Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

A commenter, jjbees, leaves a profoundly pointed anecdote in reply to genial Audacious E’s righteous rage against the dying of the White Light,

It’s simply impossible for whites to thrive when there are too many minorities around.

If we want to reach the heights of civilization, to visit the moon again, to colonize mars, to automate cars and have robots servicing all of our needs, to genetically engineer disease out of existence, we simply can’t be around minorities, specifically black people.

When my family lived in an urban ghetto (us white, 99.999% of our neighbors black) one of our main worries was survival. Are the guns loaded, did you lock the doors. Oh look, your bicycle was stolen out of the garage by your next door neighbor who we invited to have dinner with us last week (no shit, it happened). Having to drive to school every morning 3 towns over to avoid a 90% minority school (and therefore not get beaten).

Then we moved to a rural town, 100% white, where I could explore in the woods, ride my bicycle around town, never get robbed or threatened or beaten, where I could read books in peace, and we left the doors unlocked at night, and my intellect could flourish and I could dream of a beautiful future and live, not merely exist in a hardscrabble fight against a mean world. I thank god my parents were smart enough to do that for me and for us.

We can spend all our national treasure letting our natural enemies make their home right next door, we can feed them, and clothe them, and let them make more and more of themselves as we dwindle and become less and less, ad infinitum, working ever harder, ever longer, just for them, until we are nothing and there is nothing more to give, and our dreams are dead forever.

Or we can just. say. no.

No means no, except when the question is how best to secure a future for White Americans.

It’s a favorite shitlib shitlibboleth to claim that poverty causes crime, but the opposite of that formulation has more truth in it: crime causes poverty. Poverty of the wallet as well as of the mind. jjbees is right; when you fear for your safety every day of your life, and approach every social interaction with an enervating, distrustful cynicism borne of hard experience dealing with aliens who’d sooner screw you over if the screwing was good, you’ll sacrifice inordinate mental and physical energy navigating the shoals of Diversity™ that could be better spent tapping the unquenchable human spirit that your great (and unique!) European ancestors bequeathed you to advance civilization.

This is the price of Diversity™: slow attrition of living space for the individual, his family, and his intellectual, aesthetic, and spiritual aspirations. To think that the mental template of White Europeans evolved only in the last 5,000 years, and probably later than that, is to realize the precious gift of your genetic and cultural inheritance, and how easy it is to throw it all away for a return to the abyss.

But, hey, White’s be raciss an sheeeit, and who’s gonna mow your lawn?

PS As per usual when these topics about self-determination come up, a “white” troll with a fever for the flavor of a Yellow Eskimo drops his stinky “I love diverse neighborhoods as long as they’re full of high IQ slants and shekels” schtick. But as the Audacious One rightly reprimands, IQ isn’t everything. Not even close. The dimensions of personality and… wait for it… moral character, all of it passed on by chromosome and community, play a big role in how trusting we are with our neighbors and consequently how much faith and investment we put into our little islands of civilization.

Thriving in a mixed neighborhood of functional, middle-class or affluent two-parent households with children is of course attainable, but that sort of neighborhood tends to have less community cohesion/neighborliness than a homogeneous neighborhood with of intact families of means (a la Robert Putnam’s now famous study). I live near Cerner, Sprint, and Garmin headquarters and consequently a lot of my neighbors are Asian (South and East). They take care of their houses as well as anyone else and we always get a reciprocated wave, but they don’t tend to come outside to chat it up when my son and some of the other kids in the neighborhood are running around.

And of course NAMs are disproportionately less likely to meet the functional, two-parent household criteria.

A nation crumbles inexorably to its slow expiration when its native sons drop below 80% of the total population for more than a few generations. The US is about to head down that r-selected rabbit hole. This ride won’t end well unless someone hits the brakes hard and slaps it into reverse. It may already be too late, but standing against the tide beats a glum suicide walk into the briny deep.

Read Full Post »

Although rare, one does occasionally encounter the younger grown man-older woman couple. (I specify “grown man”, because there is room in the sexual market for inexperienced teenage and early 20s beta males to pop their cherries in the easy and uncomplicated, if road-worn, guiding folds of older woman orifice.)

The married younger man-older woman is a coupling that seems to defy not just evolutionary theory but also common sense. Why would a man so ludicrously work against his reproductive interests? There is already a built-in preference among women to date and marry older men than themselves, and a woman’s fertility window is much shorter than a man’s. One would have to be either a fetishist who gets his GILF freak on, or a complete loser lacking any confidence in his ability to marry at least a few boner-inspiring years down the poon market.

While fetishists of every stripe exist, they are so rare — much rarer than the noise their advocates make on SJW comment boards where all that matters is parroting the Pantywaist Line — that it’s safe to compartmentalize them into a box full of Darwinian exceptions who don’t violate the general rule governing sex interactions.

More common are the lesser beta and omega male losers who have so little to offer women, or who believe they have so little to offer, that they settle, with a sad resignation they have spent their lives expertly concealing under self-soothing bromides and plastic smiles from public inquisition, for older broads with short shelf lives and lowered standards.

If the numbers of these loser husband-older wife couples are increasing, (anecdotally, there does appear to be a slight uptick in their numbers, mirroring the slight uptick in the numbers of white women-black men couples. I invite the reader to make the relevant connection), we can identify a number of social changes that may be contributing to the odd pairings.

Reader corvinus explains,

CH: and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman.

This. About 10 years younger.

As to why it’s considered the norm to marry a woman the same age as you, I have a couple of ideas:

1) Social pressure, especially from the women.
2) Online dating, which has a stronger age-homogamy bias than IRL.
3) Lack of game on the men’s part.

Interestingly enough, apparently during the recession, the age at first marriage has gone up faster for men than for women, suggesting that women are more willing to consider marrying somewhat older men than they were before.

During times of economic hardship, women smartly choose established men with more resources (betas). The inverse is also true: during times of female economic self-sufficiency, women vaginally choose charming jerkboys with or without resources.

Corvinus has hit on the big three reasons why younger man-older women marriages continue to exist and offend good taste.

Social pressure is a big deal, because women are the lemming sex and bend to the will of the group more readily than do men. If more older women are getting locked out of the chase for older, resource-rich men, then they will seek succor from their misery by propagandizing the wonderful wonderfulness of fucking younger men in short-term flings. (We here at CH know better. These women hurt badly on the inside.) The lies of feminism can have an impact on how socially comfortable women feel about dating older men.

Online dating does create a sex market skew against the intangibles of courtship. That is, women who try to find a man exclusively online will subconsciously bias the crude, artless markers of a man’s SMV — his listed age and profile pic — at the expense of the complex, refined cues of his seductive prowess (amply explored in the CH archives). Luckily, there are plenty of smooth moves a man can execute to evade this age-homogamy bias of online dating.

Lack of game. This is the big pink tuna. In my travels around the world of women, I’ve come to observe that younger man-older woman relationships are invariably of four kinds:

– The older woman was preternaturally attractive and slender, and competing in a local market filled with chubby younger women and off-the-market married men. In this milieu, an older woman (but not too much older) will capture the interest of younger unmarried men fed up with the feeding schedules of their female peers.

– The younger man was a beta male to the core. This is the explanation for 90% of younger man-older woman marriages. You take a lesser beta with little experience bedding women, add an older, sexually aggressive broad with her talons out for contractually locking down an indentured servant a husband, and you’ve got a combustible situation the beta has no hope of exerting any control over its direction. These couples flout natural law because the beta male has few sexual market options, or believes in his heart he has few options. Scarcity mentality is the soulkiller of masculinity.

– The younger man was black, the older woman a flabby white. For biomechanical reasons I don’t feel like hammering into submission yet again, it is an observable fact that black men are simply more tolerant of SMV hideousness in the women they screw, and this goes double when black men date white women. A black man will spear white land whales or go down on the wrinkled vag flaps of old white women that no white man would touch.

– The older woman was rich. Many of the younger men in these relationships are closeted gays on the psychopathy spectrum.

tl;dr: There’s a reason we feel an emotional swell of harmoniousness when we see older man-younger woman couples, and we feel a jolt of emotional discomfort when we see the opposite.


I forgot to mention sex ratio skew as a potential cause of increased younger man-older woman marriages. In a prime nubility market in which men outnumbered (against the historical average) the available hot young minxes, there would be immense pressure at the younger male margins to tragically settle for older women who are the sexual and/or marital discards of older alpha men in the process of trading up to younger lovers. An ahistorical sex ratio skew can introduce plenty of tumult and “black swans” into the normal functioning of the sexual market.

Read Full Post »

It’s time for a sequel to the original “International Truth Day“.

– the ugliness of the world is proven by the energy devoted to hiding that ugliness under mountains of platitudes and self-deluding hokum.

– i have yet to see an exception to the rule that fat men who lose weight promptly start dating thinner girls than they dated when they were fat.

– the specter of options, or lack thereof, is always haunting one’s choices, despite any assertions to the contrary.

– christie brinkley at 60 beats lindy west at 220.

– christie brinkley at 20 beats christie brinkley at 60, no matter how good 60-year-old christie “looks for her age”.

– eventually, money, or space, will run out. when either does, liberal pieties will vanish in a puff of smoke, as if they had never existed. don’t underestimate the flimsy nature of post-industrial morality.

– female “natural beauty” is spoken of with sentimental reverence, because it is so rare, and the rarer still not long past the teenage years.

– nearly all women look better with strategically applied make-up. maybe one in a thousand women are equally attractive without cosmetic illusion.

– the numbers of women who look just as good without makeup are dwarfed by the numbers of women who ruin their looks with too much makeup. this proves that women universally understand the critical importance of artificially improving their appearance to remain attractive to men.

– a woman will fish an alpha male’s used condom out of the trash to impregnate herself. she’ll demand her beta boyfriend wear a condom.

– guilt is a man’s second wife.

– later marriages = passionless marriages. the marital norm is shifting to less passion.

– fat men desire the same thing that thin men desire: slender babes. ugly old women desire the same thing that hot, young women desire: sexy alpha males. the demand far outstrips the supply. in economic terms, sexual desire is inelastic while the stimulants of sexual desire are a scarce resource.

– in the trade-off between inelastic sexual desire and scarce desire stimulants, we find the innumerable losers starved for affection.

– there will never be a post-scarcity sexual economy. not even one in which beauty and charm are genetically engineered to perfection. in the gattaca of the future, all it takes is one man trying to get a leg up on others for the equalist utopia to shatter.

– “diversity is our strength” is the Prime Lie of our age.

– Liberal Race Creationism is the Totalitarianism of our age. like Totalitarianism, Liberal Race Creationism is destined to fall.

– fathers provide confidence, mothers provide comfort. when parents attempt to reverse those roles, their children suffer emotional distress.

– the ideal long-term relationship dynamic is one in which the woman is (if such an intersex comparison could be made) more physically appealing than the man, and the man is more socially appealing than the woman.

– options = instability.

– the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat in baseball is useful as a sexual market analytic. the higher a man’s WAR (Women Above Replacement, or the number of additional women he could get above the number of women the average man is expected to get), the more valuable he will be to women scouting for mates.

– the only pro-natalist argument that makes any philosophical sense is the hedonistic argument: that is, the true pleasure of having and raising kids over a lifetime outweighs their psychic, social and material costs and the opportunity cost of giving up pleasures derived from other sources… unless the premise of an illimitable black void after death is wrong, in which case competing pro-natalist arguments gain currency.

– philosophy is nice, but unfalsifiable human emotions will have the final say.

– if nonwhite immigrants become more patriotic and flag-waving, expect to see white natives become less so. tribes demand differences, even if those differences must be paid in a sacrifice of civic fellowship.

– if a wife or girlfriend calls you her “best friend”, start looking for replacement pussy. you’re already pushed halfway out the door.

– synthetic vaginal lubricant is the tribute frigid wives pay to their beta husbands.

– it’s easy to control the frame once you stop giving a shit. corollary: you will almost always cede the frame if you care more than the other person.

– when you observe naturals to learn their ways, you will fortuitously learn more about women than about naturals.

– discretion is the better part of seduction, but the conventional wisdom is wrong: women are often the ones to break the code of silence first, especially when they have developed strong feelings for a man.

– a man’s romantic love for a woman fades in direct proportion to the fade of her looks plus the time spent in a monogamous relationship with her.

– in every successful, long-lasting relationship, romantic love was replaced by companionate love.

– kink is just a desperate attempt by unattractive has-beens to recapture the sexual passion of youth.

– a big penis is like PEDs; it’s prohibited from use in precisely those circumstances when it could be most useful.

– the meaning of life is still to fuck.

– politeness never defeated an existential threat.

– men in long, happy marriages to first or second loves can never give insightful advice about women. for that, turn to cads with recent experience and a high N sample size.

– strong evil beats weak good every time.

– SJW hate merchants make the fatal mistake of assuming their hate can be limited to those targets with whom it is hard to empathize. but hate is a fragmentation grenade. blowback is inevitable.

– a dead lion is worth more to white liberals than a million aborted black fetuses.

– eventually, in every relationship, terms of endearment and professions of love become as perfunctory as belching. and about as meaningful.

– cynicism is the handmaiden of experience; hope is the burden of innocence.

– a rapist (bill clinton) and a community organizer (barack butt naked) were elected president twice.

– a lonely woman inspires sympathy. a lonely man inspires contempt.

– racism is normal, natural, healthy… and most evident in the actions of those claiming otherwise.

– when women aren’t openly adoring cruel men, they are sleeping with them.

– women who shun men with standards are the women who can’t live up to them.

– a man with strict standards is like a beautiful woman; both make their lovers feel like they have acquired something priceless.

– fake it till you make it, and once made you will no longer be faking it.

– this, too, shall pass, but you’ll probably be dead before then.

– love is easily missed, carelessly denied, fleetingly intense, nakedly vulnerable… and for all these reasons it is more precious than anything else in this world.

Read Full Post »

There is a relatively new class of troll who bears a striking resemblance to the well-known “concern troll”, but who is in some respects far more insidious in his methodology and ability to derail comment threads on blogs devoted to the teachings of the charisma arts. I call this new breed the “game contradictions troll”.

A classic example of the game contradictions troll is this comment by “The Shrike” (who may not necessarily be an insincere troll, but whose complaint nonetheless serves as an ideal representative of the sort of comment a game contradictions troll would leave).

A lot of sound advice in this post. It looks like the author is slowly shifting away from the unabashed, detached Lothario pose to a more conservative outlook on life. Conservative values are not my own, but it seems that this is a more consistent approach when it comes to the opinions often professed by the author and most of the commenters here. A recurrent theme is the impending collapse of the Western civilization, largely caused by female hypergamy. The majority seems to abhor the fact modern women ride the proverbial “cock-carousel”, seemingly forgetting that no amount of game would be effective against uptight prudes who only ever do it after marriage, and only to procreate.

Game contradictions trolls thrive on a studied ignorance or disavowal of the true fact of life that there are different standards for the sexes, and that these standards are not set by men, but by nature, and men merely conform to these sexual market standards and rationalize their fairness (or unfairness) when it suits them, (we are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species).

No one on this board has claimed that female hypergamy is the prime cause of Western decline. Female hypergamy is one of those differing sexual market standards that apply to women and not to men, and that can’t be wished away. The assertion often made at CH is that female hypergamy is a real phenomenon, and it is best to accept the reality of it and MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU rather than shake your fist ineffectually at it in hopes women magically cure themselves of their evolved desire to mate with, and extract the commitment of, the highest status men that their looks can realistically afford.

Riding the cock carousel is NOT necessarily a manifestation of female hypergamy. The cock carousel is the consequence of socially atomized anonymous urban environments coupled with contraceptives and economic self-sufficiency providing cover and incentive for women to indulge the part of their sexuality that yearns for dominant, charming, jerkboy cads who are hard to pin down into committed relationships. This is not female hypergamy fulfilled, but female hypergamy THWARTED, as it is the Darwinian directive of every woman to land the most desirable alpha man and to KEEP HIM AROUND.

There is an interesting clash of contradicting attitudes here. Not arguments between different posters, but internally inconsistent opinions voiced by the same people. Game is still a hallowed topic, not to be touched with a mortal hand, but it runs counter to the otherwise conservative leanings of the commenters. A stable family-unit, also much cherished around here, is mutually exclusive to widespread promiscuity exemplified by men who “game” women, and women who are willing to play along.

Another category error made often and reliably by trolls and anti-game haters. “Game” is not synonymous with promiscuity, although game certainly aids the pursuit of promiscuity if that is what is desired. A man could just as easily use game — aka learned charisma — to meet, seduce, date, and when the time is right, marry the most beautiful oneitis he has ever laid eyes on. I wouldn’t recommend it, but there you go.

Ultimately, there is a choice to be made if a man is to be congruent at the most basic level. Either champion a virtuous society where loyalty matters a lot, and people pair up with the intention of forming serious relationships. Or support the cad lifestyle where jumping from one woman to the next without any consideration is the norm.

Men have a longer SMV window than women and bear a smaller cost for each act of copulation than do women, which means in practice each man can, and should, get some romantic experience under his belt (heh) and then marry, if he wishes to marry, a younger woman. The fact of biologically grounded sex differences which aren’t going anywhere means that cadding about is always going to be less psychologically, reproductively and emotionally expensive for men than slutting around will be for women.

If it’s the latter, then it’s difficult to blame women for trying to do the same.

First, most women aren’t interested in doing the same, despite transparently try-hard protestations to the contrary by fat, bitter feminists. Second, it’s not difficult to blame the women trying to emulate the lifestyle of the alpha male cad for their short-sightedness. Different sex-based standards in the sexual market, and different sex-based psychosexual temperaments, are an emergent fact of life, not a directive handed down by the invisible pimp hand of the patriarchy.

If it’s the former, then much of the game concept goes out the window, though some aspects of getting a chosen female interested presumably are still useful.

How about, “game gives men the tools to successfully attract and keep women in sexual and emotional relationships.” There. That’s not so hard now, is it?

Read Full Post »

A recent cross-cultural study with a large sample size has found… or, rather, re-found… that men and women have radically different mate-preference psychologies, and that these differences are even larger than previously thought. (Parenthetically, the study also found that feminists are still idiots.)

Men’s and women’s ideas of the perfect mate differ significantly due to evolutionary pressures, according to a cross-cultural study on multiple mate preferences by psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

The study of 4,764 men and 5,389 women in 33 countries and 37 cultures showed that sex differences in mate preferences are much larger than previously appreciated and stable across cultures.

The sharp reader may ask, “Ah, but does this study suffer from a WEIRD bias?” The answer:

“Many want to believe that women and men are identical in their underlying psychology, but the genders differ strikingly in their evolved mate preferences in some domains,” said co-author of the study and psychology professor David Buss. “The same holds true in highly sexually egalitarian cultures such as Sweden and Norway as in less egalitarian cultures such as Iran.”

No WEIRD bias.

The researchers suggest that these patterns of mate preferences are far more linked to gender than any individual mate preference examined separately would suggest.

Thus confirming the CH ugly truth that attractiveness standards for men and women are universal and sex-based, and that the hope of everyone being a special snowflake having equal sexual market value is a myth.

Researchers found that they could predict a person’s sex with 92.2 percent accuracy if they knew his or her mate preferences.

WOW. Think on that. The implications are far-reaching, and VERY discomfiting to believers in the sex-based blank slate.

According to the study, men favor mates who are younger and physically attractive. Women seek older mates with good financial prospects, higher status and ambition.

Amanda Marcotte’s id just emitted a death wail.

“Because women bear the cost of pregnancy and lactation, they often faced the adaptive problem of acquiring resources to produce and support offspring, while men faced adaptive problems of identifying fertile partners and sought cues to fertility and future reproductive value,” Conroy-Beam said.

These sex-based mate preferences are evolved over millennia and deeply embedded in our hindbrains, so even in a modern environment where women are coddled by the State and pregnancy is easily avoided or terminated by technology interventions, and where women are bloating up into disfigured pigbeasts hiding fertility cues under layers of blubber, we still find that the old evolved preferences continue to exert the primary influence over our desires and preferences.

But, it is possible that some powerful modern sexual market disturbances, such as the Pill, may alter certain preexisting mate preferences which are more flexible in nature, wired for adaptability to changing environmental pressures. Women in a state of nature prefer men with good financial prospects 3/4ths of the time and sexy PUAs during ovulation, but women in a manufactured state of existence where the Pill is widespread and cheap may more frequently, or more intensely, favor the layabout alpha cad over the dependable, resource-rich beta provider, because the cost of pregnancy has been obviated, (a change in their environmental reality which would register subconsciously in women).

Which mate preferences varied the most by sex?

Of the 19 mate preferences that researchers considered, five varied significantly based on gender: good financial prospects, physical attractiveness, chastity, ambition and age.

Chicks dig:
well-off men,
ambitious men,
older men.

Men dig:
beautiful women,
younger women,
and (this is my favorite anti-feminist ugly truth) chaste women who haven’t ridden the cock carousel until the gears fell off.

Four other preferences — pleasing disposition, sociability and shared religious and political views — were not sex-differentiated.

What men and women share in common can be just as interesting as where they diverge. While “pleasing disposition” is a bit vague to get a proper CH-ian handle on — many a charming jerkboy would be asserted by women to have a “pleasing disposition” — it’s not at all surprising that men and women prefer lovers who agree at least in part with their own values and religious views. Sex is great, and love better, but after a few years if you love Jesus and she loves Shiva, or you’re Team Trump and she’s Team Cuck, that’s gonna cause some friction. Unless you’re in the minority of people for whom a conventional value such as religious affiliation doesn’t serve as a personal identifier.

I’d like to know exactly what the study authors were measuring with “Sociability”. Does this mean extroverts, of either sex, tend to prefer extroverted lovers, and introverts likewise? I wonder about that. I could see an extroverted drama queen getting exasperated with an introverted man who hates drama, but I’ve also seen a lot of couples where that combination of extrovert-introvert seemed to produce a balancing force that kept each of their worst instincts in check. And left unspoken, they understood how that dynamic benefited them.

“Few decisions impact reproduction more than mate choice,” Conroy-Beam said. “Mate preferences will therefore be a central target and driver of biological evolution.”

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

Read Full Post »

…and the results cause the men to burst into tears.

Via his poasting career, one of the funniest stories I’ve read this year.

After all of the usual caveats (unemployed T levels higher than employed T levels, testosterone does not correlate with success, etc) and complete blackout of obvious confounding bix noody variables we get to the point:

It turns out that the gay Jew has the highest testosterone level at 274. The other four men are clustered around half of that (144)

“In general, the normal range in males is about 270 to 1070 ng/dL with an average level of 679 ng/dL. A normal male testosterone level peaks at about age 20, and then it slowly declines.”

144. Male shitlibs are LITERALLY low T manlets.

One thing that jumped out at me, though, was the longing for normalcy. The two of the three women wanted to be low testosterone and feminine. The (almost uniformly whiny) straight(ish) men wanted to be high T. Even in the heart of poz. As creeped out as I was by the entire segment, I managed to extract a tiny grain of hope.

Hope or not, though, after listening to this segment I needed to move leg day up to lift away the poz.

Biomechanics is God, and He rules over even self-deluding shitlibs.

Lift away the poz. gentlemen. Your balls will grow three sizes with every new 1 rep max at the squat rack. Then you can enjoy the whiny spectacle of a sniveling, sneering leftoid disingenuously snark about why you want White men to be more aggressive like black men.

Read Full Post »

Nine million dollars.

[Marie] Holmes, of North Carolina, decided that she was going to accept her $188 million winnings in one lump sum, meaning she was awarded $127 million. After taxes, she received $88 million. And while Holmes announced that she had plans to pay her tithes and set up college funds for her children, she’s ended up doing something entirely different with her riches.

Shortly after she won the money, Holmes posted $3 million bond for her boyfriend Lamarr McDow. McDow was in jail, facing heroin trafficking charges. McDow was implicated after an investigation unearthed more than 8,000 bags of heroin. […]

She then spent an additional $6 million to get McDow out of prison. He was released with a GPS monitoring device.

Meanwhile, everywhere in America a beta provider niceguy buys dinner for a lovely 31-year-old educated woman with an encyclopedic knowledge of ethnic and racial penis shapes, who dumps him via text one week later.

Two other people in the house were also charged with simple possession. Three children were present at the time of the arrest, McDow said they were his children.

But he wasn’t sure, just a guess, he later told the reporter.

Marie Holmes, “the 26-year-old, single mother of four, [who] had won the Powerball lottery”, is not bad-looking for a nubian princess.

Naturally, there is the race angle. It’s very impulsive to splurge for a jerkboy’s bail to the tune of $9 mil, so we can expect to encounter more measured judgment from a white or asian woman. So let’s say the white woman coughs up $4 mil for her white jerkboy inmate, and the asian woman pays $200 for her asian jerkboy.

In other “grrlpower gone wild” news, a bindi feminist ran a marathon purposefully dripping period blood out of her gross vaganges and down her legs the whole way. Photos are at the link. Even I, the Great Shivver, cannot bring myself to inflict this level of intestinal distress on the CH readers by posting pics here on the hallowed grounds of Le Chateau.

Thanks to her overriding femcunt need to whore for attention, no man will touch this mahatma menstrual show with Amanda Marcotte’s dick. Maybe she’ll get lucky and attract some creepy pervert who’s into “blood stuff”. It puts the curry in the basket…

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,324 other followers

%d bloggers like this: