Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

Five-star commenter chris marshals ¡SCIENCE! to support the theory that feminists are masculine women who use the ideology of feminism to rearrange normal society into a twisted slutscape that serves the interests of less attractive women who fail at extracting commitment from high value men. Quoting him in full:

******

Here’s a theory for you:

Feminists are a phenotypic morph.
Feminism is political-ideological weaponization by that phenotypic morph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

Polymorphism in biology occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species—in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph. In order to be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating).

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977

“Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women”

This study shows there are two distinct phenotypes within human populations. Promiscuous people and non-promiscuous people. Promiscuous = low digit ratio=higher testosterone=short-term mating strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250010

“Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.”

This study shows that feminists are masculinised in terms of digit ratios=low digit ratios=higher testosterone.

This explains why feminism is about changing society from long-term to short term mating. It explains why they defend women being sluts. It explains why they defend women cuckolding. It explains why they defend and agitate for women to pursue careers and achieve self-provisioning sufficiency. And it explains why they try to change the culture to support these values and necessarily oppose their anti/inverse values.

Thus, there is no right-wing war on women. There is a right wing war on the short-term mating or feminist or matriarchal morph.

Likewise there is a left-wing war on the long-term mating or anti-feminist or patriarchal morph.

And here’s the catch: most women are in the long-term mating / anti-feminist / patriarchal morph.

In other words. feminism is anti-(the majority of)-women.

******

A powerful shiv to the bloated gut of feminism is to remind normal, attractive women of the gross, ugly, and deranged feminist women (and their effete male lackeys) who purport to speak for all women. Women are nothing if not herd followers, and if it’s made clear to the Normal Majority of women that feminists are unbangable fugs no worthwhile man would touch with a manlet’s micropeen, then the herd will change course and leave the losers in its dust.

CH is doing its sadistically fun part of getting that message out to the masses.

Chris’s theory jibes closely with CH’s theory of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Masculinized feminism-congenial women want an unnatural order instituted that grants them the shame-free sexual freedom inherent to men while simultaneously restricting any expression of the natural sexual impulses of men themselves. Feminists want to be able to call all the sexual market shots, take no heat for misfires, and publicly excoriate anyone who fires back. This is the dictionary definition of insanity.

National Review, in a rare moment of ballsiness, also corroborates the chris/CH theory of feminism:

Feminism has become something very different from what it understands itself to be, and indeed from what its adversaries understand it to be. It is not a juggernaut of defiant liberationists successfully playing offense. It is instead a terribly deformed but profoundly felt protective reaction to the sexual revolution itself. In a world where fewer women can rely on men, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity.

Allow me to reword the conclusion of this NR statement for endarkening clarification:

“In a world where fewer ugly, unfeminine, financially self-sufficient women can or need to rely on provider beta males, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity that leaves them feeling gross and unloved the next morning after Jack has slipped out the back.”

The view is coming into focus now.

Loudmouthed feminists are more often than not:

ugly,
out of shape chunksters,
unfeminine androgynes,
older, Wall-victim spinsters,
spiteful, LSMV misfits…

who simultaneously loathe and envy the natural freedom and energy of male sexual desire. Because feminists are losers in the sexual marketplace, (and because they know it), they seek to tear down the organic, biomechanically-grounded social and sexual orders and replace them with bizarre androgynous dystopias that help them feel better about themselves. Their justified feelings of low self-worth cause them to lash out at men in the aggregate, (and particularly at lower value beta males), and at prettier, feminine women who by their mere existence daily remind feminists of their pitiful ranking in the hierarchy of female romantic worth.

When losers stop knowing their place, and begin insisting their betters are no such thing, and worse when the losers have acquired the power and means to punish their betters, you get what we have today: A failure to propagate; to propagate as a race and to propagate as a successful civilization.

Read Full Post »

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women are created unequally, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain divergences of appearance, that among these are Beautiful, Ugly, and Downright Hideous. –That to gloss over these divergences, Feminism is instituted among Women, deriving its magical thinking from the consent of the lovelorn. –That whenever any Form of Feminism becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of Women and their effete Male petitioners to alter or to reinvent it, and to institute a new Feminism Wave, laying its foundation on such irrationalities and organizing its powers in XXL vestment form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their glowing Self-Conception and freedom to Hallucinate.

