Chicks Digging Jerks Goes Mainstream(ish)

Michelle Malkin, a tawny-skinned rep of the right cute enough to inspire a Heartiste half-mast, has an article about the love that girls are showering on Boston Bomber Joker Tsarnaev, and on other assorted badboys and murderers. Note the very eeenteresting title of Malkin’s article:

America’s Sociopath Fetish: Chicks Dig Chechens And Other Killers

I would like to declare a war on women—namely, all those cringe-inducing ninnies who lust after every celebrity criminal defendant with big muscles, tattoos, puppy-dog eyes or Hollywood hair.

You know who I’m talking about, right? America’s Bad Boy groupies. They’re on the courthouse steps with their “Free Jahar” signs, cooing over how “hot” and “cute” the bloodstained Boston Marathon bombing suspect is. He “can blow me up with babies,” one moral reprobate quipped shortly after his capture. “I’m not gonna lie, the second bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hot. #sorrynotsorry,” another young girl boasted.

Now where have we seen that “Chicks Dig [Killers]” formulation before? Oh yeah.

I’m beginning to suspect, though the evidence is circumstantial, that some esteemed and popular pundits are regular snoopers of the Chateau. Naturally they will never own up to it, and you can’t blame them. If admitting to being influenced by an all-around decent guy like Steve Sailer gives them the hives, imagine what confessing to being a night visitor of this demonic lair would do for one’s cocktail circuit reputation. The stuff of status manicuring nightmares!

Michelle sounds like she’s losing faith in the sisterhood,

It would be one thing if these morally stunted followers segregated themselves in enclaves outside the American mainstream. But some of these damaged goods end up on juries, entrusted to weigh evidence fairly, digest complex instructions, and render impartial verdicts in matters of life and death. Indeed, they are aggressively sought after by predatory defense lawyers. I’ll never forget the female jurors of the first murder trial of confessed parent-killers Lyle and Erik Menendez. Star-struck by “glamorous” defense lawyer Jill Abramson, the women of the Menendez jury told Los Angeles reporters that “they admired her wardrobe and biting wit.”

Their swooning for the hunky Menendez brothers, whom they praised as “bright” and “nice,” was obscene. After a mistrial was declared, Abramson arranged for “her jurors” to meet the boys. Soon after, talk show queen Sally Jesse Raphael hosted a program on “women who would leave their husbands to marry a Menendez.”

From Menendez mania to Free Jahar, the pathologies persist: Easily led. Emotion-driven. Desperate for male approbation. Prone to acting with their lady parts instead of their lady smarts. Heckuva job, feminism!

The Cruel Word of CH is infiltrating the masses and spreading love like a bear digging for berries twixt Andrew Sullivan’s butt cheeks.

Lesson learned: You can indoctrinate generations of American women in the ways of gender empowerment, but you can’t make a goodly portion of them think straight. Hormones trump basic human decency and good judgment in the crowded coven of sociopaths.

Michelle demonstrates a willingness to grapple with the intractability of female sexual nature. She mocks the ineffectual feebleness of feminism to alter in any significant way the biologically inherent urges of women to crave the cold-blooded cocks of killers. In her mocking is a tacit admission that perhaps, just maybe, giving women the run of the place isn’t working out so well for civilization.

Read Full Post »

Dan And Nadine

Dan readied his stick and plunked a ball in a side pocket. Relishing his fleeting achievement, he raised his eyes to check if Nadine had bore witness to his excellence. She hadn’t. Gruff, caustic Robert, his misshapen nose and squirrel’s nest hair coaxing annoyed leers, was directing to a general audience of three girls a crack about drunkenly seeing twelve holes and the improvement to his game that was sure to bring. Nadine was one of those girls, and Dan squelched a perturbation of despondency when he saw Nadine’s eyes shine for Robert’s boisterous wit.

Nadine was Dan’s project. He met her, he welcomed her friends, he introduced them all to his friends, he slept luxuriously fitful nights imagining Nadine warming to him and reciprocating his feelings. Kind, pretty and, lately, eager to hang out with him and his buddies, Nadine was unassailable. Dan allowed renewed confidence in the value he offered her. Soon, he would ask her out. He just needed a private moment. They’d been out together as a group enough that Dan believed Nadine was hoping he would lurch at a pretext to corner her alone and deliver the magical words she’d been secretly anticipating. Dan occasionally wondered if the moment, when it came, would be so flush with spent resolve that they would seal the agreement with a passionate (but endearingly tentative) kiss.

Dan: “D’ja see that bank shot?”

Robert: “That bank shot wasn’t good…”

PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT

Robert: “…that bank shot was GREAT.”

Nadine: *laughs*

Dan: *smiles weakly*

Robert: *touches Nadine’s chunky girl friend with chalky side of stick*

PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC REACTION

Chunks: “Hey! Not nice!”

Robert: “Blame Dan. He bet me I wouldn’t do it.”

Dan: “No I didn’t.”

Robert: “Come on, Dan, you’re always causing trouble. Don’t try to hide it.”

Nadine: “He doesn’t look like the one causing trouble here.”

Dan: “Thanks, Nadine.”

Robert: “I knew there was something between you two!”

Dan had always taken to understand that he was a handsome, if aesthetically understated, man. He certainly saw nothing in Nadine’s limpid gaze to suggest extended exposure to his countenance irritated her. If Dan were to count up the hours spent in Nadine’s company, (an exercise which, in point of fact, he did one evening while nervously fiddling with the bracing decision to text her one mere day after they had spoken by phone, the nerve!), the sum of their unspoken love would add to a considerable investment of life energy.

And so it was with naive expectation that Dan foresaw no interference, nor any of the usual social rifts that erupt when the sexes mix, issuing from Nadine & company’s enfolding. He was therefore emotionally denuded when Nadine’s redirected attention usurped his blueprint of steady bonding. A sickening awareness jammed his guts as he recorded the mounting toll of Robert & Nadine’s wet glances, slithery torso feints, forearm grazing entreaties, and joyously faux indignations, each a sharper dagger than the last. He sunk his last shot, and excused himself to “make a call”, which no one heard, nor needed to hear.

Seven years later, Robert would be married to a svelte, head-turner blonde, and they would reside in a charming suburb. Dan would have moved to another corner of the country, met an uninspiring but trustworthy woman, and married as well, settling in a jurisdiction not known for its disruptive temptations, but not mattering anyway. Government statistics would show that Robert worked in a high-stress field and had one child with his comely wife, and that Dan was a productive contributor to state coffers and had two children by his wife.

Acquaintances who knew Dan would say if asked that he was a happy, well-adjusted man. A real stand-up guy, a normal guy. The sort of guy who had everything going for him.

Read Full Post »

Options = Instability

“If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife.”

The above will work, but it’s not Chateau recommended. After all, peace of mind, while nice, is not a formula for true happiness. Gazing into a pretty girl’s eyes, drilling the holy hell out of her, and basking in the warm energy of her insuppressible love… now that’s happiness.

However, the song does illuminate age-old wisdom about the nature of the sexual market. If one partner in a relationship has more options in the sexual market, there will be more instability in the relationship. Options = instability. The legal and social bindings of marriage are a buffer against exercising those options, but not a protection against the existence of the options themselves. A husband or wife with a large enough customer base that wants their genetic product will find it extremely difficult to resist the temptation of exercising his or her options. Virtue is not achieved except in the crucible of alluring vice.

Furthermore, there is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

This is all classic, straight-up, shaken-not-stirred Chateau Heartiste wisdom. Now ♥SCIENCE♥ has bounded into the arena to lend confirmatory support. A recent study found that relationship length is partly a function of the attractiveness of the woman’s face.

Men looking for a quick fling prefer women with more “feminine” facial features, said a study Friday that delved into the evolutionary determinants of the mating game.

Feminine features like a smaller jawbone or fuller cheeks are closely linked to a woman’s perceived attractiveness, which in turn is taken as an indicator of health, youth and fidelity and other traits, it said.

Feminine features are associated with a higher level of the female hormone oestrogen, which is also linked with reproductive success. […]

The preference was especially high among men who were already in a steady relationship.

