is twisting into pretzels to accommodate femcunt poopytalk. Maybe you think-tankingly believe quoting a few Burnham passages is the panacea to the black tentacle goo of feminism and equalism corrupting a new institution by the day. It could be, but people respond better to real world enemies identified and engaged.

Women are natural followers. You attack feminism and ostracize its advocates to lead women away from its carrion call. You do this in conjunction with deeper exegeses on root causes for Western social and cultural dissolution. Every attack angle counts when the castle is under siege. The front line is everywhere.

Or you could derp about anti-feminist bitter divorcees and nerdy incels (characterizations which, by the way, aren’t true to life; the most joyous anti-feminists I know are happy-go-lucky players who get laid at will), and watch from the sidelines as yet another workaday stiff is tossed out on his rump by cackling hags offended by a lame dongle joke.

As a related afterthought, I wonder if leftoids understand the logical end goal of all their anti-pay gap agit-prop? Do they sincerely want a world where everyone, despite his talent or efforts, is awarded a $100K annual lifetime salary? Just level the playing field completely and be done with their griping. Some people are hard-wired to work no matter the recompense or status compression, but surely there will be millions of marginal cases who will say “fuck it” and drop out to collect the same salary doing nothing. And then you can kiss your comfortable cosmopolitan life goodbye.

That’s the thermal exhaust port of leftoid equalists: they never think through the consequences of their spur-of-the-moment feels.

Read Full Post »

Put away your history textbooks, this is the only graph you’ll ever need to consult for an explanation why civilizations rise, plateau, and fall.

set a course for vaginaland, sulu

In honor of the factually baseless, feels-fueled, and insipid “””Equal Pay Day“””, this graph represents what happens to civilizations as they slowly but inexorably womanize.

As you can see, the trajectory is back-loaded. The reason for this is that it takes a long time and a lot of realism to build a civilization from the dirt, but a very short time for that civilization to wither and die once an irreversible feels threshold is crossed. Civilizational peak and plateauing typically occur after feels have pushed aside realism and begun consolidating its cultural power and influence. The lag effect is a feels-ifying culture eating its seed corn.

Tragically, this belle swerve is an inevitable consequence of civilizing progress. Like biological death, civilizational death is unavoidable, an emergent property of collective human nature. The hopeful soul might say that curbing women’s political and cultural leverage can stop the bloodletting; theoretically a possibility, but what are the odds? Better to lounge poolside and enjoy the spectacle of civilization’s enemies shrieking in shiv-peppered pain.

Update

“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline.”
- The Fate of Empires, Sir John Glubb

Read Full Post »

Commenter “Z” over at Cheap Chalupas/Bargain Beans had this to say about poverty alleviation programs,

Welfare programs have never been about solving poverty. Even the most wild-eyed utopian dreamer knows that’s absurd. The poor will always be with us. Poverty programs serve three functions today. One is riot insurance and prevention. The people of Maryland, for example, have a real concern about the ‘citizens” in Baltimore burning the city to the ground. Giving them money to sit home and watch Springer all day is a cheap and bloodless way to deal with that problem. Welfare is just a part of the defense grid.

The other function is to employ an army of state workers that become poll workers, organizers and fund raisers for the political parties. The fact that tax money goes to operations like Planned Parenthood, for example, who then funnel it back to the politicians is a good example of the self-dealing at work. The massive amount of campaign money that flows from government unions back to politicians is not an accident.

Finally, these programs, their university training grounds and the non-profit barnacles attached to every poverty program are excellent dumping grounds for the dimwitted children of the ruling classes. Throughout the state systems you find relatives of state reps and party hacks. In Massachusetts, for example, the state is now largely run by a few Hibernia clans. There are families in Mass that have three generations of hacks.

CH’s advice to leftoids who believe they MUST uplift the poor or they’ll lose out on all that dopamine-boosting self-congratulatory feels is

1. Deal with it.

2. Make transfer payments to the wretched refuse contingent upon temporary or permanent sterilization.

Your typical SWPL high priestess won’t rest until she’s solved the problem of the poor? Solution: Policies which reduce the amount of poor people being born each generation. It’s simple, it’s effective, it robs the insufferable Salon crowd of their religious fervor. And that’s why it’ll never see the light of day.

Read Full Post »

You’ve ever inconspicuously texted under the table or called from the bathroom another girl while you were on a date.

You’ve ever snuck out on a date going badly.

You’ve ever bailed on a date because you met a hotter girl in the interim.

You’ve ever walked into a first date’s apartment, made a bee-line for her bathroom, pissed on the seat, farted loudly, exited, and strolled up to her to plant a passionate kiss.

You’ve ever held two simultaneous relationships, one for “appearances”.

Your women get carried away and relent to raw dog in the heat of the moment.

You’ve ever brazenly lied to a woman to cover up an infidelity. And didn’t feel bad about it.

You’ve ever banged a woman while another woman’s life force was still adhered to your dick.

You’ve ever said “Are you fucking kidding me?” to an attractive woman.

You’ve ever banged a woman in public, within view of families.

You’ve ever legitimately forgotten about a woman you started dating. Super alpha bonus points if you met her on the street and had to stare blankly for five seconds before recollecting.

You’ve ever forgotten a woman’s name up through the third date. And didn’t bother apologizing for it.

You’ve ever steadily pressed for sex beyond three half-hearted “No”s, and achieved your goal.

You’ve ever replied more than an hour later after a girl texted, and it wasn’t a calculated maneuver. You genuinely didn’t feel like putting in the effort.

Girls cum with you in every sex position.

You’re not the one who’s nervous.

You’ve rarely had to wait past the third date for sex.

You’ve ever flirted with girls when every social expectation at the time was that you shouldn’t.

You’ve ever taken a call from a girl while another girl was sleeping naked against your bare chest.

You’ve ever walked away from a long-term relationship out of boredom.

You’ve ever had to deal with a pregnancy scare.

A girl has ever cried for you.

You’ve dumped more often than you’ve been dumped, and when the latter happened you rarely had a dry spell longer than a month.

You’ve ever scheduled two dates for the same night. Super alpha bonus points if both dates ended in bangs. Super alpha doubleplusalpha bonus points if both dates ended in bangs together.

You’ve ever banged a girl on the first date without either of you using the disinhibition elixir of alcohol.

You’ve ever dated a girl who was persuaded to, temporarily at least, acquiesce to your insistence on a one-way sexually open relationship.

You’ve ever acquired an honest-to-god stalker. (This may be indisputable proof of alphaness.)

You’ve had girls approach you and solicit you for a drink, or even sex.

You’ve ever taken a girl home without needing an excuse to coax her compliance.

You’ve ever had a girl call you an asshole not long before she succumbed to intimacy.

You’ve ever had a girl spend more on you than you on her before she offered her sex.

You’ve ever been eagerly paraded in the presence of your girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend.

You’ve ever had a girlfriend accuse you of cheating, even when you weren’t.

You’ve ever truly, madly, deeply loved two girls at the same time. And they loved you back.

Read Full Post »

1. Girls love selfish badboys.

2. Nonconsensual erotic rape fantasies are more common among women than previously thought.

3. Girls love dominant men who take what they want.

4. Girls hate men who do as they’re told.

5. Girls hate sensitive, emotionally available men.

6. Girls love men who take charge.

7. Girls love it when men touch them without asking.

8. Girls love men with “appetitive-aggressive” tendencies.

Read Full Post »

Via The League of Extraordinary Sadists comes another study concluding that diversity is incompatible with a sense of community.

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community. Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community. (spoiler: it isn’t)

IQ fetishists who want to bring boatloads of Asian to America are almost as silly as pathological altruists who want to import Africa to Minnesota. I say almost because, yeah, at least with the Asians you don’t have to worry about getting jacked while walking down the street. You just have to worry about your finances, bureaucracy and cultural institutions getting jacked.

So here’s another study affirming what Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) found in his reluctantly published study about diversity decreasing levels of social trust. Studies are nice and all, but you don’t need multiple degrees and strict adherence to experimental procedure to walk out the door and notice how different the races of people are, and how everyone, even and especially hypocrite SWPLs, have a natural affinity for their own kind.

Maybe the leftoid lie machine is permitting these studies to be released now because they sense where the logic of their stinking ideology is heading:

Is this actually a breakthrough of any kind, or is it exactly the sort of thing elites will appreciate? The lower and middle classes have been well and thoroughly diversified now. The logic of diversity is pretty clear: the rich white/jewish gated communities should be diversified as well. But before anyone gets around to noticing this, there’s scientific reason to forestall such efforts. Sorry about that, goy, but the arguments we used to obliterate *your* communities don’t work anymore. It’s unfortunate, yes, but there will be tradeoffs. You know how it is.

Does anyone doubt for a second that the richest communities will ensure that tradeoffs in *their* cases go in the opposite direction from “diversity”? These studies aren’t challenging shitlibs at all. They aren’t even advances in our understanding (as PMAN points out, how hard is it to realize these things could be opposed). Instead, it’s just toadying to an elite that refuses to suffer the consequences of its own decisions.

Like Robert Ringer wrote, always look out for #1. And the elite are nothing if not practiced in the art of looking out for themselves.

Sadly, the burdensome diversity is already cooked in the books. CH predicts that within the century America will break up into regional entities, along broad racial and ethnic lines.

Cheap Chalupas would weep if he weren’t an android.

Read Full Post »

For those who don’t know, the Twitter feed @tinderfessions is a cornholecopia of pervy and depraved confessions of Tinder users, the Weimar era-approved app that allows people to quickly geolocate future husbands and wives for intimacy trial runs. :lol:

If even half the stuff on Tinderfessions is true, the republic is hurtling towards its doom faster than anyone thinks. Reader ivanhoseph77 writes,

Tinderfessions will cure you of any betaness instantly. It will also cure you of any lingering fondness for LTR’s or marriage.

It shows the global march of absolute sexual anarchy in stark relief. We are so far past any attempt at turning back from semen filled gutters of our society it’s not even funny.
It’s a poon paradise. Nobody in their right mind would even CONSIDER an LTR or marriage when looking at the stark reality.
“Virtue has it’s own rewards” my ass. As CH would say, “sit poolside, imbibe of the delights, and enjoy watching it burn.” There is nothing else to be done. Literally.
That twitterfeed will fell any idealized notions you may be absurdly clinging to.

The modern sexual market appears to be in the process of bifurcating. The religious and (relatively) prudish are making babies; the secular and debauched are not. Has this ever happened before in American history? Good question. How representative is Tinderfessions of the public’s sexual behavior? Also a good question.

Having read enough social media in various interchangeable formats, I notice that online communication — for all its passionate sperm und wang — reveals very little of love or aspirations to love. From unformed men this is expected; from women it’s jarring. The divine and mysterious has been strip-mined from sex, leaving behind an abandoned pit.

Maybe the quest for human happiness is better served by a little less convenience and a little more struggle.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,843 other followers

%d bloggers like this: