Is Finger Length Ratio Evidence Of A Woman’s Fidelity?

Here’s a very thorough and illuminating study into digit ratio (a subject previously covered on this blog) that adds a new angle: the relation of female to male digit ratio by ethnicity, and what it could mean about current human evolution. The study’s findings also have some interesting implications for pickup and game, and for male and female reproductive success and health in general.

This is a Big Info post, so I suggest you read the study at the link provided to get the full impact of its conclusions. Bonus: your diligence will help keep the comments free of non sequitur-ish clutter. To keep things straight in your head, it helps to remember that low digit ratio (a shorter index finger than ring finger) corresponds to exposure to higher levels of testosterone in the womb, and a high digit ratio corresponds to higher estrogen exposure in the womb. Prenatal hormone exposure influences the development of the brain, and thus the personality and behavioral inclinations of the adult.

The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences, and reproductive success: evidence for sexually antagonistic genes? […]

We report data on the following. (a) reproductive success and 2D:4D from England, Germany, Spain, Hungary (ethnic Hungarians and Gypsy subjects), Poland, and Jamaica (women only). Significant negative associations were found between 2D:4D in men and reproductive success in the English and Spanish samples and significant positive relationships between 2D:4D in women and reproductive success in the English, German, and Hungarian samples. The English sample also showed that married women had higher 2D:4D ratios than unmarried women, suggesting male choice for a correlate of high ratio in women, and that a female 2D:4D ratio greater than male 2D:4D predicted high reproductive success within couples. Comparison of 2D:4D ratios of 62 father:child pairs gave a significant positive relationship. This suggested that genes inherited from the father had some influence on the formation of the 2D:4D ratio. Waist:hip ratio in a sample of English and Jamaican women was negatively related to 2D:4D. (b) Sex and population differences in mean 2D:4D in samples from England, Germany, Spain, Hungary (including ethnic Hungarians and Gypsy subjects), Poland, Jamaica, Finland, and South Africa (a Zulu sample). Significant sex and population differences in mean 2D:4D were apparent.

It has been known for some time that the ratio between the length of the 2nd and 4th digits (2D:4D) is a sexually dimorphic trait (Baker, 1888; George, 1930). In general, mean 2D:4D has been found to be lower in men compared to women (Phelps, 1952). The differentiation of the digits is under the control of Homeobox or Hox genes (the posterior-most Hoxd and Hoxa genes), which also control the differentiation of the testes and ovaries (Peichel et al., 1997; Herault et al., 1997).

Some people don’t like it when I use the term biomechanics in discussions of love and sex and men and women. They complain it’s reductionist, that I’m somehow violating a cosmic rule by analyzing the component parts of relationship dynamics and the sexes. I think studies like this must give them the hives, for every time one of these babies drops in the lap of intellectual debate, my reductionist worldview is further confirmed. Hey, I love poetry and starlight gazing and flutters of the heart as much as the next romantic sucker, and happily wallow in it, but I also love the truth. Especially when it has real world implications for my own life.

A correlate of maternal levels of testosterone and estrogen is waist:hip ratio (WHR). Women with low ratios have low testosterone and high estrogen, while women with high WHR have high testosterone and low estrogen (Evans et al., 1983). The WHR of women has in turn been found to correlate with the 2D:4D ratio of their children, i.e., women with low WHR have male and female children with high 2D:4D, and mothers with high WHR have low 2D:4D ratio children of both sexes (Manning et al., 1999). We argue that 2D:4D may be a marker for sexually antagonistic genes (Rice, 1996a, 1996b; Rice and Holland, 1997) that exert their effects prenatally.

I’m building up to a blockbuster hypothesis, so read the above again. Women with low WHRs, (that is, women with sexy hourglass figures) give birth to boys and girls with more feminine digit ratios — they pass their femininity on to their kids of either sex — and women with high WHRs (more boyish figures) give birth to more masculine sons and daughters. Scientists refer to this prenatal process as the actions of sexually antagonistic genes, meaning genes that are good for sons are bad for daughters, and vice versa.

On the one hand, low 2D:4D may indicate prenatal exposure to high testosterone and low estrogen levels, a situation that enhances fertility in males but reduces it in females. On the other hand, high 2D:4D ratios may correlate prenatally with low testosterone and high estrogen and be associated with low fertility in males and high [fertility] in females.

Digit ratio means something. It has real ramifications for your reproductive success, if this study is on the right track. Naturally, men and women don’t go around examining each others’ hands for mate suitability. Rather, we are attuned to more conspicuous behavioral and physical characteristics which act as a proxy for the genes that influence mate value and, by extension, digit ratio.

(Though it should be noted that there is such a thing as objectively appealing feminine and masculine hands. “Manhands” — hi Sandy! — are unattractive to most men, and strong bear claw hands on men are attractive to most women.)

I’m going to skip through a lot of tables and analysis on marriage rates, fecundity and digit ratio to get to the game-relevant meat of this study. (If you’re interested, some data I’m passing over for discussion include the results that male digit ratio had no effect on male marriage rate, but female digit ratio did have an effect — women with higher ratios (more feminine) were more likely to get married. Fecundity — large family size — was also positively correlated to high female digit ratio and low male digit ratio.)

We do not argue that the 2D:4D ratio is important mechanistically or as a display trait in mate choice. Most probably it affords us a window into prenatal hormonal conditions. […]

Our results indicate significant differences in mean 2D:4D between populations and confirm that the trait is sexually dimorphic. There was also a trend for 2D:4D to be negatively related to reproductive success in males (the English and Spanish samples) and positively in females (the English, German, and Hungarian Caucasian and Gypsy samples). There are many cultural and biological factors that intervene between fertility and reproductive success. Perhaps the most important is the fertility of the long-term partner. In an English sample we found high reproductive success in partnerships in which the male had lower 2D:4D than his partner and low reproductive success when 2D:4D was higher than that of his partner. When English and Jamaican data were pooled, there was some evidence of a weak negative association between WHR and 2D:4D in women. […]

The 2D:4D ratio is negatively related to testosterone and to sperm numbers (Manning et al., 1998). Our Finnish sample had very low male 2D:4D, and it is known that Finnish men have sperm counts that are nearly double that of men worldwide (Suominen and Vierula, 1993; Vierula et al., 1996).

Go Finns! The intra- and interethnic and interracial comparisons of 2D:4D digit ratio in men and women are the most interesting part of this study. The graph below is chock full of potential insights into ethnic differences in sexual behavior.

Poles of both sexes (on the far left) have the highest overall digit ratios in this sample, and Finnish men (far right) the lowest. Poles also show the least within-sex variance in ratios, and Finns and Hungarians the most. Intersex comparisons show that Polish women and men have nearly identical digit ratios and variance, and Finnish women are significantly more feminine relative to their male co-ethnics. Steady on, because this is leading to something.

We suggest the following model. Consider a man who has had high testosterone and low estrogen exposure in utero, i.e., he has a low 2D:4D ratio. It would be of advantage to him if his sons shared these characters. They may therefore make many grandchildren to him. However, what of his daughters? High testosterone and low estrogen could compromise the development of their reproductive system and therefore reduce their fitness. Similarly, a woman with low testosterone and high prenatal exposure to estrogen may produce fertile daughters but low-fertility sons. In such a situation, modifiers of genes controlling sex-limited prenatal testosterone and estrogen exposure may arise and spread. Eventually, we may expect complete sex dependence to characterize the expression of genes that influence prenatal hormonal levels.

The distribution of the 2D:4D ratio shows a high degree of overlap between males and females. This suggests that sex-limited expression is incomplete. Why is this so? Sex limitation is a complex adaptation, involving the evolution of sex-specific regulatory sequences (Rice, 1996a). It will therefore evolve slowly.

The fact that male-female digit ratios for many ethnic populations overlap and thus disadvantage the opposite sex children of the dominant gene expression suggests, tantalizingly, that evolution on these sex-dependent genes is in an incomplete stage. That is, we humans are a sputtering work in progress, and our current beta testing blueprint is rife with bugs and unintended algorithms. In his image, my ass.

Now we may begin the impolite hypothesizing. Are Finns, by virtue of their non-overlapping intersex digit ratios, a more evolved race than Poles? Not so fast. The study authors offer an alternative explanation to incomplete evolution.

However, other things being equal, it will eventually evolve. So do we simply need more time or are there other factors operating here? One possibility is the occurence of cycles of intragenomic conflict. Males, because they produce low-cost sperm, are able to fertilize many eggs. Females, because they produce high-cost ova, are limited to smaller numbers of offspring. In populations with polygyny or frequent extra-pair copulations (EPCs), the variance of male reproductive success is high. That is, a small proportion of successful males may fertilize a high proportion of eggs. When strict monogamy is practiced by most females, the variance in male reproductive success is similar to that of females. In such a situation, polygyny or EPCs may be a successful female strategy if there is substantial heritable variance in male fitness. If there is little such variance, female monogamy would be favored.

Suppose there are two loci controlling in utero hormonal exposure: one influencing testosterone levels and the other estrogen. A mutation arises at the testoster- one locus of a male, which increases in utero exposure. He has high testosterone levels and sperm counts, and these traits are passed on to his sons. However, because sex limitation is incomplete, his daughters have reduced fertility. The existence of such a male or small numbers of such males increases the variance in male fitness and favors a polygynous or EPC strategy in females. The high testosterone mutation will spread and with it the frequency of polygyny or EPCs. However, as the mutation becomes common, the variance in male fitness declines and females switch to increasing frequencies of monogamy. Now conditions favor the spread of a mutation at the estrogen locus, which increases in utero estrogen exposure. Alternating cycles of high prenatal testosterone and high prenatal estrogen will ccur. This is interlocus coevolution of sexually anagonistic genes. Such coevolution has the characteristics of the Red Queen process (Rice and Holland, 1997). Sexually antagonistic genes should affect fertility and, because of population cycles, may be at different frequencies in different populations. In populations with high prenatal exposure to testosterone in both males and females, there may be substantial differences in the variance in male and female reproductive success.

A negative relationship between 2D:4D and offspring number would be expected in males and a positive association in females. In addition, there will be selective pressure for the accumulation of modifiers that cause sex-limited expression. A population that is highly estrogenized in utero would have no marked difference in variance of male and female repro- ductive success, no strong correlation between 2D:4D ratio and offspring number, and little selective pressure for sex-limited expression of prenatal genes.

There is little variance in Polish male fitness, as judged by their tight gradient digit ratios. Or, to put it another way, Poland is filled with beta males and not too many omegas or alpha male cads. Poland is a place where female monogamy is favored. The fact that Polish men also have relatively high digit ratios suggests that the men are, like their women, more favorable to monogamy.

Now compare that to Finns. Finnish men have a lot of variance in digit ratio, and a very low (masculinized) overall ratio. We can then surmise that Finland is filled with a wide variety of men (relative to their population), from omegas to betas to alphas, who are, nonetheless, more masculine than men from most other ethnic backgrounds. Finnish women would be open to alpha cad flings, cheating and using betas as emotional tampons. Presumably, some Finnish men would be glad to oblige. Both sexes would be less disposed to monogamy.

That is, at least, what a digit ratio hypothesis into sexual behavior differences would tell us. Is it true?

Roosh recently wrote a post about how the Polish women in Poland were much more open to “beta male game” than American women are. He said Polish chicks loved being courted in the traditional sense, didn’t play “I’m the princess, here” games, and were inclined to long term relationships. His experience in Poland precisely matches my experience with Polish chicks. They really are sweeter, more feminine and less interested in short term flings than women from other backgrounds.

And both our experiences with Polish chicks corroborate digit ratio analysis; the high overall digit ratio and low intrasex digit ratio variance of Polish girls predisposes them to LTRs and preferring the company of more attentive, “traditional” men.

My hypothesis then, based on digit ratio analysis, is that in countries where the women have a high overall digit ratio (longer index finger than ring finger) and a low intrasex variance in digit ratio (where most women and men have pretty much the same digit ratio), monogamy will be the preferred relationship norm of the women and aloof alpha male game will need to be distilled with a heavy dose of beta provider game.

I therefore predict, based on the above ethnic comparison graph, that should Roosh go to Finland, he will have to run some seriously hardcore push-pull alpha cad game on the local Finnish women. If my digit ratio hypothesis is correct, he will find Finnish girls to be very similar to coastal city American girls, and very different from Polish girls.

Here’s hoping Roosh takes a detour to Finland and either confirms or falsifies my hypothesis. If he won’t, then maybe I will have to. In the interest of science, of course.

Read Full Post »

Punishing Single Momhood

Commenter Libertardian sends along this link to a story about a Wisconsin Senator who introduced a bill that amounts to a massive social shaming campaign against single moms.

Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married

In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.

Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”

I approve of this bill. If socially shaming women to the point that even one of them avoids becoming a single mom by choice and burdening society will her illegitimate hellion spawn, then it has done far more good for the nation as well as the individual woman than all the trillions spent on leftist wishful thinking, non-judgmentalist programs over the past 50 years.

The facts are out there, for anyone willing to listen. Children do best with a mother and a father. The growing ranks of single moms are creating a degenerate horde of emotionally and mentally destitute orclings, and we — all of us — will pay the price, sooner rather than later. Count on it.

Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”

In “How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families,” he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.

Sen Grothman: realtalker. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the good senator has been perusing the Chateau archives.

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. “It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools,” he wrote. “It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

This guy’s policies make so much sense it’s like a cleansing blast of mountain cooled breezes through marshy, addled skulls. Godspeed, Grothman. Do not go defensively into that morning light. Stay the course.

Naturally, the lefties who run the joint are three faulty synapses from a mass epileptic seizure. Case in point: the female “””impartial Yahoo! journalist””” can’t finish writing the story without snarling about Grothman’s own childlessness as some sort of proof positive cunt whistle for the dumbass brigade.

Saying that people “make fun of old-fashioned families,” Grothman — who has never been married and has no children — criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents

Oh, the snark! It’s so delicious, isn’t it? Grothman has no kids! He’s unmarried! Secret decoder ring says: what the hell does he know about single moms?! After your bout of ironic SWPL chortling where you get your feelgood fix remotely lording it over the rubes in flyover country, you may want to examine the raft of logical fallacies in your thinking. Here’s a starting point: you don’t have to be burned alive by non-hateful merry pranksters to know that it’ll hurt.

Libertardian comments:

This strikes me as aiming at the effect (single motherhood) rather than the cause (i.e. society’s unshackling of female hypergamy).

You take your policy improvements where you can get them. The root cause is unshackled female hypergamy, but a policy aimed at shaming one of the symptoms — in this case, single momhood — will do some good as well. Call it the broken persons theory of social policymaking. You fix immediate problems at the margins by shaming individual bad behavior and in time the bigger, mass scaled dominoes begin to fall. At any rate, it’s a better plan than the total cultural immolation we’re currently experiencing.

Of course, some exceptions to the social shaming program will have to be made. For instance, widows with children are not single moms, and shouldn’t be lumped in under that label. The shaming should target those women who choose to have kids outside of marriage and those unmarried women who shack up with unreliable jerks and act all surprised when the jerk heads for the hills after a kid is born. In other words, shame the women who make bad choices, not the women who are stuck in unexpected bad situations through no fault of their own.

Note that a social shaming program against single moms would work regardless of the precise correlations between single momhood and dysfunctional bastards. In what I generously refer to as the Jason Malloy theory of genetically inherited Bad Lifestyle Choosing (he is the occasional web commenter who drops gems of insight in cutting edge blog comments sections) — a theory which holds that the dysfunction of single moms’ kids is due to the kids inheriting the awful genetic predispositions of their trashy parents — the effect of shaming would work at the genetic level as well as the social level. Women with a jagged genetic suite that inclines them to be single moms would be shamed into avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage, and thus refrain from having kids altogether and passing on their shit genes (eugenics, yay!) or would be impelled to choose a marriage-minded mate more wisely given the social strictures against out-of-wedlock childbirth and lack of governmental support for their chosen path.

Either way you cut it — whether the dysfunction is predominantly genetic, environmental, or both — the act of shaming women away from the single momhood cesspit and cutting off the flow of their financial lifelines is good for the women, good for America, and good for Western civilization. And most importantly… it’s good for the children. Especially those children who have evaded the misfortune of being born to selfish single moms.

Read Full Post »

The Menstrual Shift To Beta Males

SUWEE protests:

Women don’t seem like they are genuinely attracted to beta males when they aren’t ovulating. At best they are just nonchalant toward them, and only seem to want a long term relationship with them for a chance to cheat with the alpha and have the chump beta raise the kid. Women seem to think like this- “Ugh im not attracted to this stupid beta but ill let him hit it once in a while if he provides for me and my bastard spawn.”

It’s best to think of alpha and beta males, and women’s mismatched desire for each, as residing along a continuum, rather than as discrete variables. When I explain that during the three weeks a woman is not ovulating (and especially during her menstruation) her desire is shifted toward beta provider males, I don’t mean she is suddenly going to be attracted to the opposite of the alpha males she craves when egging out. Instead, I mean she will become more indulgent of men who are somewhat more beta than the last alpha male she banged, or wished to bang, when she was ovulating.

To put this in the simplest terms possible, a woman who is hot enough to bang greater alphas will subconsciously gravitate to lesser alphas as her ovaries power down for three weeks. A plain jane who makes herself receptive to greater betas when ovulating will subconsciously begin to warm to the attentions of lesser betas reading her poetry after her hormones stabilize post-ovulation.

So, no, SUWEE, beta males are not going to suddenly see action for three weeks with the women who aren’t ovulating. What they might see is more receptiveness — more openness — to their sloppy, guileless flirtations from those women.

As far as cuckolding goes, my advice, if you’re worried about that threat, is to cheek swab any tiny gift of god under dark of night and send it to a lab for verification. In the meantime, enjoy your two or three tepid bangs during the three weeks you are reasonably safe from the depredations of your sweet girlfriend’s behavioral modification egg assault and any interloper alpha males who might be conveniently available to her. No, you won’t ever get her to scream “choke the living shit out of me and plunge your divine cock into my tight puckered asshole as far as it’ll go until I’m bleeding tears of exquisite pain ps I saved my incredibly lubricated pussy all for you” like Olivia Munn, but at least you get to wrap up your two minute tenderly administered intimacy sessions scraping your beta peen along her dry vagina walls with twenty minute cuddleramas and a bloated chickflix queue.

Just try not to think about the torrid sexual abandon your sweet snoogumwoogums is capable of unleashing in bed, in the kitchen, in a public restroom, with a better man for that one week her womb can actually bear fruit. Those kinds of thoughts are not helpful to affordable family formation.

Read Full Post »

Chateau Ideas Are Spreading To The Mainstream

File this report under: “Chicks dig jerks, National Review edition“.

I’m glad to see mainstream writers basically cribbing from Chateau archives. At one time, the hosts here caught a storm of runny shit from the usual dimwitted suspects over posts about Rihanna, Chris Brown, and the desire by many hot, young women for the love of rageaholic assholes. It seemed many feminists, manginas, white knights and, well, just about everyone sleepwalking through a haze of self-medicating ego prose, couldn’t stand to read the truth about women’s sexual nature. That women are often complicit in the abuse they suffer at the hands of the jerks they repeatedly, and freely, return to for more of their special lessons in love. So instead of meditating on the subject like rational actors (heh), they threw feces all over their cages, hoping a turd would fly true, which it never did, for hosts at Le Chateau are much more agile than our enemies comprehend.

There are some ideas that are simply too bowel-twisting to allow examination in the light of free inquiry. But through dint of mischievous spirit and self-amusement, Chateau Heartiste has paved the way for once-forbidden subjects to be openly discussed in widely-read publications. A crack in the liars’ edifice has opened, and sunlight is streaming through. Warm, invigorating sunlight, the kind that burns away the choking mists of self-deceit and puts a bounce in the step. One day, not too far away, the wall will crumble, and you’ll pull yourself through, walking into personal freedom on a path constructed of the pulverized lies of the old order.

It will be beautiful.

Read Full Post »

Why Is Women’s Happiness Declining?

There’s been a spate of studies in recent years pointing to a general trend of declining Western female happiness, and a concomitant rise in male happiness. Self-reported happiness levels tend to go up and down rather haphazardly, but a long-term decline since the feminist devolution seems to be happening. A 2009 study called ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness‘ attempts to answer why women are unhappier today than they were in the halcyon days of the 1950s.

The lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years by many objective measures, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. This decline in relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, demographic groups, and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well-being for men.

[T]trends in self-reported subjective well-being indicate that happiness has shifted toward men and away from women. This shift holds across industrialized countries regardless of whether the aggregate trend in happiness for both genders is flat, rising, or falling. In all of these cases, we see happiness rebalancing to reflect greater hap- piness for men relative to women.

The suggested reasons the study authors give follows:

First, there may be other important socioeconomic forces that have made women worse off. A number of important macro trends have been documented: decreased social cohesion (Robert D. Putnam 2000), increased anxiety and neuroticism (Jean M. Twenge 2000), and increased household risk (Hacker 2006). While each of these trends have impacted men and women, it is possible for even apparently gender-neutral trends to have gender-biased impacts if men and women respond differently to these forces. For example, if women are more risk averse than men, then an increase in risk may lower women’s utility relative to that of men.

Thanks to the patented Heartiste Naughty Boy Translator™, we can decode the above passage for the layman:

“Diversity is making women more neurotic.”

The second possibility is that broad social shifts such as those brought on by the changing role of women in society fundamentally alter what measures of subjective well-being are capturing. Over time it is likely that women are aggregating satisfaction over an increasingly larger domain set. For example, life satisfaction may have previously meant “satisfaction at home” and has increasingly come to mean some combination of “satisfaction at home” and “satisfaction at work.” This averaging over many domains may lead to falling average satisfaction if it is difficult to achieve the same degree of satisfaction in multiple domains. One piece of evidence along these lines is that the correlation between happiness and marital happiness is lower for women who work compared with those who are stay at home wives, and the correlation has fallen over time for all women in our sample.

HNBT: “Women have too many goddamn expectations.”

Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up. Similarly, women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives more likely to come up short in this assessment. Or women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness.

HNBT: “Contrary to feminist boilerplate, women really don’t want to spend their lives in direct competition with men climbing the corporate ladder and getting pumped and dumped until their wombs crust over like a sun-baked lake bed.”

Hope this hurts the right people!

PS: Mangan’s covered this topic as well.

Read Full Post »

What Do Women Want? A Master

A reader asked if there were any books I could recommend that explored the psychology of women. I suggested “Story of O” and “9 1/2 Weeks”. (The latter was originally a book which is much better than the movie version.)

There is a maxim among the pick-up community that if you want to know what women want it’s better to watch what they do than listen to what they say. Very true. However, if you are going to listen to what a woman says for clues about her innermost desires, or read what she writes, you would do well to pay attention to what a woman says TURNS HER ON. Not what she says she wants in a hypothetical husband or boyfriend but what she specifically describes that got her horny and hungry for loving penetration. Any editorial commentary about the ideal man can be safely ignored.

The two books above, both written by women and featuring very beautiful female protagonists, are wide-open windows to the id of women’s sexual natures. What we find there is shocking to most, dispiriting to some, and unsurprising to a few. Women reading these books will, despite themselves, become uncomfortably aroused. Men will discover ancient stirrings within themselves they may have thought civilization and a PC academic indoctrination stamped out.

The beatings and brandings the women in the books suffer, provoke, and then eagerly anticipate in turn are distractions from the main message, which is that the self-confidence and exquisitely suffocating domination of the male characters caused the women to fall so helplessly in love with them that the men could do anything, make any demand, and the women would happily go along just to keep their love. Some men can handle this awesome power, some can’t. The man in 9 1/2 Weeks was consumed by his power as much as his lover, and it got the better of him.

These books, taken together with the real world observations of men who actually live lives like those of the men in the books, tell us what women want.

They want a man who takes charge.

A master.

Adopt the attitude of the master, and women will revert to their naturally submissive essence faster and more profoundly than you can scarcely imagine, and no amount of feminist propaganda, insulating credentials, or careerist ladder climbing will stand in the way of their joyous, even relieving, surrender to your intoxicating dominance and confidence.

Read Full Post »

It’s Time For Women To Woman Up

There’s been a lot of talk lately in the mainstream (read: leftist) media organs about the rising numbers of single moms and their bastard spawn in America, a dystopian trend to which hosts at Le Chateau were generous enough to alert the reading audience on and off over the past four years. The hand-wringing, the excusing and the rationalizing have reached a fever pitch as sob stories of tragicomic proportions litter the pages of esteemed broadsheets like the Beta Times. It’s a crescendo of heartwarming, anti-male anecdotes about poor, put-upon single moms with snot machines in tow bitterly complaining about the lack of good, reliable men.

Reading this gruesome tripe, something occurs to me. Not once, not anywhere, is the point of view of the typical man in these benighted communities across America examined. Nowhere did I find a mention, even the slightest acknowledgement, of the responsibility that women bear to attract a decent man for marriage and future fatherhood. It’s just assumed that men alone are the sex abdicating their societal duty, that all women need to do is show up, no matter how broken, bedraggled and burdened with bastards, and men will feel an overwhelming urge to marry these unfeminine, spiteful ogresses and provide for them. Yeah right!

Peruse any feminist or beta male columnist pontificating on the single mom + illegitimate hellion phenomenon, and the message condenses to a screech against male desire, tantamount to a lede saying “Men drop out, women and children suffering, men need to man up”. Someone should acquaint this crowd with the saying “it takes two to tango”.

If you want to know why men are running away from marriage, children and beta provisioning, one major reason is that the women available to these working class men are flat out disgusting. Take a look for yourself. What man of normal mental health and active libido wants to romantically woo and date, let alone marry, a beastly, waddling tatted mountain of pustulence with the issue of three other men barking and nipping at her cankles?

If you were a man with diminishing job prospects and stagnant wages thanks to mass low-skill immigration and automation, would you “man up” and “do your duty” for the sake of societal health and elite approval if the only women in your milieu are snorting megafauna hiding week-old salami in their stomach folds and eager to have you babysit their fatherless womb filth? Or would you say “fuck it”, hit the XBox and apply a dollop of asshole game to score a succession of flings and one night stands with the few remaining slender babes in your neighborhood?

And let’s not forget that economically empowered and government-assisted women, slaves to their hypergamous impulse for higher status mates than themselves, can’t help but winnow the pool of men deemed acceptable marriage material. When women say “there are no good men left”, what the astute observer hears is “there are no good men left thanks to a combination of my increased expectations and decreased attractiveness.”

So instead of facing the sexual market head on and grappling with its workings, you get “family values” white knighting numbskulls like BIll Bennett, lost for anything insightful to say, berating men for abandoning those incorruptible angels known as women, and feminists like Katie Roiphe, doing what feminists divorced from reality do best, recasting single momhood and bastard spawn into a valid alternative lifestyle that we should all show more tolerance toward, and redefining standards of civilized family functioning to avoid the omnipresent gaze of the evil eye of judginess.

And there you have the crassest self-deception of the traditionalist and feminist mindset laid bare: the former refusing to understand that standards of sexual behavior are a two-way street, the latter refusing to accept that standards of sexual behavior can’t be waved away to turn losers into winners.

If single momhood and bastard spawn are the blights on civilized Western society that all the data and real world observations indicate they are, then this blog’s simple program to save the institution of marriage is required reading for the “experts”. I’d add the following suggestions you won’t see in the mainstream media to encourage marriage and the formation of two-parent households among the non-elite classes:

Women —

Lose weight. Stop being so goddamned fat. Men are more willing to provide for women who are young and slender.

Learn to use contraception. Do not get pregnant outside of marriage. Men really don’t like taking on the responsibility of children not their own.

Try not to fuck around so much. Men are not enthusiastic about marrying women whose vaginas have played host to numerous cocks before them.

Government — 

Stop paying women for pumping out broods of bastards. You get more of what you pay for. Let the infants die of exposure if necessary. There’s nothing like the starvation death of a newborn child to clarify the mind.

Stop offering incentives to women to attend college and training classes. End all affirmative action for women. Governmental incentives like this effectively price working class men out of marriage contention.

Stop making laws that mandate companies have to accommodate pregnant women and mothers. Substituting big daddy government for beta provider men means fewer beta provider men.

“Experts” —

Relearn the valuable lesson that shame is a great motivator of human behavior. Stop normalizing the abnormal. Call a spade a spade, a bastard spawn a bastard spawn. This is the kind of hammer blow to the head that the lower classes need so that they know which life choices are good for them and which life choices are bad for them.

Do not be afraid to be judgmental. Judgment is alpha.

Self-esteem is not a virtue, it is a symptom. Get the causality straight.

Feminists —

Shoot yourselves. Seriously. You do no one but your own tender egos any good. Your semantic wordplay does nothing to thwart the inevitable reckoning.

Lords of Lies —

Start thinking about what kind of society your lies will create in the long term. That is, if you care at all.

Men —

Read this blog. If the rules won’t play by you, then learn to play by your own rules.

And finally, to the factory-farmed ivory tower sociologists studying marriage trends and turning out paper after paper of half-assed hogwash: there’s a whole other world out there. It’s the world of men, and in that world, men’s desires matter. You should think about incorporating that ugly reality into your theories.

In short, men will man up when women woman up. Because women, as the gatekeepers of sex, get the men they deserve. And, more often than not, what they deserve is what they want.

Read Full Post »