Are The Cads Outbanging The Dads?

The dude who runs the Evo and Proud blog has an interesting post about earlier male maturation rates indicating that females may be favoring cads over dads as mates.

There is thus plenty of genetic variation for selection to act on. No need to wait for new mutations. But why would there be natural selection for earlier male puberty?

One reason is that early puberty is genetically linked to other sexual characteristics. In particular, a class of X-linked androgen receptor alleles is linked in males to aggression, impulsivity, sexual compulsivity, and lifetime number of sex partners and in females to paternal divorce, father absence, and early menarche (Comings et al., 2002). It is likely that these alleles also influence male pubertal timing, but research on this point is lacking—apparently because it is difficult to find a marker for pubertal maturation among boys that is as salient as age at menarche among girls (Ge et al., 2007). Early male puberty thus seems to be part of a “package,” or more precisely a reproductive strategy, that affects the way men go about finding a mate. Natural selection may favor one strategy or another, depending on the current cultural environment.

Is natural selection now favoring the “cads” over the “dads”? That might be what’s happening. As sexual relationships become less stable and shorter-term, women will ignore men who are oriented towards stable, long-term relationships.

I am on record as hypothesizing that two major sexual market shifts are pushing boys to earlier puberty: 1. Diversity and 2. Unrestrained female hypergamy.

Diversity of different groups of boys who mature at different rates would tend to favor the selection of boys with alleles for earlier maturity rates, given a sexual market that benefits sexually aggressive cads. Or, late-maturing k-selected boys will conform to the norm for r-selected early-maturing boys instead of the other way around, given a lack of cultural or circumstantial constraints on female sexual choice.

Female hypergamy — women’s desire to mate with the highest status men they can get, given what their looks and willingness to put out can afford them — is the complementary force that pushes evolution to select for earlier maturing, and thus more caddish, boys.

If earlier puberty among boys is real, no matter the cause, and is indicative of women favoring cads over dad, then core philosophical underpinnings and cultural analysis of the dating market found at Le Chateau Heartiste are validated in some measure.

You’ll notice I titled this post “Are the cads outbanging the dads?” That was deliberate, because there remain questions about whether cads are actually breeding more or less than dads. Outbanging is different than outbreeding. A woman could casually ignore potential beta dads throughout her teens and 20s (her prime years) for a sterile ride on the cock carousel with alpha males, only to settle down later with a beta male and bear him 1.8 children. Cheap and easy contraceptives thwart the natural procreation advantage that alpha males would normally have over beta males in the state of nature, so it is very possible that alpha males could be winning the Banging Sweepstakes while losing the Breeding Sweepstakes.

Evidence that cad outbanging and supercharged female hypergamy is occurring resides in the later age of first marriage rates, and the lower overall marriage rate, as well as the higher STD rates among women.

And there is evidence for cad outbreeding as well. Serial monogamy — which is a form of soft polygyny — is on the rise, and men who have had more than one partner have more children than men married to one woman.

On the other side of the debate are the GSS (General Social Survey) gurus who marshal self-reported evidence that dads are winning the breeding wars over cads.

I remain skeptical of the GSS data, but give it its due. My contention has never been that cads are having more children, but rather that cads are having more premarital sex than dads with higher quality (read: better looking) women when those women are in their sexual primes. This, not the discrepancy in fertility rates between alpha and beta males, is the contraceptively-aided shock wave that is roiling the sexual market and upending organic rules thousands, perhaps millions, of years old.

A society of both cad ascendence and civilization is unsustainable and incompatible. One or the other will go, and the pendulum with either swing back to dads or civilization will regress to accommodate the rise of women choosing cads. All social and economic indicators (particularly the debt overhang), and my personal experience in the bowels of the dating market, lead me to be pessimistic about a happy resolution to this building tension. Hopefully, I’m wrong, but in the meantime I’ll do what is necessary to secure my pleasure.

Read Full Post »

The Benefits Of Older Fatherhood

A common anti-male prerogative hater tactic is to concern troll womanizers about their life trajectories. It usually takes this form:

“What are you going to do? Spend your best years banging one woman after another, and then wind up old and alone? Don’t you want healthy kids?”

Those players who want kids have nothing to worry about. Men produce viable seed well into their dotage, and can theoretically create a lasting legacy with one final, righteous spurt from their deathbeds that sends them to valhalla with a smile on their faces.

Women cannot do this. Once a woman’s eggs are gone, (late 30s to 40s for most women), she is out of the reproduction business altogether. For her, any more sex will strictly and necessarily be for pleasure and intimacy purposes. Or bribery to get her husband to fix the water heater.

But why take my word for it? The science is out and it shows that men benefit from older fatherhood in ways that women will never benefit from older motherhood.

1. A recent study has shown that men who exercise regularly improve the quality of their sperm, counteracting the effects of aging.

[A] new study shows exercise could make sperm quality better; improving a man’s reproductive health.

Diana Vaamonde, a researcher at the University of Cordoba and lead author of the study said in a press release, “We have analysed qualitative semen parameters like the ejaculated volume, sperm count, mobility and sperm morphology.”

For the study the men were also tested for hormone levels that included follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T/C ratio that the researchers explain provides a better picture of the environment needed for sperm creation, in addition to giving a picture of the general health of the 31 men included in the study.

The results showed men who exercise more had faster swimming sperm that was more perfectly formed, compared to their sedentary counterparts. Exercising appears to create a more favorable environment for sperm creation that comes from healthy hormone levels.

The good news is the researchers say it only takes moderate exercise to keep your sperm in good shape.

According to the CDC, it’s possible to change a man’s sperm with healthy lifestyle changes.

As far as we know, there is no amount of exercise in the world that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 1, older moms 0.

2. Another study find that older men who eat healthy have less age-related damage to their sperm.

As far as we know, there is no amount of healthy eating that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 2, older moms 0.

3. A study which acts like a shiv to the feminist careerist heart finds that the risk of autism goes up considerably more in the children of older mothers in all age ranges than it does in the children of older fathers.

The older a mother is when she gives birth, the higher her child’s risk of autism, new data show.

A smaller effect also is seen for the age of the father, but only when the child is born to a father over age 40 and a mother under age 30.

As far as we know, there is no amount of feminist delusion that will make an older woman’s eggs relatively as healthy as an older man’s sperm.

Score: Older dads 3, older moms 0.

4. Finally, a Stanford study finds that it is evolutionarily good when older men have kids with younger women. May-December romances weed out life-shortening mutations and promote health and longevity in the human population.

Old Men Chasing Young Women: A Good Thing

It turns out that older men chasing younger women contributes to human longevity and the survival of the species, according to new findings by researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Evolutionary theory says that individuals should die of old age when their reproductive lives are complete, generally by age 55 in humans, according to demographer Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate in biological sciences at Stanford. But the fatherhood of a small number of older men is enough to postpone the date with death because natural selection fights life-shortening mutations until the species is finished reproducing.

“Rod Stewart and David Letterman having babies in their 50s and 60s provide no benefit for their personal survival, but the pattern [of reproducing at a later age] has an effect on the population as a whole,” Puleston said. “It’s advantageous to the species if these people stick around. By increasing the survival of men you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes.” […]

In the paper, the researchers analyzed “a general two-sex model to show that selection favors survival for as long as men reproduce.” The scientists presented a “range of data showing that males much older than 50 years have substantial realized fertility through matings with younger females, a pattern that was likely typical among early humans.” As a result, Puleston said, older male fertility helps to select against damaging cell mutations in humans who have passed the age of female menopause, consequently eliminating the “wall of death.”

“Our analysis shows that old-age male fertility allows evolution to breach Hamilton’s wall of death and predicts a gradual rise in mortality after the age of female menopause without relying on ‘grandmother’ effects or economic optimality,” the researchers say in the paper.

So older fathers are gifting us all more years of life on this chortling roil. When you say your prayers this Sunday, be sure to include an hallelujah for dirty old men.

Score: Older dads 1 billion, older moms 50 cats.

I wonder if this means that aging cougars settling for younger, desperate beta males — as seems to be the trend lately in the West — is shortening the human lifespan? Cougars? Yuck. Dashing gentlemen? Yay!

I’m enjoying life right now sans sprog, but I anticipate that when I get older there is an outside chance I will feel a pull toward creating from my dark matter-infused slamseed a few heirs to suckle at my much younger lover’s milky white teats. While I have never been concerned with any possibility of setback in that hypothetical department, it’s nice to know the science affirms my life choices as not only practicable, but also moral.

Also, as an anecdote, I know a couple of older fathers — married to women ten years or more younger than themselves — whose sons are the most well-adjusted, confident, and happy boys I have ever had the pleasure to impart with my shadowy wisdom to meet. Sue me for extrapolating from personal observation, but it’s my impression that the most stable and loving families with the happiest and most grounded kids are those where dad is older than mom. Selection effect for older, high status alpha males by younger women? Perhaps. Or maybe older dads, wielding a history of knowledge and a wider perspective that younger dads don’t yet possess, simply bring more gravitas to family affairs, and therefore naturally and organically induce respect and admiration from their kids.

***

I expect this post to really chafe the hides of a few flabby-rumped cunts and their manboobed apologists. There will be much Q_Q and gnashing of labia. And it will be good.

Read Full Post »

Thought Experiment

There is a subgenre of anti-game, putatively trad-con haters who like to assert that having kids is the defining feature, and motivating impulse, of the alpha male. But try this thought experiment.

Imagine you have two choices to pass on your genes and create a lasting legacy. One involves repeated visits to a respected sperm bank to masturbate into a cup. The other involves repeated copulations with your wife and second wife (for the sake of simplicity) that result in both women getting knocked up multiple times over the course of many years. In the latter instance, you voluntarily have no further contact with your kids once they are born.

The two choices are guaranteed to fill the gene pool with five cherubic apples of your eye.

The choice which leaves you more satisfied, more personally fulfilled and brimming with positive feelings of high self-worth, is

a. creating a legacy through a sperm bank, or

b. creating a legacy through sex with your wives?

Remember, hypothetically both choices result in the same number and same quality of offspring issuing from your seeding shaft. If the old skoolers who claim that children are the crux and the crucible of alpha maleness are right, either choice should result in very strong feelings of self-regard and confidence, two undeniably intrinsic traits of the alpha male with which no one but a deranged feminist (but I repeat myself) would object.

And yet, I predict there are very few men who would consider choice (a) as ego-affirming and confidence-inspiring as choice (b). In fact, I bet a lot of donating men leave sperm banks feeling oddly morose.

The reason for my prediction is that the anti-game trad-cons are incorrect in their assessment of what constitutes alpha maleness. It is not the children or the genetic legacy per se that swells men’s souls with alpha sweetness; it is the sex with feminine, willing women which does the trick.

The sex is the prime directive and the origin source of alpha male nourishment. Sex is the trick that evolution concocted to make sure we don’t let ourselves die out. Not kids. Not lovingly-swapped soiled diapers. Not videotape of bursting birth canals shared with creeped-out relatives. The sex is first and foremost, it is primal, it is the cosmic chorus. And it is only relatively recently by evolutionary standards that this ancient sleight of reproductive selection is finally meeting its match in the plunderdome of non-procreative recreation, the prime directive thwarted by an ocean of condoms, IUDs, Norplants, and Pills.

This is why a man who fucks his way through hundreds of maximally fertile women but leaves no legacy thanks to the convenience of modern prophylactic tech is leagues more alpha male than the man who fills his 35-year-old wife’s womb with babymeat, and is certainly more alpha male than the man who sires a whole Duggars’ worth of kids at the local sperm depository.

UPDATE

A clarifying example is needed to focus minds. Picture a fat, acne-ridden, manboobed, greasy, bald, boring, stupid, charmless underprole man who manages to capture the elephantine devotion of a morbidly obese underprole woman. They marry, and, owing to their religious beliefs (or stupidity) neither one uses birth control. Over time, she grunts out twenty of his fat babies (yeah, I know, hard to believe, but this hypothetical is not so far removed from our current idiocratic reality). This man has certainly made his mark on the world. His tribe is impressive, larger than the families built by some sultans and certainly larger than that of most accomplished Western men. He presides with haughty patriarchal pride over a brood that would be the envy of any trad-con harboring dreams of winning fertility wars with the third world. He belches insouciantly at your child-free hedonistic existence, knowing that the future belongs to his progeny. He has ensured his legacy. His waddling kids adore him and respect his ability to unearth cheesy poofs in the folds of mommy’s fupa.

And, yet, would any of you anti-game trad-cons call this man an alpha male? With a straight face? Drop him in the middle of a nightclub, or heck, even in a Whole Foods aisle full of slightly old-country looking SWPL chicks, and the girls would run away, repulsed by the sight of him. He wouldn’t be able to get laid at a lesbian porn star convention full of scheming, mustachioed feminists itching to cry “regret rape!” for street cred. Such a specimen of malehood can only settle for the lowest females of the low. The very bottomed out dregs of vaginadom. He is the patriarch trad-cons extol as exemplary of the powerful alpha male who leads his posterity to the promised land, and yet he would be kryptonite to any feminine woman worth having. Were it not for the grotesqueries among womankind willing to wallow in the sty with him for a chance at producing more pighumans in God’s image, he would struggle to get action beyond the feeble offerings on tap from the friction of his overhanging stomach slapping against his foul pud.

There’s your alpha male, trad-cons. Choke on him. And then think twice about drawing parallels between fecundity and real, true, authentic alpha maleness. You know, the kind of alpha maleness so eloquently and succinctly described right here in these blog pages.

tl;dr  It’s not difficult convincing a C.H.U.D. with a vagina to pop out a fetid stream of your sewer spawn. What’s difficult is winning the love of a hot babe(s) who is a valuable commodity in the sexual market. Any kid-popping is just icing on the cake after you’ve accomplished that.

Read Full Post »

Fat Women And Fat Men Aren’t Equally Repulsive

Marriage is more satisfying when the wife is thinner than her husband.

[M]en who had a higher Body Mass Index than their wives (calculated from a person’s height and weight) were a little happier at the outset than those who had the same or a lower BMI. This advantage was maintained throughout the period.

What is more it appears it’s not just the husband who is happier if his wife is thinner.

How heavy the husband was didn’t play a role in happiness at the start of the study for the wives.

However, by the end of year four, the wives whose BMI was lower than that of their husbands were significantly happier than those who had the same BMI, or a higher one.

These finds held true even when other factors such as depression and income level were ruled out.

The researchers from the University of Tennessee speculated that physical attractiveness was a more important quality in a partner to younger men.

This is yet more evidence that physical appearance in a potential mate is less important a criterion for women than it is for men. Fat chicks suffer a graver penalty in the sexual marketplace than do fat men. And slender babes who fulfill the sexual polarity directive — that is, women who are more naturally feminine and relish their roles as such within relationships — are happier than women who look and act more like their men.

Is there anything feminism ISN’T wrong about?

Read Full Post »

Pope Paul VI On Birth Control Externalities

Courtesy of commenter “max from australia”, a juicy quote from a former Pope which accords with Chateau Heartiste analysis of the deleterious blowback from the availability of widespread, cheap contraceptives (of the sort never before experienced by humanity until relatively recently):

Predictions from a wise Celibate bloke in a dress, Pope Paul VI, 1968 Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”)

“Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).

Pope Paul VI was close to the mark, but he forgot to mention the distaff side the equation; specifically, that as cheap contraceptives silently and subtly move men toward devaluing women, so too does the technology move women toward devaluing beta males, those bitter losers in the sexual market (note: I did not say marriage market or child market) for whom contraceptives, coupled with female economic self-sufficiency, have rendered them practically superfluous as primetime sexual partners.

The mass-produced condom and the Pill have freed men from feeling obligation for women as much as they have freed women to regularly and blithely pursue what was historically risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make.

The contraceptive is, in practice, a female hypergamy facilitator.

It’s funny for me to write this, because contraceptives have, in fact, been very very good to me. I did a back of the envelope calculation and figured that my aggregate sex life would have been truncated by 90% if contraceptives were prohibitively expensive, unreliable and hard to get. A world in which women had to grapple with real, palpable fears of STDs, pregnancy and subsequent abandonment is, not to put too fine a point on it, a really shitty world for womanizers and serial monogamists and uncomplicated lovers of the art of seduction itself. I imagine I’d have to *gasp* start promising marriage or some such claptrap to any woman I wanted to bang, just to loosen her up enough to unhook her bra.

I am on record as predicting that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse will be the cultural and technological juggernaut that hastens, if it is not the sole cause of, the death of Western civilization.

Is this revelation, this knowledge, supposed to turn me from my wicked ways? Here I am, standing at the edge of the abyss, pointing into its bowels like a histrionic jester, leading the ignorant and the deluded to peer into the void and imploring them — no, more precisely taunting them — to heed my warning of their desolate future…

and still I cavort insouciantly along its lip, secretly relieved that no one will seriously weigh my prophecies.

Pope Paul VI, apparently, was as far-seeing as I. Yet his vision of the good world, the civilized world — a vision with which I find no quarrel — would, if it were fully realized, necessarily mean a lot less fun for me. And that’s a reality I can’t abide; my own private delusion.

Read Full Post »

Feminist Fallacy #3: “I use men for sex”

Girls (mostly feminists with a battle-axe to grind) who say they just use jerks for sex and don’t want them for long-term relationships are lying out of their asses. Nine times out of ten, it’s the jerk who doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with the smitten dear who then tells herself afterward she was just using him for sex to comfort her bruised ego.

Need proof? Normally, I’d say, just get out of your fetid basement hovel and join the real world for a week or two, but this time I feel the spirit of science move me, so here ya go:

The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

The jerks chicks dig for sex are also loved as relationship material. The bottleneck preventing women from fulfilling their desire for LTRs with assholes is not women’s long-term preference for niceguys, but the assholes’ preference for short term flings.

So the next time you hear a woman desperately assert that she “uses men for sex”, just remind yourself you are likely conversing with a broken slut who got her heart trampled by the jerks she loves so many times she’s beginning to believe her own bullshit.

Read Full Post »

The Predictable Call To Accept The Wages Of Slut

Way back, Chateau Heartiste wrote in regards the spreading (heh) sluttification of America:

Single moms like to talk about how they do things on their own, and they “don’t need a man”. But in fact, flex time and related corporate incentives *are* a form of substitute husband and father. That money for flex time has to come from somewhere, usually in higher prices for the company’s products or in lowered salaries for its employees. It is private welfare, but welfare just the same. Now companies can choose to offer this to their heart’s content; after all, no one is forcing me to buy their products or work there and thus subsidize the lifestyles of a bunch of single moms and harried working moms. But my advice to men who want to maximize their earning potential — work for companies that don’t offer generous payoffs in an effort to recruit working moms. It is likely you will command a higher salary with more patriarchal companies. […]

When financially self-sufficient women turn away from beta providers as a source of sexual arousal, they substitute other alpha male qualities in its place. Big government is a beta provider substitute with alpha male qualities.

Fast forward to today: GLPiggy has a post up quoting a young, newly minted feminist who wishes to strip single momhood of its social stigma.

Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

What the show doesn’t get to is that this is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family. The potential diffusion of the family (as the New York Times recently reported, it doesn’t look like the trends will stop anytime soon) is one of the most exciting things to happen to the American social pattern since sexual liberation. It means the end of what were just decades ago universal truths: every household must be headed by a breadwinning man; only when married will a woman have social value.

I invite readers to draw the relevant connections between these two excerpts.

Meanwhile, I suggest aspiring single moms who wish to truly Go Their Own Way (SGTOW?) practice what they preach and divest themselves of all male support, in whatever form. That means: no redistribution from unrelated men to single moms, no corporate welfare in the form of maternity leave or flex time or special insurance policy discounts, no government handouts predicated on number of children, no shamelessness exacerbating EBT cards, no punitive alimony or child support payouts, no affirmative action for the children of single moms. In short, no sexless drone provider beta male largesse to save single moms from a self-inflicted life of indigent misery.

If this were to happen, and feminists were taken at their word and bequeathed a world in which all male influence was excised from their lives and they were left to fend for themselves and their bastard spawn, empowered and self-actualized, the resulting river of blood and the symphony of children’s cries reverberating through hell’s heart itself would quickly, very quickly I predict, disabuse feminist cunts of the luxury of their man and father hatred. Lie-exalting ruling class sophistry would blow away effortlessly like hay in a hurricane.

But of course feminists don’t really want men removed from their lives; they love having de facto castrated beta males foot their bills, and the bills of their unholy unclaimed consolidated stem cell packages. A massive transfer of wealth from quasi-cuckolded beta males to feckless females is the *whole point*, the UR PURPOSE, of feminism. It is giving women what they want — money and support — to do as they please, without asking of them anything in return (typically, sex and fidelity).

In the distant future, when archaeologists (or aliens who are rummaging through the wreckage of their terraforming experiment) stumble upon a lone monolithic server storing the collected wisdom of this blog, the group of excavators will hook it up, read the ancient scrolls, and stare in quiet at their feet as a depressing realization sweeps over their collective consciousness:

“someone knew. someone saw it coming.”

And from the origin point of the universe, a great guffaw will issue, and galaxies will rattle as the mightiest HAA HAWW ever to grace the cosmic firmament blasts forth from its waiting slumber.

Read Full Post »