Why Are Men With Dark Triad Personalities So Irresistible To Women?

It’s a scientific fact that women are attracted to men with the suite of personality traits known as the “dark triad”: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; aka the stuff of which jerks, assholes and badboys are made.

Any man who’s lived a day in his life knows that chicks dig jerks, but now we have the imprimatur of science to confirm what we can all see with our own eyes. The connection to game should be obvious. Many game concepts are essentially retrofitted Dark Triad traits and associated behaviors, allowing the practitioner of the charismatic arts to capture for himself some of the cryptic allure that men naturally blessed with badboy personality possess.

Explanations for the appeal to women of the male Dark Triad have been discussed before, within the hallowed halls of Le Chateau, but usually from esoteric evolutionary theory. Perhaps there are other, more immediate and practical, reasons why men who score high in the Dark Triad do so well with women? Let’s look at the definitions for each of the three relevant traits:

Narcissism

Narcissism is an egotistical preoccupation with self. Because of all their experience with maintaining their self image, people who score high for narcissism will often appear charming but their narcissism will later lead to extreme difficulty in developing close relationships.

Narcissistic men will be better at building an attractive identity, crafting an alluring image, dressing themselves for maximum impact, and comporting themselves with the utmost self-regard. Women love all these characteristics in men, even if these traits are not societally beneficial in numbers exceeding a tiny percentage of men. A man who is full of himself is a man who is full of women’s love.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is a tendency to be manipulative and deceitful. It usually stems from a lack of respect or disillusionment for others.

You cannot properly seduce women if you harbor illusions about their nature. A Machiavellian Man, owing to his willingness to engage in personally, and oftentimes mutually, advantageous deceits, is a skilled hand in the subtle feints of flirting. No seduction will take full flight without recourse to innuendo and barely concealed intent. The tacitly adversarial quality of seduction emanates from the fundamental premise that the reproductive goals of men and women are at odds, and the Machiavellian is the man best equipped to leverage that sweet antagonism to his ends.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy reflects shallow emotional responses. The relative lack of emotions results in high stress tolerance, low empathy, little guilt and leads them to seek extremely stimulating activities, resulting in impusivity and a disposition towards interpersonal conflict.

The darkest of the three traits. It’s a short neural skip from mostly benign, promiscuous psychopath to Hannibal Lector. What is it about psychopaths that women can’t get thoughts of them out of their heads? Besides their evocation of high status shamans and warriors of EEA yore, psychopaths bring one big advantage to the mating arena that quickly propels them to the top — fearlessness. That dead zone in their prefrontal gray matter means that psychopaths don’t feel much when women reject them. No hurt, no guilt, no shame, no doubt, no anger, no nothing. Imagine the power at your fingertips if you had the ice cold stones to approach thousands of women nonstop without suffering even the slightest ding to your emotional state from any rejections. Imagine that, coupled with this exotic imperviousness, you impulsively hit on any woman who piqued your interest. I don’t think you’ll need a calculator to figure out how fast your notch count would rise given these personality priors. Chicks dig a go-getter.

While the average self-deprecating beta male will find it nearly impossible to reconfigure his emotions and thought patterns to match that of the natural born narcissist, Machiavellian, and psychopath, he has now at his disposal tools and concepts — which fly under the banner of “game” — to inch himself closer to Dark Triad triumph. A small adjustment here, a studied mimickry there, and that invisible boring beta male is suddenly finding that the veldt of vagina open to his predations has expanded in every direction.

The above quotes were taken from the online Dark Triad Personality Test, which you can try for yourselves here. If you think you have an unusually low score, don’t fret; participants are likely self-selected narcissists boosting the scoring curve. After all, who but a narcissist would be happy to take this test?

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks: When Quantity Is Its Own Quality Edition

Piles of evidence already exist that women are a distinct species characterized to varying degree by their predilection for scampering after the love of badboys, jerks, assholes and, on occasion, imprisoned drug lords, murderers, serial killers and terrorists. So there’s no need to continue vindicating the Chateau worldview by adding yet another sordid story of pussy perfidy to the heap. At this point, noticing it is just depressing.

But the latest confirmation of the corrupted, careless nature of unleashed female sexuality offers a chance to examine a common refrain heard from those who in good faith contest the scope of the theory that chicks dig jerks. From the “Why the hell are we letting women become guards in male prisons?” file,

Thirteen female corrections officers essentially handed over control of a Baltimore jail to gang leaders, prosecutors said. The officers were charged Tuesday in a federal racketeering indictment.

Sex, drugs and prisoners were all involved in this recent FBI sting. The Washington Post’s Ann Marimow explains what was happening behind the prison walls.

The indictment described a jailhouse seemingly out of control. Four corrections officers became pregnant by one inmate. Two of them got tattoos of the inmate’s first name, Tavon — one on her neck, the other on a wrist. […]

According to an affidavit for search warrants for the homes of the prison guards, who were arrested Tuesday, gang leaders strategically recruited female officers who they thought had “low self-esteem and insecurities.”