“When a man has secured a mate, the potential cost of being discovered may increase his choosiness regarding short-term partners relative to unpartnered men, who can better increase their short-term mating success by relaxing their standards,” wrote the study authors.

But in making long-term choices, men “may actually prefer less attractive/feminine women,” they added.

Previous research has found that attractive women are likelier to be unfaithful, particularly if their partner is ugly.

“If his partner cheats on him, a man risks raising a child which is not his own,” explained the authors.

You have to read between the lines of this study a bit to get at the underlying truth. What is happening is that beta males — and the great majority of men are beta males by definition, as are ostensibly the men recruited for these studies — are choosing peace of mind over elevated cuckoldry risk when they settle for a less attractive woman with whom to invest in a long-term relationship. It’s not that these men “prefer” less attractive women for LTRs; rather, men *settle* for less attractive women for LTRs because they don’t have the goods nor the game to lock a more attractive woman into a long-term partnership. They seem to grasp on a subconscious level that a long-term strategy with a hot babe will give them more grief than they can handle. Options = instability.

Women also employ this bifurcated mating strategy, but since women are more hypergamous than men — i.e., more compelled to date up — they are less likely than are men to curb their instinct to shoot for the moon. Many women try for LTRs with higher SMV (sexual market value) men before giving up on the project of commitment extraction when the first bricks of the sexual worthlessness wall crest the horizon.

Men who have options will, naturally, exercise them, which means in practice that a man who is good with women will be satisfied with nothing less than the romantic best, whether his favored idea of romance consists of short n sexy flings or long n loving mergers.

Read Full Post »

The Truth About Mixed-Race Couples

The stereotype that black-white mixed-race couples are typically black men hooking up with trashy, fat white women has a factual basis.

When comparing data on non-Hispanic white mothers of white children vs. non-Hispanic white mothers of mulatto children, the NLS survey data creates a distinct profile of white mothers of mulatto children. The profile strongly supports the common stereotypes about these women that are held in both the white and black communities.

White females with mulatto children are significantly less educated. They perform significantly worse on the ASVAB test. They average a higher body mass index [BMI]. In personality test scores they are, on average, more difficult, more quarrelsome, more stubborn, and less dependable. They are significantly more likely to say that they “lie and cheat often.”

When rated by interviewers, white females who report having black sexual partners are rated as less attractive, not as well groomed, and having less desirable personality traits. They are dramatically more likely to test positive for chlamydia or trichomoniasis. They perform worse on vocabulary tests.

The data was compiled by the website Race/History/Evolution

It’s fair to say the whole media industrial complex portrays the exact opposite of reality.

Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. There’s a reason they exist. People notice patterns and formulate generalizations around those observed patterns.

In homogeneous societies, the most undesirable females are left without partners and go to their long dark death having failed to fulfill their genetic prime directive. End result: Humanity in such societies benefits as a whole from the eugenic cleansing. In late stage multicultural anti-societies, the slag of womanhood does an end-run around sexual selection and procreates outside their race. The question is put to the studio audience: Is this a net positive or net negative for those rainbow societies?

UPDATE

Some readers ask what is the point of posting this information? What good does it do?

Other than the obvious — rebuking the lies that the Cathedral/Synagogue/religious metaphor for the anti-white establishment of your choice churns out at an industrialized clip — I think the best reason is a psychological one:

Entrapment.

I can imagine a preening, bigoted SWPL reading this and quivering in anticipation of launching a SCIENCE-backed diatribe against those wrong kinds of white people, those slovenly rednecks the SWPL loves to hate, when suddenly it dawns on him.

“Wait… oh crap, can’t go there.”

Read Full Post »

Are Humans A Pair Bonding Species?

Reader Hector_St_Clare writes,

Re: Humans are a pair-bonding species with polygynous tendencies.

To be more accurate, humans are a pair bonding species with *mild* polygynous tendencies.

To be even more accurate, humans are a pair bonding species with mild tendencies towards male polygyny and covert female promiscuity.

Hector is mostly correct. It’s a myth that humans evolved for lifelong, monogamous relationships, but it’s also a myth that we are sex machines rigged to copulate orgiastically with whomever presents for a ravaging, a la Sex at Dawn.

Humans appear, from the gathered evidence, to be a cross between chimps and bonobos in sociosexual behavior and attitude. There is strategic female promiscuity, but there is also female preference for monogamy. There is male desire for sexual variety, but there is also male jealousy and mate guarding. The glans ridge on male penises indicates that men evolved to scoop out competitor sperm from presumably slutty women, but the flush of oxytocin released in the female brain after sex indicates that women evolved to strongly attach to lovers for longer than a night.

There are many more examples of the inherent contradictory nature of human sexuality like the above. Further complicating the picture is the growing evidence that these sexual predispositions vary by continental race; jealousy, promiscuity, mate guarding, cuckoldry, polygyny, and even female preference all vary in kind and degree depending where you are in the world. There are certainly human sexuality universals, but these universals are modified by unique environmental pressures.

The bottom line is that people who claim lifelong monogamy is the natural state of humanity absent cultural interference are wrong, and people who claim free love is the natural state of humanity absent cultural constraints are also wrong. The truth, as always, is a lot uglier than either side would have you believe.

Read Full Post »

Are Women Winning, Or Are Men Losing?

A recent analysis examining the causes of the infamous and demagogically abused “sex wage gap” has found that more than a quarter of the relative improvement in women’s wages is the result of the decline in men’s wages.

In the late 1970s, after a long period of holding fairly steady, the gap in wages between men and women began improving. In 1979, the median hourly wage for women was 62.7 percent of the median hourly wage for men; by 2012, it was 82.8 percent. However, a big chunk of that improvement – more than a quarter of it — happened because of men’s wage losses, rather than women’s wage gains. […]

This cannot be blamed on economic stagnation. Between 1979 and 2012, productivity – the average amount of goods and services produced in an hour by workers in the U.S. economy — grew by 69.5 percent, but that did not translate into higher wages for most men. Over this period, the real wage of the median male dropped 7.6 percent. This is a new and troubling disconnect: In the decades prior to the 1970s, as productivity increased, the wages of the median worker increased right along with it.

Furthermore, looking at the median wage understates the losses many men have experienced since the 1970s. For men with a high school degree, real wages have fallen by more than 14 percent. It is not the case, however, that men’s wages have fared poorly since the 1970s because men do not have the right education or skills. In the last 10 years, even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.

Nor are men’s losses are due to women’s gains. The forces that were holding back male wage growth were also acting on women’s wages, but the gains made by women over this period in educational attainment, labor force attachment, and occupational upgrading, along with greater legal protections against discriminatory pay, initially compensated for adverse forces. In the last decade, however, women’s wages have also dropped. […]

The decline in unionization alone explains about a third of the rise in male wage inequality (and about a fifth of the increase in female wage inequality) over this period.

Together, these policies have eroded the individual and collective bargaining power of most workers, depleting access to good jobs. In other words, these policies have served to make the already-affluent better off at the expense of the rest.

As any halfway informed reader will tell you, the supposed discriminatory basis of the sex wage gap so beloved of femcunts for its usefulness as a blunt semantic weapon to cow lickspittles of the Undescended Testes Society into submission, is utter bullshit. Now there is evidence that some of the wage increase women have experienced is less a consequence of GOGRRL ambition than of FUCK MEN economic policies.

Automation, illegal infiltration of cheap labor, outsourcing, H1B insourcing, the move to a service and health economy that favors women’s strengths, cultural derision of men’s strengths… all these things plus more have combined to economically shaft men. Coupled with the declining attraction of self-sufficient women for beta providers, is it any wonder that marginalized men are faced with the stark choice of cadding it up for muff and puss lips, or dropping out entirely?

The answer to this problem isn’t pat, but we could start with these CH suggestions:

– Stop pedestalizing women on a mass scale. This means drop the “lean in” schtick and the “white male privilege” dorm room BS sessions. Embrace the innate biological differences of the sexes and stop bitching and moaning when the consequence of men and women following their natural compulsions leads to organically emergent disparities in pay or social status.

