What Betas Can Learn From Women’s Rape Fantasies

In this post, it was revealed that a lot of women, the majority in fact, have erotic, and *sincere*, rape fantasies. Despite the claim made by feminists that fantasy is wholly different and disconnected from reality — an empty assertion easily explained by feminists’ need to handwave away any disturbing look into the female psyche — the more truthful explanation is that fantasy is a reflection of reality and hints at some deep, immutable desire. If feminists are correct that fantasy is different from reality, we would hear of women fantasizing about tender lovemaking with cubicle-dwelling beta herbs. But that is not the case.

The scientific evidence presents soul-shaking implications: many women harbor a secret desire to experience rape under the right conditions. What those specific conditions are will vary from woman to woman, (typically, an alpha male is involved), but the fundamental act of rape itself — nonconsensual and forceful — appears to be a turn-on for the majority of women. As the study showed, in their rape fantasies women were really refusing the man sex. It was not a token no. That was the basis for the fantasy. The pleasure comes from being overwhelmed by a man who pushes his way past her nonconsensuality. I know, it’s hard to believe, but there it is.

Women don’t like to admit to this little factoid about the inner workings of their ids, because they worry that the dissemination of such knowledge would hinder the prime directive to extract as much princessifying pedestalization from awed men as they can manage. Just as relevant: most women aren’t even consciously aware, nor do they spend much time thinking about, what exactly it is that motivates their sexual desire. They prefer, instead, to swaddle themselves in a cloak of pretty lies, for the best deceptions begin with self-deception.

Rape fantasies provide a shocking look into the craggiest crevices of women’s brains and what they truly desire when it’s just them and their private thoughts. What does this mean for the average well-meaning beta male, (who let it be known comprises the majority of male-dom)? Well, for one, perhaps a lot more betas would do better with women if they were more assertive about physically pushing for sex.

Before the IQ-compromised cunt-brigade and their thimble-phallused uptight white knighters storm in to shriek like menstruating banshees, it should be obvious to any person reading in good faith that being more assertive about physically pushing for sex does not mean rape. It is possible to push for sex, physically or otherwise, without crossing any non-consensual lines. Anyone who’s lived a day in his or her life knows that seductive escalation of the kind that women love will often blur the distinction between formal consent (sign here, here and here to proceed further down my panty line) and wary surrender (no, no, noooo…. yeeeeees).

Rape fantasies tell us that women want to surrender sexually to a man of tenacious and powerful will. Women crave the feeling of “being taken”, and no cautious beta asking politely if he may peer down her blouse or apologizing when she coyly reprimands him for sliding his hand under her bra during a make-out is going to hit that “being taken” button.

There are two ways to fuck up the fuck close: you can seem too eager, or you can seem too tentative. Most men, despite what women’s studies dyke professors tell you, fall into the latter category. They don’t push for sex early enough, or forcefully enough. Any token resistance by the girl is immediately capitulated to, and any move to up the ante is a humiliating exercise in trepidation and apologia.

In sum, the problem betas have is that they TAKE WOMEN’S SYMBOLIC RESISTANCE AT FACE VALUE.

Of course that is going to be a tingle killer.

Instead, betas need to do more of these:

– going for the kiss unannounced.

– issuing bedroom commands.

– never waiting for obvious signals.

– always escalating (but remember: two steps forward, one step back) to more nudity, more touching, and more erotic touching.

– not taking the first “no” for an answer. (Wait until the fifth or sixth “no”, and only then if the “no” is uttered with an unmistakeable tone of genuine recalcitrance.)

– moving seemlessly from bar to bedroom.

– never apologizing for miscues or misreadings of her acquiescence.

– initiating sex in unlikely places.

– getting comfortable with spanking, hair pulling and gentle neck choking.

– reappraising their date evaluation process so that a fingerbang rather than a peck on the cheek becomes the marker of a successful first date ending with a girl who didn’t want to go all the way right away.

– putting it in without the condom. (As Roosh has correctly noted, most women nowadays are more than willing to raw dog a new man after two dates. Likely this has to do with the emerging scientific evidence that absorbed semen boosts a girl’s mood.)

***

This is just a partial list. There are many more overly-cautious missteps that gelded betas commit which sabotage the trajectory of their stillborn seductions.

Now some of you may be asking, “Hey, what about that line Mystery advocated using? The one that goes ‘Would you like to kiss me?’, and if she says no you are supposed to reply ‘I didn’t say you *could*… you just had that look on your face.’ Isn’t that in contradiction to what you wrote above?”

It’s a clever little routine, and will probably work in most situations, but I have found through experience that it’s totally unnecessary. If you are winning a girl over with your game, you can silently go for the kiss without any warm-up or witty fanfare. I have rarely had a girl refuse a bold, unspoken kiss move.

Some others may then ask “What if she turns and gives me the cheek?”

Hey, it’s been known to happen, usually to guys who sloppily telegraphed their horniness, and thus their lower value. If you get her cheek, simply IGNORE IT. Proceed as if nothing happened, and reengage for the kiss later in the date. Under no circumstance should you acknowledge her cheek turn. Do not ironically mutter “Aww, shucks”, or make light of it with a flippant “That was awkward”, or crudely laugh it off with a “So that’s how it’s gonna be?”. Just move on like you hadn’t even tried to kiss her.

Any acknowledgement by you of her coyness, whether she delivers it in cheek turn form or some other false modesty-amplifying manifestation, will be received by her id central command as evidence that she is higher value than you. That is a side effect of female coyness, besides its primary function as a signal of purity.

Maxim #99: Female coyness is a purity signaler as well as an ego-boosting mechanism designed to reaffirm a woman’s sexual market value at the expense of lowering the man’s sexual market value.

Corollary to Maxim #99: Female coyness serves a secondary benefit as an anti-game strategy to make a high value man seem more attainable to a lower value woman, or to offer low value women plausible deniability for failing to attract the interest of high value men.

Letting her know that her coyness affected you is a major surrender of dating hand. Once a girl has successfully thwarted a kiss or sex attempt, and more importantly gotten recognition of her thwarting from you, she has hand. She starts to think that you are not worth her company, or she silently muses that she can do better, because you want it more than she does.

You do not want a girl to have hand if sex within this century is your goal. One of the golden rules of seduction is that half of the battle of bedding hot girls (hot is the operative word here) is lowering their value, and, yes, their self-esteem, below yours.

Maxim #100: The urgency and strength of a woman’s desire for a man is directly proportional to the degree to which he is perceived higher in value than her.

If you absolutely must say something after getting a cheek turn, there is one line you can say to a girl which works well:

“Aw, how cute. It’s like we’re twelve-years-old again.”

The beauty of this line is in the subtext: you are insinuating she is not sophisticated enough to handle her out-of-control emotions around you. Also, by using the word “we’re” instead of “you’re”, you avoid sounding accusatory. Girls like it when you pretend to non-judgementalism.

Read Full Post »

Science Confirms Another Game Concept: Older Women Need Less Game

Quite a while back there was a post at this Den of Delicious Sadism blog which explained how game changes depending on the age bracket of the woman you are trying to pick up. A few choice quotes from that post:

The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking. Some consequences result from this.

NEG HARDER. The 23-27 year old will require harder negging than any other age group of women, even the hotter 18 year olds. She needs her ego punctured before her pussy will open for you. […]

The [31-34 year olds] are the kind of women who have sexual flings with college guys, because they can psychologically box those men in as “purely for fun” adventures. But the men the 31-34 year old women really want are the older, established men who will give them a marriage proposal and a family. This is why it is counterintuitively harder to game the older woman who still retains a vestige of her youthful attractiveness: she wants and expects so much more than the younger woman.

Game required: Strong body language, masculine dominance, sharp suits and shoes, easy on the negs and palm reading, emphasis on the comfort stage, lots of travel stories, disqualify yourself from sex on the first date, vulnerability game, avoidance of the beta provider zone. […]

The [36-38 year olds] are at peace with their spinsterhood and their failure in the dating market. A woman in this age bracket will acquiesce easily and gratefully to sex with very little game, as long as you don’t look like a grandpa. Her expectations are so low, it will be a challenge to disappoint her.

That post got a lot of feedback from commenters and emailers who saw in it a deep and profound truth reflected in their own life experiences. Haters, naturally, were livid with pent-up frustration that the mirror would be so impudently turned in their direction, but they at least could retire to their twin-sized beds and cans of cat food tumbling out of the pantry, soothed with the knowledge that no scientific study as yet had proved the bold claims made in that post. They felt they could glide through another day safely ensconced in their comforting lies.

N o t  a n y m o r e.

Reader quetal left a link to a very revealing study in the comments which, like other studies before it, confirms much of what is written here at the Chateau:

Tailor Your Approach to Your Audience: Data collected by Virtual Dating Assistants revealed that while women of all ages respond well to humor, women in their early 30s and above responded well to longer, more thoughtful emails that expressed genuine interest. Women in their 20s rejected these more serious emails, preferring even some slight cockiness – or what some dating coaches call the “Cocky & Funny” approach. In fact, one particular email that is long (over 150 words), expresses interest, draws commonalities (it’s always customized), demonstrates humor as well as a sense of ambition and adventure received a 9.7% response rate from women in their 20s, a 20.5% response rate from 30-somethings, and a 50.3% [response rate] from women 40 and above. This email, according to Scott, was sent to over a thousand women of different ages, so it’s pretty clear, based on these numbers alone, that a one-size-fits-all approach to online dating is a bad one.

Pwned.

You’ll notice that the study’s results square perfectly with the Chateau’s post quoted at the top. Older women on the downslope of their sexual desirability need less game and more signals of commitment to get them in bed than younger women in their sexual primes. Or, to put it more succinctly, younger, hotter, tighter women love assholes while older, uglier, looser women gravitate to beta providers.

The reason for this age difference in women’s reactions to game is clear: Older women have less sexual marketability and are thus more likely to be pumped and dumped by a high value man. Ensuring that the man sticks around is priority number one, so older women look for signs of herbly romantic interest of the kind that you might see a humanities department professor wallow in while stroking his weak-chin-hiding white beard. One of these signs is the long-winded thoughtful email with perfect punctuation. Younger women, in contrast, are playing with pocket aces, and can afford to indulge their animal desires for the aloof, alpha jerk of their dreams.

Now, as a man, which age group of women are you more interested in? Yeah, that’s what I thought. So… turn on your jerk light. Let it shine wherever you go. Let it make a jerky glow. For all the chicks to see.

This blog frequently gets lady commenters proclaiming to the high heavens that they would never date an asshole. After a leetle prying, it is usually revealed that these howling anti-game termagants are north of the Matron-Vixen line. And that they aren’t, how shall we say?, attractive representatives of their gender.

Of course older women don’t go for assholes as much as they used to when they were younger and hotter — their rapidly closing window of options means they can’t afford the risk of satisfying their carnal need for aloof jerks who are likely to leave them as soon as a younger prospect shows up. Younger women have these worries, too, but given their many years ahead of serviceability they don’t feel them as acutely, which explains why you often see the hottest chicks on the arms of the biggest assholes.

So if you want to bang broads teetering on the edge of witherdom with kids and marriage and college funds dancing in their dreams, go easy on the cocky and funny and the negs. The older woman’s ego has taken enough of a bruising from the encroachment of reality; your negs will only push her into self-flagellating withdrawal or indignant lashing out. She needs to know she still has the kind of looks that can turn heads, so your cloying flattery will work wonders on her.

On the other hand, if you want to date hot girls in their 20s and, for a lucky few of them, early 30s, you have to give ’em a bit of the ol’ ultrabadness. It’s the moral thing to do, if women’s pleasure is your business.

Executive Summary: Young women are harder lays. They require game and a cocky attitude. Older women are easier lays. They require flowers, compliments and cuddles. Don’t take dating advice from women. This goes double for women over 30.

Read Full Post »

Spin Spin, Hamster!

I know this guy who cleans up with women, compared to the typical man. I’ve seen him in action and girls get that twinkle in their eyes within five minutes talking with him. He’s shown me pics of lovers in states of half dress on his bed. Here’s the catch: the guy is short. Not a little under average; he’s a short man who would lose line of sight in a crowd of women.

I listen to this guy carefully because he’s living proof that game can overcome severe sexual market handicaps. He’s decent looking, but not enough to compensate for his diminutive height. He dresses well — sort of a cross between Euro cafe and biker chic — and exudes confidence in the field. (Whether he has this confidence at home is open to question, but regardless he knows to turn it on when it’s go time.)

Based on the obvious and superficial qualities — the ones we can see at a glance — you would expect him to do a little bit better than the average short man, which is still not very good. You wouldn’t expect him to get the numbers of cute chicks he does. His secret is something readers of this blog should understand by now: his game is airtight. Solid gold. He looks girls piercingly in the eye when he picks them up, he doesn’t care if they’re sitting or standing, his body language projects dominance despite his height, and he negs better than any player I know. (As a short man, he has to get out front with the negs, or he’ll get blown out too quickly.) He is borderline asshole with just the merest hint of vulnerability, which is exactly how the women like it. He is charming and suave — traits he says he learned over the years hanging out with alpha men who do well with women. If his shortness bothers him, he doesn’t show it. He has never put himself down or whined about the unfairness of it all, as long as I’ve known him.

He says after his experience with game, he decided to switch careers into sales, and has cleaned up professionally, too. I asked him once how he got started with game.

“Online dating.”

“You’re kidding. You don’t seem like the online dating sort.”

“At first, it was a disaster. I didn’t fib about my height. I didn’t want chicks meeting me for dates thinking I was six inches taller. My game wasn’t polished then, so I didn’t have the confidence in my skills that I could turn a bad date around.”

“So you put your real height in your profile?”

“Yup. Pics, too. Result: No bites. Girls have tons of qualifications for what they want in men, and height is near the top.”

“So you gave up on online dating?”

“Nope. I rearranged my profile to emphasize my pickiness. Right out of the gate I was disqualifying girls hard. I’ve gotta say that I was never a bigger asshole than online.”

“So it started working.”

“Not as much as I wanted, but that wasn’t the point. I knew as long as girls could quickly screen men online for failing their cliched checklists they would screen me out with a click. The beauty of it though was that I was beginning to get interest from girls who *specifically* wrote that they wanted taller men in their profiles. I banged a few of them and this was after they said they wouldn’t normally date men shorter than themselves, but I was ‘different’.”

“Once you took it to the field, it must have gotten a lot tougher, what with the competition and all.”

“The field was easier! The same game I ran online worked ten times better when I could walk up to a chick and talk to her face to face. Most men don’t even bother approaching. You approach, and you’ve leapfrogged 90% of your competition. All those qualifications that girls list in their online profiles just disappear when they’re talking to a smooth bastard. Forget that stuff girls say they want in men. 6 foot, high paying career, jock, Ivy educated, blah blah blah… it’s all bullshit they hang onto because it’s easy to quantify in their heads and makes sense to their parents. They don’t know what they want. They just react to men who turn them on, but there’s no way you can get them to describe what it is about those men that makes them stand out. Ask a girl what she likes in men, and she’ll rattle off some stupid list she read in Cosmo, and then she’ll go home to her bartender boyfriend while her phone is lighting up with calls from all those nice guys with good jobs who are politely asking to take her out on expensive dates.”

***

A woman’s 463 bullet point checklist is suddenly rendered null and void when she is in the company of a man with game/charisma. The qualifications she lists in her OkCupid profile or wherever are meant to be read as “hamster can change policy without prior notice.” If you have good game, you will chuckle to yourself over the many women whose qualifications you did not meet, but who slept with you anyway. The hamster can rationalize away everything from money to education to, yes, even shortness when it is being seduced by a captivating predator.

Maxim #463: Do not underestimate the rapidity with which a woman will jettison her conventional mate criteria when exposed to the attentions of a charismatic man.

Read Full Post »

Sluts March For Right To Be Easy Lays

Why is it that the chicks who most loudly proclaim their sluttiness are ugly fatsos? For example, here are a couple pics from a Canadian (natch) protest by sluts who are offended that some policeman had the gall to suggest women bear some responsibility for not dressing in whorish outfits if they want to avoid catching the attention of potential rapists:

Sez it all, really. Girls who are least attractive to men are the ones most eager to put out, and to advertise their efficiency of putting out. When you don’t have a pretty face or a nice figure, all you’ve got to snag some male attention is the wet hole smothered between your thunder thighs.

Ostensibly, this march was about giving women the right to dress like sluts even though bad men with rape-y intentions roam the world. There’s no need to invoke blaming-the-victim like a kneejerk wind-up cuntbot every time someone notes the obvious connection between action and reaction. Young women dressed in revealing clothing walking around late at night in shady hoods are more likely to get raped than old women dressed conservatively who are at home after 10pm. While rapists are to blame for their crime and should be strung up by their balls, women bear some responsibility for minimizing the odds that they will inspire a rapist to do the dirty deed. But of course women, paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in ‘As Good As It Gets’, wish to be blessedly free of the fun-killing constraints of reason and accountability.

As we all know by now from reading this blog, rape is about sex primarily, and only secondarily about power, if it is about the latter at all. The boner doesn’t lie. A man has to be sexually aroused to commit rape. If it were about power, as the feminists like to claim, Donald Trump would pop wood every time he closed a deal, and Warren Buffett would jizz in his pants when his portfolio fattened. Judging by Buffett’s success, that would be a lot of jizz. As far as I can tell, no photos of Buffett exist with telltale jizz stains on his crotch.

Women do need to be aware of their surroundings and the danger that men (particularly men of a certain caste), with their higher propensity to violence and sexual aggression, pose. This used to be common sense among womanhood for centuries. It is only in the past two generations that a bunch of put-upon dyke-lite broads in academia and the media have inculcated the opposite message in young women that they can do no wrong, have no obligation of personal responsibility, and should live in a world that caters to their need to behave however they see fit, free of consequence.

Since it is a guarantee that some egregiously dumbass readers here will misinterpret the very clear line of thought laid out above, an analogy should help fix their muddled thinking. I make it a point to not blithely walk around at 2am in majority black, Latino, or otherwise poverty-stricken neighborhoods of whatever color, even if it would inconvenience me to practice this avoidance. I know, from simple observation and the collected wisdom of the masses, that doing so would increase my odds of getting mugged or killed. If I were mugged or killed, the perpetrators would bear full responsibility for their crime. I would hope they got the chair, pronto. Better still, bullets to the knees, followed by execution to the back of the head. And yet, I recognize that I can make smart or stupid decisions with regards to my safety, and that these decisions are solely within my power to effect.

Women, you, too, need to reaffirm the wisdom of your ancestors, your grandmothers, and your great-grandmothers. Men are different from you. They do not think like you on some important matters, they do not feel like you when the throb of sexual urgency pulses, and they do not behave like you when their emotions gear up for action. You need to act accordingly. This is not “blaming the victim”. This is a call to accept reality for what it is. Denying reality means reality will automatically work against you. And when that happens, no street march in the world is gonna save you.

***

On a related note to the slut march for freedom to pursue ridiculously easy feats of derring-do, here is an article in the New York Beta Times (All the beta that’s fit to cringe) which bolsters the Chateau maxim that women, not men, are the biggest misogynists.

One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend.

Both were in eighth grade.

They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite’s. Around 11 o’clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it.

“Ho Alert!” she typed. “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” Then she clicked open the long list of contacts on her phone and pressed “send.”

In less than 24 hours, the effect was as if Margarite, 14, had sauntered naked down the hallways of the four middle schools in this racially and economically diverse suburb of the state capital, Olympia. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of students had received her photo and forwarded it.

Poor Margarite enshrined her love in a jpeg, and what was her punishment? The torments of her fellow sisters. A fusillade of female slut-shaming so cruel and unrelenting, Margarite was driven to living like a recluse. A quote from the Chateau post linked just above:

Who deploys these words in vengeful anger and spiteful slander? Not men. For example, when men use the word “slut” it’s usually with their male buddies as an exercise in identifying the women most likely to put out on the first date. Men will almost never call a woman a slut to her face unless it’s a bitter, jilted ex-boyfriend looking to score points, nor will they tell the woman’s girlfriends that she is a slut. Why kill the loose goose that lays the golden lays?

Women use them against other women. It’s women whispering gossip and innuendo in the ears of whatever female node on their social network is willing to listen, subconsciously calculating that the souldiss will find its way to the intended target. Why do they do this? Because sluts, whores, and skanks make it harder for other girls to use sex as a bargaining chip to extract commitment from quality men and keep it once it is made. Sluts are traitors to the sisterhood, undermining the prime directive and making it more difficult for the commitment whores to get what they want.

The butt-ugly sluts in the Canadian march for slut rights should take heed: your worst traitors to the cause aren’t sensible policemen or those engaged in so-called anarchic thinking. It’s other women. Some of them even feminists.

Read Full Post »

The Subtle Heartbreak Of Female Aging

One of the most famous photographs in history is the “Afghan Mona Lisa”, a pic taken by a National Geographic photographer in the 1980s of a 12 or 13 year old Afghan girl on the cusp of womanhood. In the pic, you can see her nascent, striking beauty beginning to assert itself. Many years later, that girl, now a grown woman, was tracked down and another photograph of her at approximate age 30 was taken. Here are the two pics side by side:

Tragedy. Beauty is but a flicker in the quickly brightening and fading light of a woman’s lifetime. If you think women don’t feel stress competing in the dating market, look at this photo for a helpful reminder of the Damocles Sword of sexual expiration that dangles over the head of every woman. Unlike men whose urgency centers on relieving the pressure valve in their gonads, women are inextricably bound to a powerful, implacable emotional urgency centered on the need to capitalize on their beauty before time runs out. Women have made a pact with the devil — in return for the promise of exquisite beauty, their window to this world of lavish male attention is woefully brief.

But the reason for this post and the inclusion of the photo above is to draw your eye to the nearly imperceptible changes in a woman’s face as she ages a mere 15 years. These changes — so subtle in their alterations — can produce an effect upon the male eye and penis such that she is rendered sexually invisible to him, if not outright repulsive. A tiny droop here, a blotch there, a shadow cast at the wrong aspect — minute changes to facial composition that one would be hard-pressed to pinpoint and elucidate will nevertheless, taken on the whole, turn a woman from a glorious sexual and feminine creature to a sorry bag of undifferentiated human flesh.

For example, let’s closely examine what exactly has changed between the 13-year old Afghan girl and her 30 year old self that she should now look like a witch instead of a blossoming beauty. This will be harder than you think.

– The lips are generally the same shape, but now the corners droop ever so slightly, as can be seen by the diagonal shadow extending from lip to jowl.

– Her skin, while free of acne and disfigurements, has become blotchy. Various hues of crimson compete for real estate on her cheeks and chin.

– Her nose, while still mostly the same shape and size, has acquired a barely perceptible downward tilt and a bonier countenance, cursing her with the aforementioned witchy visage.

– Her eyes have gotten relatively beadier, though this diminution is so tiny as to be measured in units smaller than millimeters. Yet the male brain and eyes, wired and honed to lacerating, and cruel, perfection by millions of years of evolution ensuring that only the most fertile women stake claim to his resource and emotional investments, has no trouble at all judging the tiniest millimeter differences in female facial composition for sexual worthiness.

– Her eyebrows, a little bushier, though again the change is small. But small changes make all the difference.

– The orbs of her eyes themselves have dulled, the glimmer of youthful vitality and emerging sexuality faded after a twinkle in time of only 15 years.

– Her chin has become bulbous. It has added perhaps no more than a half centimeter in the horizontal from her former chin size.

– She has grown incipient jowls, but we cannot tell this from any fat accumulation, which appears minor at best. Rather, we can tell by the “greater than”-shaped shadow that runs jagged from her cheekbone to her jawline.

– There is an ever-so-slight band of darkness under her eyes. The fat pockets that puff out the underlids of the orbital sockets are typically the first to waste away from the ravages of aging.

***

This was a brutal assessment, and the goal was to demonstrate that aging takes its toll on women in ways so subtle, and yet so deleterious and frighteningly fast, that the signs can be easily missed by a woman who has become accustomed to male attention in her late teens and early 20s, and in fact has become inured to the degradation in her sexual value by staring at her face every day in the mirror.

Naturally, some of you will say that Afghanistan is a tough place, and any woman living there would age faster than her pampered Western counterpart. You would be correct, as far as that goes. But the same unstoppable forces — like a tide of horrors — that have ruined the gift of this Afghan woman’s face to the world are at work ruining the faces of millions of Western women blowing away their prime years on mimosas and cock hopping. The only difference are the high tech cosmetics and treatments available in the West that helps stem the tide for a few years.

But that is all it is: a few years. A lucky American woman blessed with good genes and healthy living might be able to put off the withering Afghanistization of her face for perhaps five, or maybe even ten, extra years, holding the witch at bay until age 35-40. Sadly, for most American women, the malignant obesity epidemic has guaranteed that they will lose their beauty long before it is fairly taken from them, if they ever had it at all.

Men, when you remind yourselves of the unimaginable torment that women must experience as their number one asset abandons them with a fury to the cold, uncaring apathetic eyes of the sexual market…

be thankful that you are a man.

Read Full Post »

Number Of White California Residents Plummets As Majority Status Slips Away

The number of whites residing in California plummeted by more than 11 percent during the past decade, with whites losing their majority status in the state for the first time in its history.

According to census statistics released Thursday, barely 42 percent of California’s population was white in 2010 — a remarkable shift in a place whose motto is “Eureka!” for the exclamation made by the millions of white Europeans who settled, civilized and industrialized the state.

The white population dropped by more than 1 million over the decade. At the same time, the Hispanic population skyrocketed by more than 500%, almost a third higher than a decade earlier. […]

In a state that prides itself on being a hub of white European culture and politics, a majority of residents have been Hispanic since whites began moving to other states en masse after the 1965 Immigration Act. By 1980, seven out of 10 Californians were white. […]

The demographic change is the result of almost 25 years of ghettoization that has transformed large swaths of California, especially Southern California. As housing prices soared, middle class whites priced out of neighborhoods such as all of Los Angeles and the surrounding counties, began migrating to predominantly all-white areas such as Portland and Utah.

The state became a tougher place to live for working-class families, who had to contend with rising rents and soaring property taxes. Many of the new jobs created over the past decade have required higher education.

The phenomenon exposed the state’s fault lines along income, class and race.

“Clearly, California is one of the most polarized states, by income and education, in the country,” said Herbert Harrison, a demographer at Princeton University who spent 10 years with the Census Bureau.

“You have this unusually large college educated population. And then you have a population that is largely Hispanic, with high school degrees or less.”

Pierce Hoight, a professor of White American history at Georgetown University, said the white middle class has followed the black middle class before them, heading out of California in search of more affordable housing and good jobs.

“No opportunities are being created for low- and middle-income people in the city,” he said. “I drive to LA every day, and very rarely do I see whites on construction jobs.”

Some say the precipitous decline in the number of whites is alarming.

“We’re going to stop this trend — ghettoization,” said CA Council member David Dukes (D-District 9). “We can’t displace old-time Californians.”

“The key to keeping this state white is jobs, jobs, jobs for white people so they can have a better quality of life in neighborhoods in the city,” he added. “I believe in integration, but I don’t believe in the apartheid we have in District 9. You don’t see corner stores in Marin County. You don’t see the liquor stores.”

Dukes, the four-term mayor who emerged from the civil rights movement, also faulted Congress for overturning a residency requirement for local government workers in 1988. That, he said, helped build up what he called “District Barrio,” referring to La Puente.

“We can’t keep people from moving, but if we had a residency requirement, we could keep government workers from moving,” Dukes said.

Arnold Schwartzenegger said that, during his term as governor, he made a concerted effort to attract new residents and businesses to pay taxes and generate revenue for a state in decline.

“When you’re the governor, you’re not God,” Schwartzenegger said. “It’s very frustrating. When you’re in public service, you’re there to promote diversity and harmony, but on the other hand, you want to help your state economically. Sometimes, they come at cross purposes.”

Schwartzenegger said he believes white European culture will continue to be the dominant culture in the state. But others say they already see it slipping away.

“The Owl City song ‘Vanilla Twilight’ pinned a label on the state,” said poet E. Ethelbert Miller, a leading figure in California’s White American arts community. “Well, vanilla was too boring a flavor for the policymakers, I guess.”

Miller laughed, then turned serious. “We’re seeing the eroding of a community. If you’re a white person accustomed to a way of life, that way of life is coming to an end. The state isn’t gonna be white anymore more. … This is the Villaraigosa era, and that’s symbolic. The state is stuck in mocha now. We’ll mourn that The Golden State is gone, but that’s just the nature of it.”

Full article here.

***

Very surprising that an article like this would be in the Washington Post, a bastion of liberal enlightenment. Clearly, racism is still alive and well in this country, and needs to be stamped out. There is much progress yet to be done. We haven’t reached our goal of a color-blind society yet.

Read Full Post »

More Women Have Rape Fantasies Than Previously Thought

Science is validating unflinching, real world observation with progressively closer glimpses of the id beast lurking underneath our polite and self-deceptive exteriors. Today, science strips away the ego and superego from women’s brains and peers into the sticky, cobwebbed limbic interior to see what really turns them on.

The nature of women’s rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents.

This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates. For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week. In contrast to previous research, which suggested that rape fantasies were either entirely aversive or entirely erotic, rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive.

62%. That’s a majority, folks. A majority of women fantasize on average four times per year about being forcefully and nonconsensually penetrated. Nearly two out of ten women fantasize about rape at least once a week. If that doesn’t convince you of the animal nature of women’s sexuality and their deepest desire to submit to a more powerful lover, nothing will. Oh, except watching forlornly as jerks and assholes walk off with the girl of your dreams.

For those wondering what the difference is between “aversive” and “erotic” rape, here is a description culled from a number of studies examining female sexuality (with the important point bolded):

According to Kanin, erotic rape fantasies contain low to moderate levels of fear with no realistic violence. In these fantasies, women typically are approached aggressively by a dominant and attractive male who is overcome with desire for her; she feels or expresses nonconsent and presents minimal resistance; he overpowers her and takes her sexually. Kanin made the interpretation that these were not true rape fantasies, that the described resistance amounted to a “token no,” and he called these “seduction fantasies.” Participants themselves characterized these as rape situations, however, and the self-character in these fantasies showed nonconsent. As no evidence was presented that the self-character’s nonconsent was insincere, the label of “seduction” does not seem justified. [Ed: Feminists wept.] Certainly, in actual rapes minimal resistance and female sexual arousal do sometimes occur (Duddle, 1991; Johnson, 1985), and their occurrence would not render the encounter a seduction rather than a rape.

Aversive rape fantasies come closer to representing realistic rape. In these fantasies, the male is more likely to be older, unattractive, and a stranger. These fantasies contain coercive and painful violence, and little or no sexual arousal. A typical scenario for an aversive fantasy would consist of an assailant “grabbing, throwing to the ground, ripping off clothing, while the victim is fighting to keep the aggressor from achieving penetration” (Kanin, 1982, p. 117). Kanin found that women with aversive rape fantasies were more apprehensive about actual rape and more likely to have dreams of rape than were other women. The more aversive rape fantasies may operate as attempts to deal with the fear of actual rape by gaining some sense of control over rape situations and rehearsing how one might deal with actual rape (Gold & Clegg, 1990; Gold, et al., 1991).

Feminists who lamely try to handwave away rape fantasies as just another form of BDSM consensual sex are wrong. As the studies show, there is no consensual seduction as widely understood in women’s rape fantasies. They are about rape, and nothing but the rape. The only difference is in how violently the rapist penetrates her in her fantasy and in how much of a fight she puts up to stop him. In neither case, though, could the rape fantasy be reasonably termed a consensual seduction.

Ironically, aversive rape fantasies are the ones feminists would be more inclined to believe as true reflections of the female id, because those are the types of rape fantasies that women have to deal with the fear of rape. Too bad for the feminists, though, that, according to the first study linked above, aversive rape fantasies account for only 9% of all rape fantasies, with the great majority being either solely erotic in nature or a mix of erotic and aversive. Seems the ladies really do get off on the feeling of being raped by a strong and willful man.

Nothing in these studies should be a surprise to readers of this blog. It has been noted here, to much consternation and gnashing of the teeth by haters, that women secretly desire to submit to a powerful man — more powerful than they, at any rate — and that this desire sometimes includes a nonconsensual component. Women love the feeling of being overtaken by a man unbendable in his will and unstoppable in his lust.

Some of you might be wondering how valid is a study that only looked at female undergraduates. To that criticism, I say: Would it make a difference? The most sexually valuable women are in the age range of 15-25. Any older than 25 and she is past her prime, already beginning the descent to sexual irrelevancy. (Exception: A fat 21 year old who loses weight and regains a sexy figure at age 30 will look better than her 21 year old self. But this effect only lasts so long.)

When men want to know what arouses women so that they can tailor their game for maximum effectiveness, they observe the behavior patterns of slender women in their primes. Men do not wonder, nor do they care, what cougars, fatties, frumpy hausfraus or grandmothers fantasize about. So for all of you has-beens emphatically denying that you ever have rape fantasies and shouting from the mountaintop that you wouldn’t date jerks…

…who gives a flying fuck?

Read Full Post »