Ya give the ladies the keys to the clink, and they turn it into a concubinage. Good job, beneficiaries of feminism! So who was the Big Man who ruled over his armed and willing sex slaves who were supposed to rule over him?

 “the ringleader of it all, according to the indictment, is Tavon White, a four-year inmate charged with attempted murder. He reportedly made $16,000 in one month off the smuggled contraband. Four corrections officers–Jennifer Owens, Katera Stevenson, Chania Brooks and Tiffany Linder, [ed: ruh roh, a couple of those names sound like white wimmenz!] who are also facing charges — allegedly became impregnated by White since he’s been in jail. Charging documents reveal Owens had ‘Tavon’ tattooed on her neck and Stevenson had ‘Tavon’ tattooed on her wrist.”

“But he was really a nice guy! I could see that in him.”

So much for the conventional wisdom that female prison guards are boxy dykes. Or maybe they were lesbians, but the overwhelming musky aroma of the alpha male prisoners converted them back into the hetero fold. Another possibility: All the lezbo guards work in female prisons. Zip it up, Grandmaster Fap. If you’ve seen female prisoners you’d know that the reality doesn’t come close to meeting the porno fantasy.

It would be understandable if you were to inquire about the quality of the women that upstanding citizen Tavon was banging and roping into his prison crime syndicate on the strength of his irresistible ghetto charms. While photos haven’t been forthcoming, odds are fairly good these women were less than stellar specimens of female beauty and femininity.

Obviously, female quality matters when judging a man’s alphaness. A man who pulls one hot babe is more alpha than a man who pulls fifty biodiesel dirigibles.

However, within the confines of some peculiar arrangements, and past a certain proportionality, quantity is its own quality. So how alpha was Tavon? First, he was working with a restricted (and self-selected) pool of candidates. On the streets, who knows for certain what quality of women he could get, but given his proven skill at seducing female prison guards to do his bidding, it’s a good bet he was probably pulling better quality outside than his available selection within prison.

Second, Tavon managed to convince four of the women to get pregnant by him (or convince them to not worry so much about protection). That shows he’s got the game to take it to the next level.

Third, even if Tavon was boffing ugly women, that’s still thirteen ugly women who decided to pass on loving, intimate relationships with omega or even lesser beta freemen for illicit harem duty with an attempted murderer in jail. No matter how ugly the woman, there’s gonna be some desperate omega male playing by the rules and clocking in at his nine to five who could’ve used that ugly woman’s company to rescue him from total loneliness.

But, poor omegas and betas… they’re not just competing with free alphas, they’re competing with alphas ostensibly removed from societal circulation.

There’s really nothing to learn from this story beyond that which we already know:

1. Chicks love dominant men.
2. Women in love with assholes will rationalize anything.
3. A core concept of game is asserting your dominance over women by displaying higher status and/or undermining a woman’s relative status.
4. A charming, violent inmate will leave more descendants to suckle on the state teat than a diligent, law-abiding beta male will leave to contribute to the state teat.

With this swirl of good news, perhaps now is a time to remind each other of the beautiful, inclusive, and downright revolutionary history of the season we call Spring, when girlie tops get sheerer and skirts get shorter. Go forth, happy hour imps, and be the asshole women adore!

Read Full Post »

One Reason Why Feminists Are So Ugly

Besides being objectively ugly, that is.

A study found that angry female faces look less feminine.

Rockville, MD – “Why is it that men can be bastards and women must wear pearls and smile?” wrote author Lynn Hecht Schafran. The answer, according to an article in the Journal of Vision, may lie in our interpretation of facial expressions.

In two studies, researchers asked subjects to identify the sex of a series of faces. In the first study, androgynous faces with lowered eyebrows and tight lips (angry expressions) were more likely to be identified as male, and faces with smiles and raised eyebrows (expressions of happiness and fear) were often labeled feminine.

The second study used male and female faces wearing expressions of happiness, anger, sadness, fear or a neutral expression. Overall, subjects were able to identify male faces more quickly than female faces, and female faces that expressed anger took the longest to identify.

When was the last time you saw a happy feminist? Never. Anger and feminism are so inextricable that the phrase “angry feminist” has  become redundant.

Biological defectives are drawn to feminism because the diseased ideology allows them to undermine their ancient foe: Normality. (In times past when people were refreshingly judgmental, normality was also called “truth and beauty.”)

So there is a selection effect for physically ugly feminists, but they make their ugliness worse by walking around with a chip on their shoulders and a scowl perpetually hitched to their manjaws. Angry women are so off-putting to our ingrained aesthetic expectations, that it takes a long time for people to recognize sputtering, vein-bulging femborgs as female.

Men prefer feminine women, as women prefer masculine men. This is the cosmic law of sexual polarity that by its mere immutable existence will always make mockery of the various stripes of gender equalists and their self-serving beliefs. Some emotions, like anger, are perceived by uncontrollable subconscious mental algorithms as more male, and hence can be said to be “sexist” emotions.

“This difference in how the emotions and social traits of the two sexes are perceived could have significant implications for social interactions in a number of settings. Our research demonstrates that equivalent levels of anger are perceived as more intense when shown by men rather than women, and happiness as more intense when shown by women rather than men. It also suggests that it is less likely for men to be perceived as warm and caring and for women to be perceived as dominant.”

When women are angry, they appear more masculine, and therefore less attractive to men. Perhaps the solution to this disparate emotional impact is for angry feminists to battle the “culture of sexist emotions” by demanding equal gesticulation. The “glass feeling” must be broken so boardrooms and bedrooms can make way for histrionically happy men and spittle-flecked enraged women, coming together at last as true equals, totally and equally repulsed by each other. Ah, nirvana!

The game lesson here should be obvious: If you are a man, stop smiling like a Special Olympics winner. Show a little anger once in a while. Look like a brooding bad-ass instead of a gleeful gaywad. Girls will find you more masculine, and men will take you more seriously.

Biology is not a trifle easily subverted with sophistry. Underlying our reflexive perceptions that seem superficial without deeper understanding lies a foundation of incorruptible truth. In this case, that truth points at a terribly discomfiting fact for our moralizing misfits: angry women appear less feminine because they possess more of a male temperament, and possibly even a male hormonal profile, all of which signals to men that the angry bitch is a low fertility prospect not worth pursuing.

Read Full Post »

Five Minutes Of Alpha = Fifty Years Of Pining

Sometimes it’s amusing to hear the Word of CH tumbling from the lips of women with a shred of self-awareness, as they recount their conflicted feelings for the beta males and alpha males of their lives. Here,  an old woman phantom menstruates over the tiniest memory of a cad with whom she had a brief fling fifty years ago at her peak nubility age of eighteen. In her yearning recollection, you will recognize the wisdom of the Chateau.

Dark, brooding and with a hint of world-weary danger, he was a cross between a 19th-century decadent poet and a Hollywood heartthrob.

Chicks dig the dark triad, or a reasonable simulation thereof.

I was just a few weeks into my first term at Newcastle University, and determined to lose my virginity at the first opportunity. I resolved that he would be the one to do the deed.

Betas strugglewoo for years to get that pussy; alphas have it FedExed to their laps.

I discovered his name: John Nicholas Harley Pellowe — even that sounded impossibly romantic — and that he lived in Henderson Hall, the most glamorous Hall of Residence…

An important concept of game is the cultivation of mystery. A man of intrigue has hardly much self-promoting to do; the woman will promote him in her mind, filling in the missing details or embroidering the neutral facts in such a way that his allure is only strengthened.

I made it my life’s work to find out where he might be and to be there, too. Alone, I tramped round the seedy jazz clubs of Newcastle whenever I was tipped off about a possible sighting.

Betas spend thousands on elaborate proposals and weddings to capstone the last hours of their girlfriends’ normal weight lives; alphas get drunk, have fun, and break a small sweat trying to avoid stalkers who chase them down at clubs.

Eventually, my efforts were rewarded. I was sitting in the library one day when he walked in. I felt white-hot desire and, propelled by almost insane love and longing, walked over to him. From then on, we started a sort of relationship.

“sort of relationship”

We would meet at parties and other functions

Aka booty calls. How did men booty call before the invention of cell phones? Must have been the old-fashioned way: face-to-face. Much respect.

— at which, I have to admit, he paid me scant attention.

😆 You’d think that would have slowed her down. But no.

But I would interpret any little crumb of affection or interest as undying love on his part.

People value that which is scarce and priced accordingly. A man who gives his affection and interest away for free is advertising to women that he believes he is worth exactly that price. If he’s got at least a little going on, he’ll be used like the free samples at your local farm-fresh SWPLmarket. In contrast, a man who makes a woman work for his affection will be perceived as possessing very high market value, and she will swoon uncontrollably whenever he deigns to gift her with one of these minor victories over his studied aloofness.

I soon lost my virginity to him, in his room at Henderson Hall, and thought my happiness was complete.

What he was thinking: “Ok, how do I get out of here without her causing a scene?”

I was so besotted that I never even noticed another young man lurking along the corridor, named Bryan Ferry.

A beta makes his move!

The Christmas holidays came and I wondered how I could get through them without [Alpha John].

Patience, readers. The beta will require years and countless demonstrations of abject appeasement to complete his move.

When I came back, I thought we were an item.

Hamster gif [REDACTED]. Premature hamster death. Cause: Centrifugal dismemberment.

But he was still being a very reluctant swain, and although keen enough to have sex,

🙄 It’s as much the fate of women to misconstrue sex as evidence that a man wants a loving relationship as it is the fate of beta males to misconstrue emotional sharing as evidence that a woman wants sex.

he never once asked me out, or even seemed to want to be seen with me.

Maybe it’s because you weren’t pretty enough for him? Nah, couldn’t be!

I sort of knew it would never come right, yet, wilfully, I ignored all the warning signs.

But all warning signs are not the same. For example, women have no trouble heeding the warning signs that a man showing interest in them is a beta male. In those cases, nothing is ignored; the beta is jettisoned without a moment’s reflection. If anything, women over-correct for beta male warning signs (gotta protect those eggs from even catching a whiff of limply motile beta male sperm).

After one of our many nights of passion, more in love with him than ever, if that was possible,

Sunk cock theory. She had worked hard for his wang and invested her heart and soul only to be rewarded with his cruelly delicious indifference. Her investment is not going to pan out but she’ll see it through to the last shilling of her sanity. This is Chick Crack 101.

I saw him at the top of the steps of the Union Building and ran up to him.

I wonder if she recalls this level of detail about fleeting moments she had over the decades with her beta hubby?

Now, surely, he would return my love. But instead of flinging his arms around me, remembering the wonderful thrill of the night before, he turned away.

He never spoke to me again.

According to feminist orthodoxy, this proves he was actually a niceguy.

I went into shock, succumbing to a range of illnesses from glandular fever to migraines and strange fainting fits. I would frequently pass out in the street — but at least I hadn’t become pregnant, a girl’s worst fear in those days.

There’s a reason the maestros at CH declared the Pill to be one of the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse.

My love for John turned to hate. My demon lover had shown his demonic side, and I tried to move on, as we’d say now.

Indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love.

John ignored me totally, never even acknowledging my presence. Not only did he not love me, he didn’t even like me very much.

Fifty years on, you can still hear the hurt in her words. Remember this, when further along in her confessional she engages the usual last-second empowered woman protestation to the contrary.

To add to the agony, he soon had another girlfriend, a proper one this time, and he even seemed keen on her, paying her the sort of attention he’d never bestowed upon me.

If her beta ex-husband, Neville, were reading her diary of tears dedicated to a long-ago flame, do you think he’d feel strong pride that GSS data trawlers have anointed him an alpha male because he had two (paternity assumed) kids with her?

But I could never forget John Pellowe and the memory of my unrequited love for him put a pall on the marriage, with Neville always feeling he was somehow second best. He used to refer to ‘that chap in your past’ — neither of us could even bring ourselves to mention his name, though we both remembered it only too well.

Answer: 😆

[Neville and I] went out, off and on, for nearly three years before marrying at the age of 21, while we were still students.

It took the beta three years to legally lock down what it took the alpha exactly one nanosecond to sexually lock up.

Which locking system do you think is the more impenetrable? And how many other dudes was she boffing while dating Neville?

In the late Eighties after 20 years of marriage, when our children were 17 and 18, Neville and I divorced.

Ross “Power Brow” Douthat talks a lot about social forces gutting marriage, but is even he, courageous saboteur of the Cathedral, brave enough to grapple with the CH maxim that five minutes of alpha male sexual attention can ruin a woman for the beta males who would be her realistic marital options? Just how many divorces are caused, ultimately, by vivid cock carousel memories?

This time, I sought the help of a trauma psychotherapist to try to get [Alpha John] finally out of my system. He told me that my story was surprisingly common. [ed: :shock:] He asked if I could see John again to help me heal, so that I could finally reach some kind of closure. Apparently this is often very helpful in puncturing the fantasy.

The only fantasy here is the idea that “closure” is anything but brand repackaging for bruised, lovelorn egos.

She goes on a bit describing how she went out of her way to track down her ex-flame and meet with him to experience the aforementioned closure. Despite her dutiful description of his aged appearance (holy crap, people get old-looking!), it’s clear she still tingles for his totem:

Even so, the love and desire, the old passion, rose up in me as we sat and talked over a cup of tea in the café. ‘Is it really you?’ I said in wonder, conjuring up the image of him in his glorious youth.

Men are optic; women are holistic.

I asked him why he’d so cruelly turned away from me and he blamed his ‘ineptness’.

What’d she expect him to say? That she was barely attractive enough for a few rolls in the hay?

As I walked back to the Underground, it was as if with every step I took, a heavy coat was lifted from me. It was the most extraordinary feeling of lightness, and I realised the therapy had worked. I was free of him.

Cue the “last-second empowered woman protestation to the contrary.”

I wrote a book about my adoration of him,

She sounds completely free of him.

I’d forgotten all about the book until recently when an e-book publisher saw it on my website and contacted me about updating it and re-publishing it.

I said yes. In the book, I tried to get to the bottom of this agonising  phenomenon that has claimed so many tragic victims…

Heavy coat status: Lifted.

Every now and again, these cruel, uncaring lovers give you a scant bit of attention, and each slight glance pulls you in ever more powerfully.

Uncaring asshole game. Or, if you prefer a more sophisticated nomenclature, “learned charisma.”

When in the grip of such a passion, it’s as if you are taken over by a mind-altering drug and are no longer responsible for your actions.

The tingle trumps the cortex.

It doesn’t really matter whether the object of your affections is married, unavailable, uninterested; nothing will stop the mad passion from taking root and growing, even with little or nothing to feed on.

It’s the lack of nourishment that in fact helps the female passion grow. Kind of like a hydroponic plant.

But what was it about [Alpha John] that made so many otherwise rational, intelligent women fall helplessly at his feet? I think now that he exuded an aura, a kind of force field, that susceptible or vulnerable women picked up.

“Susceptible or vulnerable women” = most women.

One fellow lecturer told me that John didn’t even have to try; that women just flocked to him.

He had the ability, when he was with you, to make you feel as if you were the only woman in the world, even if he ignored you next day.

Aloofness works in conjunction with seductive intensity. Total pick-up aloofness is only possible if you possess extreme fame, or you’re dead.

Even his head of department at Newcastle University, Barbara Strang, one of the few female professors at the time, fell for him. She would have been in her 40s to his 25 or so. So it wasn’t just me, being a daft, lovesick maiden.

It’s funny how women are shocked to discover their alpha lovers only have eyes for them and two dozen other women.

After the shock of John Pellowe’s treatment of me, it never felt safe to fall in love with anybody again — at least not in that cataclysmic way.

Concern for “safeness” is not why she couldn’t fall in love with anybody again. “Comparative dreariness” is why.

It wasn’t Neville’s fault that I came to him as damaged goods, as it were, and he made up for it by being very much in love with me.

Neville, like most beta males, thought if he could just swaddle her in sufficient plumes of love, she’d return the favor. But he had no understanding; you can’t love-trip a woman into reciprocal love.

I must say I always felt much more at ease with Neville than I ever had with John, but I had lost the ability to love in that passionate, all-consuming way.

“At ease.” That’s a telling admission. Yes, women feel at ease with beta males. And maybe that’s the problem.

CH Maxim #44: Women can’t feel impassioned without also feeling a little unease.

However, Neville and I got on famously from the start. Indeed, we are still good friends today — and often meet for a good natter. Neville became a monk several years ago but, to me, he’s still the same man I married.

Picture now fully clear.

Act 1: Exhilarating but excruciatingly short-lived sexual fling with aloof alpha proto-emo.
Act 2: Heart broken in part by adherence to unrealistic expectations formed in the crucible of womb-wracking orgasms with said alpha male.
Act 3: Temporary soothing ego relief obtained on the tear-stained shoulder of a quasi-homosexual beta male with advanced sympathizing and listening abilities.
Act 4: Half-hearted marriage to said beta, made palatable by subconscious realization of fading looks and enticement of low risk domestic settling serenity strategy compared to high risk staying single and seeking reenactment of passionate love plus long-shot alpha male commitment strategy.
Act 5: Spend several decades secretly reminiscing about the five minutes spent with a brooding alpha ex-lover while beta hubby putters around the house, none the wiser.
Act 6: Divorce. Ex-husband becomes a monk after realizing his marriage was a sham and real passionate love will never be his.
Act 7: Write a book about the alpha male ex, claiming to be over him and empowering other women to do the same.

He did not shake the world in general, but he certainly shook mine — and sad to say, he still does, 15 years after his death.

Act 8: Diddle the dusty bean to harder orgasms over the distant memory of a dead alpha male ex-fling than those ever experienced in thirty years with a beta male husband.

After reading a story like this, delivered from a woman’s point of view, you’ve really got to smirk at those guys who diligently peruse social survey data and subsequently conclude that number of children is the sine qua non of alpha maleness. Using that metric, the beta hubby in this woman’s life was the alpha male. But does it seem to you she thought the same about him, the living ex-husband who got half as many mentions as the dead 50-years-past fleeting lover in her article? Or does it strike you as more accurate to conclude that the man she had no kids with, but with whose ancient memory she nevertheless nurtured the progeny of a million wistful regrets and the self-release of a million limbic caresses, was the real alpha male in her life?

The above question should suffice as rhetorical, but, comically, there are those who need the lesson scrawled in neon marker on their eyeballs.

Read Full Post »

The Wickedest Links

Why did this dude move out of the way and let his girlfriend get hit by a homerun ball? Mincing beta? Yes. Better answer: his girlfriend is chubby. Men don’t feel inspired to gallantly sacrifice for low value fat chicks.

***

A 2009 metastudy of human rape (apparently rape occurs in chimps, too), authored by a woman, found that

Among college-aged women,approximately 40% of rape victims report continuing to date their attackers (Wilson and Durrenberger 1982; Koss 1989).Women’s positive expectations for a relationship correlated to self-blame and reduced anger in response to coercion (Macy et al.2006).

Brutally ugly. Brutally anti-feminist. Amanda Marcuntte’s forested dickclit just shot a venomous dart at the heart of the world. Now why would peak nubility chicks dig rapist jerks so much so that nearly half of them find ways to rationalize their continued relationships with these ur-assholes? The study offers an intriguing explanation that is in line with Chateau teachings:

A morally troubling prediction of Smuts and Smuts’s [ed: heh] hypothesis is that use of sexual aggression may be effective in continuing a male’s sexual access to a female.

Science comes around to vindicating not just the milder Chateau truths, but the uglier, darker, beastlier Chateau truths as well.

***

Ex-leftoid admits what guests of Le Chateau knew all along: Leftoid whites hate their own culture and are engaged in a long-running, simmering status whoring war with struggling, non-SWPL whites. Prediction: the leftoids will not like the fruits of their cultural victory.

***

The Obama Administration has deleted a Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage that detailed some uncomfortable truths about race and homicide. You thought 1984 was hyperbole. You thought wrong. No, really. You thought wrong.

***

Via Jason Malloy, an unpublished study, titled “Blindness, Deprivation, and IQ: A Meta-Analysis”, opens with this bombshell:

… The present study performed a meta-analysis of studies of the IQ of visually impaired children and adults. The results of our analysis demonstrated that visual deprivation showed no effect on the average IQ scores of a severely handicapped group, and therefore it disconfirmed the cumulative deficit hypothesis … Further, the fact that the severely deprived environment of visually impaired has no impact on their average IQ score makes it less likely that the arguably less deprived environment of, for instance, Blacks in the U.S. or immigrant groups in Europe is the cause of their lower mean IQs. Our meta-analytically based study makes environmental causes of group differences in IQ less plausible and therefore genetic causes less implausible.

Homo economicus is a phantom. Gated communities are not.

***

White privilege is a term that’s been thrown around a lot lately, mostly by manboobed, scalzied whites with sexual dimorphism issues. But what is white privilege, really? Here’s an answer that’s logical, reasonable, truthful, and admirably restrained.

(As long as the status jockeying, anti-white ruling class continues in their propaganda campaigns, CH will continue to keep its cruel shiv unsheathed, aimed at their black hearts.)

***

Ross Douthat, mild-mannered, powerfully-browed Cathedral infiltrator and pilferer of original Chateau ideas (sniffed with the utmost butthurtness), has a good post on the intersection between culture, class, growing gay marriage support, and the declining rate of marriage.

Liberal doubts about the past existence of a procreative grounding for marriage notwithstanding, there’s a general understanding that the combination of the sexual revolution, economic change, and shifting gender norms have altered the way Americans conceptualize marriage, what they expect out of the institution, and how it shapes their romantic and reproductive choices. […]

So we have this convergence, which is mostly middle America drifting toward upper middle class norms and ideas about marriage, and drifting away from the (mostly religious) institutions that preach a stronger connection between sex, procreation and wedlock. And here’s what’s striking: As middle Americanideas about marriage have converged with upper class ideas, their outcomeshave converged with the destabilized lower class. Middle American divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates tracked with the college-educated until the 1980s; they’ve been converging with high school dropouts ever since. A generation ago, it seemed at least plausible that 21st century America would have two (relatively) stable marriage cultures — one upper middle class and more socially liberal, one lower middle class and more socially conservative. But in the current generation, the upper class’s values have triumphed, and the lower-middle marriage culture has gone into steeper decline.

Well worth reading in full. But would it kill Douthat and others of his ilk to mention who precisely was the source of these and similar ideas now percolating through the betastream media organs? Yes, I suppose it would kill him. Or at least kill his job security.

***

Segueing from Douthat’s column, here’s Vox riffing on an interview with actor Jeremy Irons, who said that “same sex marriage could lead to fathers marrying their own sons to avoid inheritance tax.”

I’d always assumed that the primary problem was that once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by sex, obviously it could not justly be limited by quantity either. But, as Irons has correctly perceived, merely removing the sex limit is sufficient to produce a truly perverse set of incentives.

Polyamory’s Box is open. Per Douthat above, the redefining of marriage from a procreative institution to a soulmate/”capstone”/love ideal (one reason for the upper class trend of egregiously expensive proposals and weddings) will inexorably redirect marriage down the path of the logic of love. If you love it, the state will let you marry it.

Love two women, and two women love you? Married! What’s that? You’re not a fan of polygamy? Equal rights!

Love your daughter in that special way? Married! What’s that? You’re not a fan of incest? Anti-love bigot!

Love your cat? Married! What’s that? Bestiality not your cup of tea? Regressive moral throwback. Don’t you know only fairness and harm are legitimate grounds for a state-sanctioned morality?

You laugh, but the logic is inescapable, and immune to legalistic legerdemain. As one anonymous wag put it, “This isn’t the slippery slope. This is Splash Mountain.”

Now personally, I don’t care about same sex marriage. Its allowance or banning has no effect on the eddies of my life, because I have always been aware that love doesn’t require signing on the dotted line. But as anti-marriage as CH has been, we must respect the Dark Enlightenment argument that the redefining of marriage as a secular social status sacrament certifying Pure Love and Flush Stock Portfolios will have far-reaching negative consequences. Marriage as an equalist wet dream means, in reality, single moms and bastard spawn as far as the eye can see. Plus, perhaps, dads marrying sons for the tax break.

***

What is the “Cathedral”? It’s high time Le Chateau gave credit where it’s due, to a one Mr. M. Moldbug. In shortened form, the Cathedral is the sum total of the American entertainment, media, academic and government industrial complexes, staffed, led, and filled out to brimming by hordes upon hordes of self-annihilating, snarky leftoids propagandizing their infinite lies to their masters in the belching hells.

Cathedral, meet the Chateau. Le Chateau proprietors, escort the Cathedral to the Hall of Endless Wounding and introduce its degenerate apparatchiks your guest of honor to The Shiv. Beautiful Shiv, sparkle for your Lord. Plunge deep, and carve the mewling id from your foes.

Read Full Post »

Female Beauty From 5 To 7

Reader Hair Slicked Back With Swag So Fresh (great handle) wrote to ask if CH could revive the posts that asked readers to rank female beauty in photos. The goal in those posts — achievement realized — was to demonstrate how men pretty much share the same taste in women.

You may think it obvious that men share the same gut reaction of what constitutes female beauty and female ugliness, and therefore not a subject worth bludgeoning to death, but the world is full of — and filling up more by the day with — defectives, misfits and losers who tirelessly propagandize pretty lies like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “there’s a good man for every woman” and “sexual attraction is a matter of personal taste” and “grow old along with me the best is yet to be” and “BBWs have no trouble attracting men”. A few soul-shivving CH posts puncturing the bubble of platitudes that ensconces the degenerate freak mafia is but a ripple in the tidal wave of RAWMUSCLEDELUSION that is the hallmark of current Western intellectual discourse.

Swag writes,

Hello CH, I’d like to commission a blog entry regarding these photos [ed: see pics below].

First of all, what do you see in these pictures?

Next, which of the two is hotter?

Finally, why did you pick one over the other?

Swag is getting at an interesting point about female beauty and men’s universal sexual preferences in his choice of these two particular women as ranking subjects. Although the rankings of homely women (4s and lower) and very attractive women (8s and higher) are largely agreed upon by the vast fantastic majority of men from all cultural and racial backgrounds, this near universal shared clear male preference gets more muddied in the fat part of the female beauty bell curve. Right there in the populous (YOUNG, SLENDER*) middle — where female 5s, 6s and 7s dominate the sea of snatch — the marginal differences in objective physical beauty that distinguish one girl from another in such a large population tend to exaggerate underlying idiosyncratic male tastes.

While general universal female attractiveness rules still mean that a randomly chosen typical 6 will not have as many, or as high quality, sexual marketplace options as a randomly chosen typical 7, there can be individual exceptions to this rule resulting from men’s particular preferences along minor, mostly cosmetic, beauty metrics. For example, a blonde 6 might get a man that both she and a brunette 7 want, simply because the man has a particularly strong preference for blondes. But that blonde 6 will likely lose out to a brunette 8 because the difference in facial beauty and how that appeals to universal primal male desire is great enough to overcome the individual man’s relatively weaker idiosyncratic preference for blondes.

*A few important points need to be made here.

First, obesity is skewing the female sexual market. Most American women are now chubby or worse. So the middle part of the female beauty curve in 2013 is now shifted to the left of where that same curve would have been in, say, 1960. The fat (heh) part of the female beauty curve is now shifted to where the dregs of womanhood — the 1s, 2s and 3s — Jabbanate. It’s no longer a bell curve but a pear curve. The 4s, 5s, 6s and 7s are still representative of the average of female beauty, but their total share in the female population has been sadly, tragically, whittled down to endangered species status.

Second, whenever we talk of female beauty rankings we are implicitly talking about women under the age of 30. Yeah, yeah there are some attractive 40-year-olds out there… for their age. Save it. Those attractive 40-year-olds were even hotter when they were 20-years-old. The wall spares no one, not even Monica Belucci. At best, the wall only hits some women harder and earlier than other women. This is a universal law about as predictable and unavoidable as the law of gravity. Sure, there are a few rare exceptions of women who miraculously got better looking into their late 20s or early 30s, but these biological rarities only serve to throw into stark relief the dictatorial governance of the primary SMP rule.**

**Many of these female late-bloomer exceptions are of former fatties who lost a ton of weight. A slender 35-year-old will be better looking to most men than a fatty 20-year-old version of herself.

Finally, we must note that there is one other group of rarified women whose ethereal beauty provokes a “narcissism of small differences” reaction in men: the hard 10s. 5s, 6s and 7s may cause some minor disagreement among men by dint of their numerical advantage in the female population, but hard 10s provoke the most heated disagreement. One man’s 10 is another man’s 9.5, and GODDAMNIT he is going to let you know that 0.5 points makes all the difference in the world. Male personal whim tends to get exaggerated to outsized importance when contemplating the beauty of truly exquisite creatures.

Anyway, onto the beauty ranking. Two girls are featured, in two different photos. They represent the slightly right-of-middle part of the female beauty curve. The objective here is not an absolute ranking of the two girls, but a relative one.

You, the readers, will decide which of these two girls, both of whom are fairly close together in looks and both of whom are representative of the majority of young, thin women, is the better looking of the two. Will the voting show significant disagreement? Or are men better at distinguishing, say, 6s from 7s than we give them credit for?

Here’s a close-up shot:

After you have voted in the above poll, write in the comments what distinguishing features of either girl swayed your judgment. What details about these two girls pushed you to vote one or the other as more attractive? Be as specific as possible. (Note to women voters: “specific” does not mean “she has a sexy chi”.)

Give that some thought, and then vote in this poll:

Results and analysis will be posted later.

UPDATE

Early return poll results are in and the winner, by an overwhelming margin of victory, is…

The girl on the left! And that’s a good thing for a lot of you guys because the girl on the right…

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IS A MAN, BABY!

😆

Reader Swag follows up:

Not everything is what it seems.  You’ve been duped!  The pictures do not contain two women, but rather, a man and a woman!  The woman is the one in the white top and the man is the one in the black top.  The man underwent hormone replacement therapy to turn into a tranny, and has been living as a woman for the past 8 months.  The tranny’s actually wearing a wig until his real hair grows out long enough to look like a woman’s hair.  They’re siblings, and the black top brother is only a few years older than the white top sister.  Nice contrast, I know.

Let’s see what some readers had to say.

“the one on the right’s eyes seem to show an IOI but the one on the left is more deadpan.”

😆 😆

“And rightie is a 6 based on having a tight body in a world where 98 out of 100 women are fat or obese.”

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 Tranny hotter than fat chicks. What more needs to be said about fat chick prospects?

“People saying the one on the right is a 5? Really? Nobody’s standards are that delusionally high. 99% of the dudes here would gladly fuck either of them and be thankful for it.”

I don’t know that feel, bro.

“Girl in the white top is a quick fuck I’d maybe LTR the girl in black but cheat on her a lot.”

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 ….

….oh god…

…*phew*…

…wait a sec…. ok…

😆 😆 😆 😆

“The one on the right’s nose and general facial structure makes me think she’s a former man, to be honest. At first she looks quite good but if you look for a few seconds it just doesn’t feel quite right.”

Commenter Loc wins the thread and spares his masculine essence horrible indignity.

This being CH, an April Fool’s joke is not just a joke. There’s an underlying message. And that message is this:

Universal male attraction standards are vindicated again.

You may wonder how this is so, considering that men were arguing over the “beauty” of a tranny, and a few benighted souls even voted in favor of the tranny. Well, note how overwhelming is the victory for the real girl. Then notice how many men in the comments said that “something just wasn’t right” about the girl on the right. This person is probably the best looking, or rather the most realistic looking, tranny you will ever see, and STILL he couldn’t quite pull it off. Most men can pick up on the subtlest facial cues that differentiate plain from pretty women and, yes, uncannily fake women from real women.

Look, too, at the poll results for the features that readers said most informed their ranking judgments. Body, jawline, chin, eyes and noses were the big (heh) overriding facial characteristics that pinged men’s (and women’s) mate (or competitor) attractiveness triggers. As Swag writes,

What you should have noticed about the girl wearing the gray/white top:

– All-natural 32Ds (Titty-fuck, anyone? :P)
– Smaller facial features (softer jawline, pointed chin, modest cheekbones, etc.)
– Large and warm eyes that sparkle in the light
– Fuller and wetter bottom lip
– Congruent hairline parted close to the middle
– Tasteful fake nails on long, slender female fingers
– Sexy, hourglass figure within the ideal BMI range
– Feminine display of ownership by cradling the waist of the girl in the black top

What you should have noticed from girl wearing the black top:

– Flat, pancake tits undeserving of a cup size mention
– Wider, more angular facial features (manjaw, uppercut-ready chin, prominent cheekbones, etc.)
– Smaller, darker eyes devoid of that bright spark
– Flat and chapped bottom lip
– Incongruent hairline which doesn’t sit right
– Unpolished nails on short, stubby man hands
– Straight, column-like hips with the sex appeal of a balance beam
– Masculine display of ownership by draping the arm around the shoulders of girl in gray/white top

Female beauty is not subjective, except in the metaphysical sense that an individual’s neurons have to operate to perceive the beauty. A transsexual can only be perceived as womanly if he alters his body and face to such a radical degree that he begins to conform with innate biologically grounded standards already in place in the brains of men. The very fact that transsexual men have to conceal or otherwise surgically reconstruct their male features to more resemble female features in order to “pass” with straight men is hard real world evidence that female beauty is objective and male sexual attraction preferences are universal. And even then… the ruse is exceedingly difficult to pull off.

Read Full Post »

The Faith

First the leftoids preached equality.
They beheld their morality, and saw that it was not working.
Then they preached redistribution.
They beheld their theft, and saw that it was not working.
Then they preached lies.
They beheld their deception, and saw that it was not working.
Then they preached the silence of their enemies.
And they became hate.

Read Full Post »