– End all quota programs and affirmative action. Men, and white men in particular, pay the brunt of these redistributionist schemes.

– Ditch the legal concepts of disparate impact and disparate outcomes. These two fallacious theories have exerted more deceptive subversion on US law and government policy than any other.

– Close the borders. Deport the illegals and their “naturalized” children. Lower supply of labor = higher demand for labor = higher wages. Bonus: Revoke the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

– Immigration moratorium for forty years, followed by a restructured immigration policy that primarily favors Northern Europeans. America was largely built from the ground up by a particular group of people. Radically altering the demographics of America assures that the country will change, irrevocably, in line with the abilities and psychologies of the new and different groups of people comprising her. Some people are fine with this, but what those people won’t be able to say is that America will continue to be anything like the America she has been during her rise to world bestriding greatness.

– Decentralization, and how. The federal government has acquired too much power. The IRS and NSA scandals are evidence of a centralized regime attempting to corral too many people of too many differing temperaments, abilities and behavioral idiosyncrasies into a benign, mollified, indistinguishable mass of Pavlovian consumers. The states must grow in power, or the federal government will cede them their power by events out of its control.

– Gut the humanities departments of colleges. These departments and their increasingly malign spin-offs have become nothing more than warehouses for women pursuing useless degrees in feminist boilerplate and discredited blank slatism. A big chunk of the growth in female college grads is in majors like Communications and Women’s Studies which amount to debt accumulation programs and memetic delivery systems for leftoid propaganda. Online education, tenure abolition, and job-offers-per-graduate debt relief loan contracts are all possibilities to reduce the stranglehold that the Cathedral Hivemind has on higher education.

– End international free trade. Two billion Chinese and Indians is a lot of cheap labor to churn through before the markets rebalance and wage labor costs rise in developing countries. In the meantime, a lot of Americans will suffer with no relief in sight.

– Shorten the work week. Rapid automation of jobs previously done by humans and increasing cognitive demands of non-roboticized jobs means an increase in the number of people who are, for all practical purposes, worthless in the economic market. The upside to automation is cheaper products. This means a four-day work week is feasible since employees won’t need as much money to purchase pleasure-maximizing gadgets.

– Reconfigure finance regulation so that the huge wealth inequality that is a consequence of insiders and the lucky high IQ few taking advantage of private equity markets unavailable to the general public is alleviated. This means some “conservatives” will have to abandon their pro-business mentality in favor of a more nuanced grasp of how the free market shakes out when the cognitive elite are permitted to prey on the less genetically fortunate.

– Make welfare contingent on contraceptive use. Offer the option for a guaranteed lifetime income in exchange for permanent sterilization. All voluntary, all eugenic, all humane. No need to worry about a future of Matt Damons blowing up your Elysium.

– The downside to automation is that, eventually, there won’t be anything left for human people to do. You may call this a Luddite fallacy, but the logic is inescapable: Returns to productivity get undermined by ever larger pools of people unable to generate an income stream. You say there will be more need for people to service the robots, but that requires a baseline cognitive profile that is likely higher than what we have now (thanks in big part to immigration-fueled dysgenia), or higher than what we needed in the past when new tech supplanted older tech. The solution to this problem is the consideration of a government guaranteed income, again contingent upon birth control use.

The tsunami of evidence that men, women, and races are fundamentally and intractably different in important and relevant ways to the hedonistic principle — first, do no self-harm — is going to wash over the ruling class so forcefully that they’ll have no choice but to jettison their ballast of lies and rise to the surface, or sink into a murky oblivion weighed down by hoary platitudes of the past. This means equalists will have to become comfortable with the reality that some people will do better in life than other people, and there is no one to blame for this except the distant cosmic overlord.

Men can win again. And when men are winning, women win too. How is that, you ask? Well… chicks dig a winner.

Read Full Post »

Aloofness Will Make Women Want Sex More

Readers have been writing to express their gratitude ever since the CH “Dread” post was published, which advised men in loveless relationships to become more aloof and unavailable as a means of reigniting their women’s desire for them.

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you.

The bitterboy haters really swooned with indignation after reading that post, feeling deep in their bones that anything less than flowers and constant supplication was the only way a man should act if he wanted to revive a flagging relationship. Hundreds of testimonials to the contrary would not convince them. Theirs is a Hallmark world, and goddamnit it’s going to stay a Hallmark world.

By why heed your real world experiences and the wisdom of CH when you can wait for CREDENTIALED EXPERTS to give you the go-ahead to try something new and daring with your life?

But the [female] rationale [for wanting sex] I’d like to focus on here is one that’s rarely alluded to in the literature: namely, a woman’s wanting sex–and at times desperately so–out of fear that her partner may be on the verge of leaving her. That is, she may actively pursue her spouse sexually to help deal with powerful feelings of anxiety, stemming from her intuition or knowledge that her relationship is in jeopardy–fragile, teetering, or on the brink of collapse.

The woman’s apprehension about a possible break-up may derive from her partner’s broadly hinting that he wants out of the relationship or, in fact, from his directly informing her of his intentions to move out and file for divorce. Or it’s possible she might suspect that he’s having an affair; or (because of the vast emotional distance separating them) that he’s actually fallen in love with someone else and, on that account, secretly planning to desert her. In a panic about it all–especially if she still feels devoted to him, or there are children involved and she’s frantic to keep the family together at all costs–she may be desperate to initiate sex to feel less helpless, as well as to exert some control over (and hopefully alter) her husband’s errant, non-loving behavior toward her. […]

As a consequence of her distress, or anguish, she’s strongly impelled to prompt a heated sexual encounter whereas previously she may have shown ambivalence, apathy, or even a marked antipathy toward making love with her partner. Withdrawn and quite possibly sexually shut down, in the bedroom she may take on the role of “aggressor”–or, probably a better term, “seductress.” […]

Ironically, the sex that can emerge from the considerable trepidation and anxiety I’ve been describing can be unusually passionate. Though I’ve already characterized such sex as “fear-inspired,” the very intensity of this fear can transform itself into substantially heightened sexual arousal — such that the end result of lovemaking can be electrically charged (what noted sex therapist, David Schnarch, actually refers to as “wall socket sex”!). It’s as though, ironically, the woman’s pronounced fear of abandonment renders her capable of having more abandoned sex than she may have been capable of before.

As we say in the business —  Game. Set. Snatch.

Le Chateau ahead of the curve, again. A little bit of fear and dread will motivate a sexually retreating woman to joyfully spread for the sake of committed love. To put it in even more concise terms: Do the opposite of a beta male.

Dread is essentially a form of the scarcity principle, producing effects in the sexual market similar to the effects seen in the economic market when an in-demand good is in short supply. Not only will calculated doses of dread revitalize relationships, but it will also allow average men to date much hotter women than they would be expected to date by the dunderhead masses.

Maxim #55: A man can shoot way out of his league if he acts as if he is the one occupying the higher league.

Dread, or fear-inspired romance, is not a relationship cure-all. An average man can keep a level-headed hottie on a string for about six months using nothing but anxiety-inducing seduction techniques, but beyond the six month mark fissures will begin to erupt. Women’s hindbrains can fry from too much sustained anxiety, and past that point relationship management with a beautiful woman becomes more difficult, requiring more emotional investment from the man. Accepting this reality, the man will usually opt for gaudy beta displays of commitment, and as if on cue this will cause the hottie to reevaluate her relationship options.

Given the long-term risks of overuse, dread is still the winning move for the average man. Just as five minutes of alpha > five years of beta for women, six months of sex with a hot babe > ten years of sex with a plain jane for men.

The best news is that dread is exceptionally effective as a tool to coax hot sex from a woman if you are within an already established relationship, such as marriage. The trick to keeping the bedsheets stained with poos joos is the subtle application of intermittent dread, which releases your woman’s anxiety just long enough that she swings wildly between cuddly comfort and ravenous restlessness. Sustained dread is better when you’ve started dating a girl, and particularly the types of eye-catching girls who get propositioned on the daily.

Read Full Post »