***

You ever notice how the women who go on and on in high dudgeon about the necessity of consent are the women who are least likely to ever be in a romantic situation conceivably requiring their consent?

It’s almost as if…. almost!… unattractive, LSMV women glom onto feminist slogans to make themselves feel more desirable to men. The darlings. Not.

Read Full Post »

Have you noticed the dearth of original ideas coming out of Hollywood? The problem is that a good idea needs a companion in the truth. And our culture has turned violently away from the truth. Consequently, novel ideas in all art forms are getting rarer.

Reader PA suggests a Crimson Pill movie idea that’s both fresh and honest.

I wonder if rape victims who experienced orgasms mid rape were capable of having vaginal orgasms in their normal lives.

You’re writing a screenplay for a drama/thriller involving a normal, happily married woman who was just brutally raped and came hard in the throes of the assault. Her husband is a normal blue-pill greater beta who suddenly finds her unable to have vaginal sex. The husband goes through tears and frustration, and self-defeating attempts at being “supportive” and then finds a crimson arts blog and makes a plan to transform himself into a Love-Heisenberg, to save the marriage.

Do you simply graft the script of “9 and 1/2 Weeks” from here on, or is there another approach?

Throw in a paint-by-numbers overcredentialed marriage counselor, a spiteful feminist BFF, and an undersexed white knight friend of the husband who secretly desires his wife, and you’ve got yourself boffo box office!

By the way, Fifty Shades of Grey, if you don’t already know, is a complete rip-off of the vastly superior Mickey Rourke-Kim Bassinger erotic movie Nine 1/2 Weeks. Ferkrissake, the male lead’s character name in Nine 1/2 is “John Gray”. I’m surprised critics have failed to note the similarities. It’s canny enough that the producers of Nine 1/2 (and the writer of the book on which the movie is based) have grounds to sue the fat pig who wrote Fifty Shades.

Bassinger’s character, Elizabeth, in Nine 1/2 also falls for a badboy with a sadistic streak. (Girls can’t help themselves.) There is a rape scene in which Elizabeth has a powerful orgasm. She is both bewildered and entranced by her body’s betrayal of her good sense. The movie has a sort of audience-stroking happy ending, when Elizabeth, deeply in love with John but emotionally broken by his intensifying manipulations (he has her watch a prostitute service him in a hotel room), leaves him, but in so doing turns her back on a piece of her womanhood. There’s a subtext that she will never joyously submit to that kind of fiery passion again.

(John should’ve balanced all that anxiety-inducement with some comfort. Game 101, man!)

Personally, I would take PA’s idea and make a feint toward a Nine 1/2 Weeks conclusion, except with a Walter White Breaking Badboy twist: The greater beta husband, upon elevating himself as the dominant force in his wife’s life and finally in a position to save their marriage (ironically via a route that mirrors his wife’s confusing rape experience), opts instead to succumb to the temptations of his reinvention. I’d also change the deus ex machina from a blog to a player buddy, or perhaps to a death row inmate with a pile of marriage proposals from adoring female fans. Internet-hemmed epiphanies don’t play well on screen.

Submission to a man worthy of it is engraved in a woman’s soul. She will deny it, the Hivemind will deny it, the pedestal-polishing plushboys will deny it as they politely discuss financial outlooks over the din of insistent pleat-imprisoned chubbies in sterile offices with gogrrl droids in pencil skirts, but when the blinds are closed and the darkness descends, every woman will arch her back to meet the lovely, exquisite pain of an icy caress.

Read Full Post »

An Atlantic leftoid* wrote a smug, insular column, “Waiting for the Conservative Jon Leibowitz”, rhetorically asking why there’s no conservative equivalent to The Daily Show or Colbert. The article reads like a gloat about how liberals “get it” and conservatives don’t get it, “it” being the nuanced (read: intellectual) forms of humor.

Over the years, Stewart and his cohort mastered the very difficult task of sorting through all the news quickly and turning it around into biting, relevant satire that worked both for television and the Internet.

Now, as Stewart prepares to leave the show, the brand of comedy he helped invent is stronger than ever. Stephen Colbert is getting ready to bring his deadpan smirk to The Late Show. Bill Maher is continuing to provoke pundits and politicians with his blunt punch lines. John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight is about to celebrate the end of a wildly popular first year. Stewart has yet to announce his post-Daily Show plans, but even if he retires, the genre seems more than capable of carrying on without him.

The insularity of the article is betrayed by the author’s assumption that liberal-dominated fake news shows represent the pinnacle of achievement in humor. The implicit belief is that conservative “failure” in this domain is indicative of an inherent conservative inability to appreciate or master the finer arts of funny, such as irony and satire.

Whenever I read masturbatory liberal articles like this one, I cross-check the article’s biases with my personal experience to see if there’s a match; if there is, I give the liberal the benefit of the doubt that it’s onto something. (It rarely is.) If not, I don’t immediately write off the liberal conclusion, but I don’t give it much merit either. In the real world, where all that matters is how much I laugh, I’ve been friends with quite a few liberal and conservative funnymen (and a smattering of funnywomen). But the funniest guys I’ve known were all far right of center rascally SOBs. Online, the situation is similar. I think the Christian sadists at MPC are funny as hell, and no one can accuse them of being Leibowitz lackeys.

Could it be that American political satire is biased toward liberals in the same way that American political talk radio is biased toward conservatives? Dannagal Young, an assistant professor of communications at the University of Delaware, was looking into the lack of conservative comedians when she noticed studies that found liberals and conservatives seemed to have different aesthetic tastes. Conservatives seemed to prefer stories with clear-cut endings. Liberals, on the other hand, had more tolerance for a story like public radio’s Serial, which ends with some uncertainty and ambiguity.

Yes, how those leftoids love ambiguity and nuance. You can see it in how they assiduously avoid unambiguously pigeonholing, for instance, rednecks.

Framing is one of the most interesting game concepts, and it’s because it has applicability well beyond the context of picking up girls. The supposed leftoid love for uncertainty and ambiguity is just as accurately expressed as a leftoid fear of judgment. Which, when you think about it, makes survival sense. An effete liberal manlet benefits from a society that refuses to judge it unworthy of inclusion.

Young began to wonder whether this might explain why liberals were attracted in greater numbers to TV shows that employ irony. Stephen Colbert, for example, may say that he’s looking forward to the sunny weather that global warming will bring, and the audience members know this isn’t what he really means. But they have to wonder: Is he making fun of the kind of conservative who would say something so egregious? Or is he making fun of arrogant liberals who think that conservatives hold such extreme views?

Liberal audiences love liberal showmen who vigorously pump their priors. I doubt there’s a single SWPL viewer who doesn’t know that Colbert is on its side.

As Young noticed, this is a kind of ambiguity that liberals tend to find more satisfying and culturally familiar than conservatives do. In fact, a study out of Ohio State University found that a surprising number of conservatives who were shown Colbert clips were oblivious to the fact that he was joking.

Good lord. How often are liberal SJWs oblivious to the humor in racially-tinted jokes? Maybe people just don’t find jokes funny when they’re targeted at firmly held beliefs.

In contrast, conservative talk radio humor tends to rely less on irony than straightforward indignation and hyperbole.

I haven’t heard a shortage of liberals engaging in indignation and hyperbole.

When Rush Limbaugh took down Georgetown student and birth-control activist Sandra Fluke in 2012, he called her a “slut” in order to drive home his point about state-mandated birth control. After the liberal blogosphere erupted with derision, Limbaugh responded with more jokes, asking that Fluke post videos of her sex online so taxpayers could see what they were paying for. (After a few days, he offered a public apology, insisting that he “did not mean a personal attack” on Fluke.)

Here we detect the primary driver of conservative retreat, if it exists, from political satire: Conservatives are constrained by the reigning leftoid Hivemind orthodoxies. Conservatives with audiences larger than three people have a limited ability to skewer liberal shibboleths without getting into serious career-ending trouble. Limbaugh’s backpedaling slut smear apology is Exhibit S. Has a leftoid on any of these fake news shows ever had to grovel before the inquisition for maliciously slandering a right-wing representative? No. They have license to smear their right-wing targets, something that non-leftoids cannot do to with the same gusto to sanctified liberal targets like Sandra Fluke.

Conservatives will never win at this game until they begin the process of chipping away at the bedrock of the Narrative. This means AGREEING & AMPLIFYING when the usual liberal accusations are cavalierly leveled. For example, once accused of slut shaming, Limbaugh should’ve had whole skit about Fluke mentally calculating the number of cocks she could raw dog on a $10 supply of pills. (zank you, i’ll be in all zee veek.)

If non-leftoids had the same freedom to parody cherished liberal icons — race, sex, eskimos, SWPLs, new atheists — with the same venom, I bet you’d see plenty of right-wing Daily Shows pop up. Right now, that freedom isn’t there, so mainstream righties have to stick with the liberal script, which in practice means essentially agreeing with the fundamentals of liberal progressivism while making feeble feints against the rapidity of that progress to which they have already tacitly acceded as inevitable.

Despite these societal biases against a conservative satirical uprising, I still think there could be an innate disposition in liberals that favors ambiguity and uncertainty. I think this because women also love ambiguity and uncertainty, particularly in the realm of romance, and we know women are more liberal than men. We also know liberal men are more womanly than conservative men (and this jibes with personal observation), so it’s not much of a logical leap to deduce that liberals in general are on the whole more womanly and thus more frightened of harsh moral dividing lines and of the judgment of peers.

*I invented the term of art “leftoid” because it captures the anti-human nature of the liberal vision, and the robotic incantations with which liberals autonomically resort to defending their faith when attacked by apostates.

PS Here’s a fantastically brutal judgment of Jon Leibowitz in the Post. Money shot:

Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.

He is especially beloved by others in the journo game. (For every 100 viewers, he generated about 10 fawning profiles in the slicks, all of them saying the same thing: The jester tells the truth!)

Any standard liberal publication was as likely to contain an unflattering thought about Stewart as L’Osservatore Romano is to run a hit piece on the pope.

The hacks have a special love for Stewart because he’s their id. They don’t just think he’s funny, they thrill to his every sarcastic quip. They wish they could get away with being so one-sided, snarky and dismissive.

That’s it right there. Leibowitz and his ilk succeed because the entirety of the media industrial complex share the same targets of hate. That’s why he gets so much positive ink, and why he’s catapulted into icon status, however pinched and domed the arena in which he rules.

The leftoid machine is a hate machine, and but for the pretense of objectivity that constrains “journalists” they’d all be taking up pitchforks and driving their hated enemies — core white Americans — into the flames, cackling like maniacs the whole time.

Read Full Post »

What do women really want?, Steve Sailer asks. One of his readers, a possible CH mole, supplies an answer that’s closer to the truth than a thousand Ross Douthat NYBTimes columns on sex and love.

What do women want? Let’s look at their sexual fantasies. In my long years, I’ve known large numbers of women with drawers and e-readers full of “romance novels”. The story lines and characterizations are generally all the same. They are the Cinderella story recast:

There are one and more women between Cinderella and the Prince, who is handsome, charming, and has lots of money, status, and power. Cinderella acts to remove the female competition between her and the Prince so that she can take her rightful place as the Princess of the realm. The story line is generally consumed by scenes of females going at each other as they compete for the Alpha Male. The “bodice ripping” at the end of the chapters are thinly veiled rape fantasies. The Prince eventually finds Cinderella so “hot” that he cannot control himself. His lack of control excites her … because, it represents her final victory over the female competition who are unable to drive the Prince to sexual frenzy.

The CH tentacles reach everywhere.

I’m gladdened that Steve and some of his readers are coming around to the Heartistian worldview. I’d imagine it was a tough road to illumination for them, given the demographic quadrant I’ll safely assume most of them occupy — traditionalist conservatives who believe in marriage and kids and not screwing around (much). These are well-meaning folk, but their limited breadth of experience in the mating trenches constrains their observational power.

In a similarly themed iSteve post, a few feminists dug their heads out of the sand to assert the opposite of the available evidence.

Just because people read something fictional it does not mean that they do actually want to experience that in real life.

