Commenter Peter draws a scalpel to the aging female’s id and explains why so many wrinkled German divorcées head to the Dark Incontinent for spiritually enervating EatPrayFuck sex tours.
In Europe reasonably attractive women will occasionally date and marry African black men. So there is definitely some cultural element to these preferences. White women in America learn intuitively at a very young age that a relationship with a black man makes you damaged goods in the eyes of any white man worth marrying. The stigma in Germany is not as bad, especially given the high profiles in soccer and entertainment of all sorts of German “Mischlingskinder” with African fathers. Of course, even in Germany Africans are mostly the fall backs for aging German divorcees. But unlike America, middle aged German hags actually take pride in taking sex tours to Africa where they pay young African men to fuck them and give them back rubs for a few weeks a year. I’m sure at some level fucking black men is a way to take revenge on a society that rejects you as unattractive and superfluous.
This really gets to the heart of the EATPRAYSLUT Western white woman social phenomenon. White men are simply more discriminating than black men, and as a result of that heightened discriminatory aesthetic, there are a lot of leftover aging white women who can no longer compete in their native culture’s fully secularized sexual market, so, thanks to jetliner travel on the cheap facilitating easy access to lil’ Butt Nakeds who will balm their burned ids, lots of spinster discards are heading down for a thrill that will secretly keep them up at night weeping bitter tears for their metadeath fates.
So, globalization has that going for it, which is nice.
Reader Ronery No Mo honors one of history’s greatest, and pseudonymous, realtalkers, Ragnar Redbeard.
Or as Ragnar Redbeard put it in “Might is Right” all the fuck way back in 1890…
“The best bid a man can make for the admiration of any woman (even the most pious) is a display of undaunted physical prowess… Even to be carried-off by force, is not repugnant to her feelings, if the “bold bad man” is in other respects acceptable. She pines to be “wooed and won” (or as it were) she likes to feel that she has been mastered, conquered, taken possession of – that the man who has stormed her heart is in all respects, a man among men.”
Bold, bad man beats timid, nice guy every time. Even when the bad man hasn’t won a woman’s flesh, he is victorious in her heart and secret thoughts.
White women are kinda, sorta… most definitely raciss n sheeeeiiit. But what about those righteous, morally superior goodwhite women who throw off the burden of white privilege and happily date black men?
Unfortunately for branding purposes, these moral paragons aren’t exactly the classiest or thinnest ladies. From an earlier draft of a paper referencing the same Yahoo Personals internet profile data, researchers discovered (likely much to their chagrin):
Body type, political views, and religion are also related to the exclusion of blacks or Asians. Among white women, one of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. [ed: :lol: ] For white men, body type has no effect on their likelihood of excluding blacks or Asians. While political views also have no effect on racial exclusion by white men, white women who describe themselves as liberal or very liberal are less likely to exclude black men as dates than women who are not political, middle of the road, or conservative. Surprisingly, liberal white women appear more likely to exclude Asian men as dates, although this finding only borders on significance. Finally, religion affects black exclusion, and Asian exclusion among white women. Specifically, we see that whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor; that is, all white men and women who identified as Jewish excluded blacks as possible dates; all white women who identified as Jewish also excluded Asian men as possible dates. Further, white men who do not state a religion or who state their religion as “other” are far more inclusive of black women as dates than those who describe themselves as not religious. Likewise, white women of “other” religions are more likely to include Asian males as dates.
What a cluster bomb of hatefacts!
Now the only question remaining is whether fat white chicks settle for black men because those are the only men who’ll have them, or that black men try but fail to get sexy white chicks and decide to shoot for the easy prey because even a fat white girl is more feminine than the typical black girl? Same difference, I suppose. My limited knowledge of the mating rituals of matricentric cultures is that it’s a bit of both; fat chicks are stuck choosing between a steel-reinforced dildo and a black man, and black men hone in on fat white chicks because they love can tolerate grotesque booties and they learned from experience that sexy white chicks want nothing to do with them.
These findings are perfectly in line with the CH observation — heck it’s in line with just about everyone’s observations except that no one wants to bring it up at the company picnic — that the white women who date black men are often fat, gross, and classless.
Probably unsurprising to most, the kind of white women willing to dance by the dusky coonlight? Fat liberal white women with sanctimony issues.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that fat liberal white women are just about the most unappealing dating prospects for any white man with options and a working set of nads. So… good riddance.
And wazzup wit da Eskimos? Man they talk a big game about breaking down race barriers, but when the rubber hits the ho, it’s “Blacks?! Are you meshuggina??”.
Let’s end this journey through the human hindbrain on a hopeful note. Dear NOWAGs, if you want a white woman (and who doesn’t?), date a Wiccan. I’m sure you have the psychological tools to stoically endure her kookiness.
It hardly needs clarifying to regular visitors of Le Chateau, but CH has no problem with racial dating preferences. Racism is natural, evolved, and a part of what makes us human. Racism expands the diversity in the world by creating and sustaining group aesthetics that would otherwise get swamped into oblivion by a one-world fuckfest.
Courtesy of the fine folk at the Seminary of Christian Sadists, a chart pulled from a research paper on the subject of patterns in racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters:
Where da white wimmin at? Nowhere near you, D’Quattroprius.
CH tackled this topic a while ago, coming to roughly the same conclusions as this more recent paper’s findings. In what are essentially self-report surveys, (Yahoo Personals profiles), white women profess the least desire to date outside their beautiful, privileged white race, and asian-american women the most desire to date outside their race. These, among other… problematic… confessions of the id, must bedevil Hivemind drones tasked with the maintenance and transmission of Equalist agitprop.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, understand the inherent limitations of self-report sex behavior data, even self-reports in real world non-laboratory contexts. As all good players know, what women say and which dick they privately raw dog are two very different animals. This crimson pill maxim applies as well to internet dating profiles. Yes, when women must consciously think about what kind of men they want to date, and they feel emboldened by pseudoanonymity, they’ll reveal glimpses of their limbic darkroom in print. But in the helter-swelter of a charged romantic environment, oftentimes that pro and con, bullet-point checklist women keep stashed in their hamster cage bedding gets tossed in favor of the “man in the moment” who distracts her from the whitenoise of her humdrum existence.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that the data-mined revelation that white women don’t want to date black men, and the countervailing “me own two eyes” observation that more white women are banging black men than one could surmise from the tabulated declarations on internet dating profiles, can both be true.
The dating preference survey data reveal that the rhetoric of those who fear a mudshark planet is overblown. But, equally overblown is the rhetoric of white knight pedestal polishers who insist no white woman would willingly date black men. For a refutation of that premise, I merely have to go outside and take a fifteen minute stroll on a nice day.
PS Yahoo Personals, as far as I know, is a free online dating service. There will be a sample set bias because free sites tend to attract certain types of women (roaring sluts, cheapos, unserious girls just looking for fun on the side, girls desperate for a relationship with a beta provider because they have no money of their own).
Up next: Ok, master of charms, but is it true only the dregs of white womanhood date black men?
Nobody goes into marriage expecting divorce, but it comes very frequently, and she really does get the house and the children. In divorces, men lose. […]
The sensible conclusion is that you are better off single, building a career or whatever you want in life, and dating such flowers as drift by. […]
Add five or ten years, ten or twenty pounds, and the lack of any reason to continue being charming—and you are going to spend the rest of your life with it. Too many men marry the package, and only discover the content when it is too late. […]
Live with her if you must, but don’t marry her. A woman cohabiting has at least some incentive to be agreeable. A married woman does not. […]
It is said that marriage rests on compromises, but in fact it rests on concessions, and you will make all of them. […]
Children, which she will persuade you that you want, on thought you probably don’t want. They are an ungodly burden until they reach adolescence, at which point they become ungodly monsters, before leaving for university and becoming ungodly expenses.
Marriage: The triumph of hope over reason. Maybe the Swedes have this one thing right: Don’t marry, just cohabit, if you like the monotonousogamous lifestyle of one woman, together under one roof, for years and years, as sprog nip at your heels and resignation slowly substitutes for happiness.
I’m hearing this off-tune braggadocio a lot lately from the usual leper colony of game haters: “I just walk up and make small talk like a normal human being, and get girls! Why do you game dorks make such a big deal out of it?”
Lemme clue you in about what’s going on behind the scenes here. At least a few of these “just be yourself” shoot-from-the-unhip variants are doing what they say — picking up girls and whisking them to the altar on nothing but small talk — but what they don’t tell you is the quality of girls they small talk into lustful abandon. Hint: They ain’t HBhubbahubbas.
Yeah, if you’ve got your shit together, and compose yourself that way, you can conceivably chit chat a 5 into a deep love trance. For example, sometimes to shake the rust off I’ll hit on plainer girls equipping myself with only an arsenal of small talk. Once, I saw a incipiently chubby, swipply girl in a t-shirt advertising some tropical locale she had visited. She was no great looker, easy on one eye, but respectable enough for practice, so I veered in with my game put on hold. I said “Hey your shirt. I’ve been there. Great place. Did you like it?”
No qualification, no push pull, no teasing, no escalating kino, no fission grade smirk, nothing except average guy fluff talk and (by then internalized) non-obsequious body language. Ten minutes later, she was smiling like a drunk porpoise. When it ended, no numbers exchanged, she looked almost annoyed, as if silently wondering why did I waste her time if I wasn’t going to ask her out.
Don’t misconstrue. Small talk is great, and it, like other tools of applied charisma, is a skill that can be honed and targeted to nuke vagina from orbit. Shit, half the men who fail at love haven’t even gotten to the step where actual words are coming out of their mouths around women.
But if you’re gonna play in the big leagues and throw your pitch at bona fide babes, you’ll need more to close the deal than a polite acknowledgement of her choice in breast coverings. (In fact, you’d do better to tell a hottie exactly that: “Hey, I like your choice in breast covering.” It’ll shock her into attraction.) You’ll need the knuckleball, sinker, cutter, and a little bit of unpredictable english if you want to stand out from the mob of scrubs.
Steve Sailer, bless his hardening heart, has a post up about a Charles Murray article reminding leftoid paymasters that high achievement on tests like the SAT are more a consequence of genetic heritage than of socioeconomic status.
One of the commenters, Jonah, draws the mostly-unspoken parallel of SAT scores to female hypergamy:
I’d wager a guess that the correlation would be significantly stronger if the father’s IQ could have been assessed as well. I’d assume that there are a significant number of affluent families where the father is the skilled/educated breadwinner.
This is very astute and under-considered by sociologists looking at longitudinal data like these. Given hypergamy – the propensity for women to “marry up”, and the willingness of men to “marry down” in favor of looks or other non IQ traits – I would bet Murray’s point would be amplified by if you looked at father’s IQ instead of mother’s. Wish he had the #s for dads/SAT rather than moms/PIAT. Would be a stronger and more striking piece.
By the way, I doubt I’m the only person here whose father was smarter than my mother. It’s probably true for over 60% of the population but you never hear about it. For people with one parent SIGNIFICANTLY smarter than the other, I bet it’s Dads over Moms 10-1.
And yes, the math checks out. Dumb, low status men, and ugly smart women are more frequently shut out of the marriage game than their gender opposites.
Female hypergamy in the West is, at least in its current configuration, dysgenic. Smart, overcredentialed women are shunting their smart genes into an ever narrower demographic slice, because these women can’t stomach the thought of “marrying down” in intelligence or phonyfuck credentials. And we see exactly that playing out, as the fertility rate of high IQ white mimosaettes is zeroing in on a little over 0.0 kids per woman.
But high IQ fathers, especially conservative fathers who don’t do woman’s work, have higher fertility and thus “male hypergamy” is eugenic. The primary reason has to do with the lifetime SMV slopes of men. High achieving men experience a gradual increase in their SMVs peaking at right about the time same-age women’s SMVs are crashing into the Wall. Many of these men go on to second or third younger wives, and produce second or third families of scions.
A secondary reason for the eugenic effect of male hypergamy — the urge to pair off with ever-younger, hotter, tighter minxes — is the fact Jonah mentioned: High achieving/high IQ men cash in their higher SMVs for prettier women at a wider range of female smarts. Because, you see, to the vast majority of men, even to the SJW manlets in full denial mode, a woman’s youth and beauty are nitroglycerin to a man’s boner. Blows it right up. A woman’s smarts? No effect. Worse for the grad school ladies, boners will sometimes wither under the droning onslaught of SMRT women with something insufferably feminist to prove.
In the final analysis, high IQ women demographically hoard their advantageous genes, just like they romantically hoard their eggs. High IQ men, in contrast, spread their advantageous genes just like they spread their sperm.
Which brings us to the fascinating, if perturbing to fragile minds, question Jonah asks: Is your father smarter than your mother?
I can recall with the crystal clearest clarity only Lucifer’s favored son can summon that it did, and does, seem to me most of my peers’ fathers were/are brighter than their mothers. (NB: I am not a product of a black ghetto. I only play one on TV.) There were a few glaring exceptions, and like all exceptions they are extraordinarily memorable by reason of their rarity. Mostly, these pairings featured a ballbuster proto-feminist tankwife cracking the whip over the back of a stepnfetchit beta hubby. Not all though. A few couples in which the mother of my friend was noticeably smarter than the father had the right sexual polarity — submissive wife and dominant husband — that managed by way of alchemical sexual magic to work despite the father’s relatively gimped brainpower.
That’s the monkey wrench in the patented CH theory of dysgenic female hypergamy: The allure of badboys — who may or may not have upper quintile SAT scores — to all women, maybe especially to SMRT women surrounded in their milieus by supplicating beta males. If the Pill and condom and abortion weren’t acting as procreation thwarting intermediaries, the fertility of high IQ women might be a lot higher, as they opened the un-latexed gates to their eggs to sundry charming jerkboys.
Evolution grinds regardless. Where are we heading? I don’t know, but I do know the late 20th-early 21st century paradigms are not long for this world. More and more it appears the historical pairing of smarter, high achieving men with prettier, low achieving women has been severed and hijacked by powerful anti-human social forces. More and more the romantically healthy arrangements are upended by discordant faux-aristocratic entities. What was once common — a vital middle class distinguished by fathers smarter and higher achieving than mothers — has become a curiosity gawked at by the destroyers of harmony.
We know our trajectory. What we don’t know is our destination. So certain are you that a bright, sunshiney day waits at the end?