This is a common “””argument””” from those who can’t bear the retinal scorching from viewing female sexual nature head on, and it’s bullshit. If fantasy were not a reflection of true desire, then we wouldn’t see a near-universal preference among women for a particular type of sexual fantasy. We would instead see a million women have a million different fantasies completely severed from any actual feelings of lustful desire, and shlock like Twilight or 50 Shades which conform very closely to one or two specific female fantasy archetypes wouldn’t sell hundreds of millions of copy.

Or, to put it more poetically, a random female fantasy generator disconnected from real world desire should turn up at least a few instances of women fantasizing about being taken by Bob the beta accountant. Yet, in all the pulp romance ever written, scarcely any pursue that theme.

PS In completely unrelated news, female prison guards keep having sex with inmates. That genderless feminist utopia is really working out as intended. Heh.

PPS Smart urbane chicks are into the 50 Shades crap too. This isn’t a prolefemme phenomenon.

PPPS A young CH once spent a few weeks perusing pulp romance books for inside info about what turns on women. He figured, if girls were reading this stuff by the truckload, there must be something in there that could give a man an edge over other men in the hunt for shiny, glossy poosy. He was right.

Read Full Post »

In the “Picking up married women” post, I commented that an indeterminate number of happily married women will go out of their way to avoid the temptation to infidelity, and will extend this courtesy to their boyfriends and husbands.

Some happily married women (read: married women still sexually aroused by their husbands) avoid the company of sexually appetitive men or of high status men capable of stimulating the sexual appetites of women. Often, this avoidance is achieved simply by not going to places where a lot of single huntsmen congregate. And, married women will try to introduce the temptation-resisting wonders of avoidance to their husbands, by preventing them from being too frequently in the company of young single ladies. Moving to the suburbs helps a lot with this avoidance program.

Commenter Euro Death Knot astutely notes the corollary to the above observation, and illustrates it from personal anecdotes as the “other man” having an affair with a cheating wife:

The converse of this principle is that a married woman traveling alone is a strong indication of potential interest.

I first learned this long ago when I was a college kid who knew nothing and was traveling on my own in Europe. I spent a night in a youth hostel in the Netherlands and approached an attractive German woman (5+ years older than I was) who was taking a vacation bike trip on her own across Holland. While I had taken only one year of German and her English was just a bit better than my German, it was easily less than 2 hours from me saying hi until I was finger fucking her and she was giving me a hand job, all of this in an open-air loft above the hostel’s dining room with some people milling below us.

It was only the next day when we met up to take the same train to Köln (her to go home and me to crash for a few days with a girl I had approached, made out with and address-closed in a park in München who was studying and living in Köln) that I paid attention to the fact that the ring she was wearing was on her ring finger and I realized that she was married. She told me that her husband traveled a lot and she felt that he had been sleeping around.

I can still see in my mind’s eye how affectionately she embraced her husband who was waiting for her at the train station (never mind that she had pulled out my cock again on the train ride). A couple of years ago I Googled her and discovered that decades later she’s still married (with the same name and close to the same address so presumably to the same man) and has three grown children.

If a wife is traveling alone without her husband, there’s often a reason.

Three lessons:

1. A wife or girlfriend who does not make pained efforts to avoid circumstances rife with illicit sexual invitation is by default a woman seeking them out.

2. The average woman is very good at hiding her infidelity from suspicion. Much better, from what I’ve seen, than the concealment the average man is capable of summoning when guilt is ripping at the soul. I conclude that men feel guilt and loyalty more palpably than do women. The exception to this rule is the accomplished cad, whose years of deception and nurtured sociopathy have honed in him a jewel thief’s skill at evading detection.

3. Even with the best intentions, a taken woman is still human, and an abundance of charming men in her social or work environment will test her limits of self-abnegation, much like a convention of 19-year-old lingerie models with daddy issues will test a devoted husband’s and father’s vows. It’s no coincidence that female infidelity rose at the same time as female participation in the workforce, and hence female exposure to alpha male movers and shakers, increased.

My suggestion: If you want a guarantee that your beloved won’t stray, get her off the cock grid. Rural Montana perhaps. Facsimiles of cock grid escape used to be simpler undertakings, but that all changed with [X], [EX], and [XXX].

The next best option? Game.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,176 other followers

%d bloggers like this: