Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.

masojism

That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

Read Full Post »

Pman sells the science of physiognomy short. There’s evidence (re)emerging from the labcoats’ mental masturbatoriums that a person’s looks do say something about his politics, smarts, personality, and even his propensity to crime. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air, and the historical wisdom that one can divine the measure of a man (or a woman) by the cut of his face has empirical support.

For instance, facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is a reliable cue to dominant social behavior in men. Another study found that wide-faced men are untrustworthy. You CAN judge a book by its cover: ugly people are more crime-prone.

Shitlibs have a look. Shitlords have a look. And you can predict with better than 50/50 chance which 2016 presidential candidate a person supports based on nothing more than their photograph.

Physiognomy is real. It needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and the snarling equalists who lied and slandered good men to suppress the investigation of physiognomy should have their faces rubbed in the realtalk. Physiognomy isn’t just an illusion of confirmation bias, or of backwards rationalization of evoked emotions. The connection between facial appearance and character is observable and measurable, not a figment of cognitive self-bias. There are exceptions, of course, but the existence of exceptions should not be used as an excuse to sweep the reality of the rule under the rug.

Read Full Post »

In a CH post about older men’s advantages in the sexual market, frequent sex difference and Game denialist wolfie65 avers,

There are VERY few things in this world that actually do get better with age.
High quality wine (if you like that sort of thing), high quality cheese (to a point), things made very well from high quality wood, like musical instruments or furniture.
People are not one of those things.

Generally true, past a certain age. But that threshold age from youthful to old is different for men and women. Most men aesthetically peak around 29-30 and stay there well into their late 30s. For women, their physical peak happens somewhere between the late teens and early 20s, and doesn’t stay there long.

Men who lift weights and don’t bloat up can look quite dashing to the majority of women well past their 30s. Women who lift and stay slender will keep their sexual worth longer as well, but not nearly as long as in-shape men keep theirs. So the adage that one should strike while the iron is hot is more germane to a woman’s romantic fortunes.

If men over 30 have any advantages in the dating market, they are:
1) MONEY – Very few younger men have any money worth bragging about and da wimminz do LOVELOVELOVE da moolah, all polls to the contrary.

Sure, women love da moolah, but it takes a LOT of moolah to activate a woman’s love programming. Merely being in the top quintile of SES won’t cut it. The entrance fee for unlimited access to poonworld rides is seven figures in the expensive shitlib cities. Given that most men boffing cute girls have nowhere near seven figures, it stands to reason that, although money may be a powerful attractant once accumulated over a very high amount, it’s a rather weak attractant below that number. Other, more important, factors contribute to a man’s success with women.

2) Social status – Very few younger men (athletes, rock stars) have the kind of ss women are looking for, their mostest favoritest sport being social climbing.

Younger men who aren’t musicians or athletes can accrue social status through sheer force of personality. If you make yourself the life of the party, women will notice. And, always worth reminding recalcitrant readers, BOLDNESS is itself a sign of a man’s social status. If you approach girls uncompromisingly, they will adorn you with a higher status than you would otherwise have had if you stayed in your little corner staring at them lustily.

The ZFG part is more something that benefits you, the guy, internally, as it makes failure easier to deal with.

ZFG does more, far more, than simply make courtship failure easier for a man to deal with, (specifically which in Game terminology is called “outcome independence”). Zero Fucks Given is an ATTITUDE, expressed manifold ways through a man’s words, behavior, and body language, that women have FINELY TUNED VAJDAR for recognizing, because it is in women’s DARWINIAN INTERESTS to hook up with and fall hard for men whose attitude suggests they could TAKE OR LEAVE those women. This kind of man is desirable BECAUSE he acts like he’s desirable. And desirable men have OPTIONS, which they show by never bending over backwards to appease or impress any one woman.

It’s not something she’s going to pick up on at da club, not even with her magical powers of ‘female intuition’ ESP………

Yes, she is. This is the gripe of someone who hasn’t been in a heated sex market arena in a long time. No ESP required. Women have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and tingling pussies for which men are high value, just like men have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and boners for which women are high value. Men react instinctively to the sight of a beautiful, height-weight proportionate young woman. Women react equally instinctively to the company of a masculine, devilishly charming, self-confident, ZFG man.

The sexual market is the prime market exactly because its machinations are governed by instinct instead of by considered forethought. It’s hard to undermine human instinct, though our Equalist Overlords are doing their level best to do just that.

Read Full Post »

There’s no question the Trump Temptresses are more attractive than the Hillary Harpies. The photographic evidence accumulates with every rally and selfie. Trump women flaunt hourglass figures and bubble with estrogen. Hillary Hags bomb the retinas with volumetric flask-like waistlines and attitudes dripping caustically with androgen overload.

So it is with no surprise that supporters of TheCunt can be so easily triggered merely by holding up a mirror to them. They know their visages say more about their worldview than any 12,000-word New York Beta Times article could glowingly conceive for them.

CH Maxim #200: Pointing out a feminist’s masculine, ugly physiognomy or a manlet’s androgynous physiognomy is reliable shorthand for their politics.

(One Twatterlord put it pith-wise, “You can tell a man’s politics from his upper body strength. A woman’s by her waist size.”)

Swinging this around to the topic of Game and politics, reader Freereel forwards,

[H]ere’s a great strategy cribbed from the blog Poseidon Awoke:

“Let’s face it, Bernie and Hillary have a terrible branding problem: their supporters are just not attractive. Have you seen Hillary supporters? Lena Dunham is a perfect example. Yuck.

On the other hand, beautiful women love Trump and masculine men want to be Trump. I’ve even seen some predictions of a Trump-inspired baby-boom, which is certainly possible.

As I’ve said before, I spend some of my time in the Trenches meme-ing things into reality. And a Trump presidency is one of those things. I’ve also been learning from Vox Day about the difference between rhetoric and dialectic. When someone attacks Trump with some nonsense charge, a dialectician will attempt to counter with a logical argument, facts and reason. However, humans are rarely persuaded by dialectic. Humans are persuaded by rhetoric. So, I have a new kill shot for those who attack Trump. I post a picture of a hot Trump supporter.

Because Hillary and Bernie supporters are cat-ladies and low-T bronies, they are unattractive, so they have no response. Images like these arouse normal males to want the girl that supports Trump. It’s just animal instinct. Women want to be like the women that men want, so they want to be this girl. This is rhetoric in action. No words, just a picture of a hot Trump supporter. Luckily, there are millions of hot Trump supporters.

It’s a kill shot.

Pickup and politics are kissing cousins. Both utilize the principles of seduction to win the hearts of women and of voters. One paramount Game concept — amused mastery — is the courtship equivalent of meme-worthy rhetoric. In practice, amused mastery manifests as quippy retorts to women’s shit tests, or quasi-juvenile observations of a woman or her surroundings, or dismissive indifference to a woman’s tantrums and dramatics. This is the stuff of ZFG alpha males, and women LOVE LOVE LOVE it.

Amused mastery in the political sphere would appear as a photo of a fat bluehair Hillary voter or a raging, arm-flapping SJW feminist in id-carving response to some shitlib regurgitating boilerplate shitlibbery. The brutalist juxtaposition is a nuke to her anti-antifragile ego. It’s like when a potential date you’re texting starts asking you what you can do for her and talks about the cool guys she knows, and you reply with a Birthday Cat emoji. A rapport break like that can’t be answered. All she can do is laugh with growing desire at your alpha impudence.

Dialectic is the preferred form of communication when level-headed White men are drawing up policies to ensure prosperity for their nation and a future for their posterity. But we don’t live in that world anymore. Our world is tribal wagon-circling and feral women. Dialectic falls on deaf ears in an Idiocracy and in a Jizzocracy.

Rhetoric has the stage now. The beta male who patiently and thoroughly explores all the logical implications of a woman’s emotional extemporizing will bore her to tears. No sex for him. As it is in 2016 American politics; the cuckservative who patiently and thoroughly explores all the Constitutional implications of a liberal’s destructive anti-White animus will ostracize himself from the public discourse. No influence for him.

The ideal set-up for the alt-right rebel is rhetoric + dialectic. Get your kill shot in, then cow the others with an unanticipated foray into informed dialectic. This is a war that needs its meme MOABs as much as its persuasion personnel.

Read Full Post »

The newest thought-stopping libfag incantation to join classics such as “It’s [the current year]”, “I can’t even”, and “right side of history”, is “That’s not who we are”. You can hear our esteemed pleaders like president Gay Mulatto, TheCunt, and Paul “I can’t put my ankles any farther behind my ears” Ryan saying it, especially in response to Donald J. Trump’s eminently sensible accusation in the AIDS-soaked wake of the Orlando gay nightclub shooting that Muslim immigration to America presents a dire threat to citizens.

(It really does. A Muslim in America is 5,000% more likely to commit an act of terror than a non-Muslim American. As one alt-right shiv-wielder on Twatter wrote to preempt the predictable shitlib response: “Oddly enough, I don’t find the position that we have an ample supply of idiots and bad guys here a compelling reason to import more.”)

What does “that’s not who we are” really mean? As with all shitlibboleths, there’s nothing of substance underneath the faggy pomp. Pin down a lib on this empty slogan and he’ll twist in the wind whistling through his empty skull trying to come up with a coherent explanation. Are we all self-hating Whites? Are we all avatars of altruistic love eager to permit the resettlement of 7 billion foreigners into our neighborhoods and homes? Are we all similarly disposed to redirect our rational fear of Muslim terrorism onto law-abiding White men who aren’t sufficiently prostrate to the reigning equalist narrative?

The reality is that when shitlibs with an affinity for Islam and the Other, and a kneejerk resentment of Whites, (like the Gay Mulatto), say “that’s not who we are”, what they mean, more precisely, is “that’s not who the degenerate freak mafia are”. And that would be true. The degenerate freak mafia, of which the spiteful half-breed Obama is a proud member, are not friends of common sense, not given to honest appraisal of reality, not advocates of pattern recognition, not guarantors of a livable nation for their posterity, not satisfied with a personal quiet ethics that substitutes for a public virtue signaling, not psychologically capable of race realism, and not visceral defenders of what is true and beautiful.

That is not who they are, and the sooner Americans know this about them, the quicker they will be cast out to the prolapsed wastelands where they can be who they are all by themselves….until they get sick and tired of their own company and stop being who they are in a bathtub of warm water.

Read Full Post »

Commenter maldek regurgitates a shopworn belief among a certain set of manospherians concerning the ability of LSMV women to get sex.

Women at 58 – even much worse looking and overweight women – CAN get dates easily.

No they can’t. More on this below.

They can get as much sex as they want easily. Quantity is not a problem.

Yes it is. More on this below.

The problem is, the quality of mate. Dates are from younger guys who can get laid in their own age group or younger so they date older. Or from guys their own age or older who are in one way or the other SMV rejects and have no other options.

Man with options with an SMV of 7 or higher can and prefer to date younger pussy. This hurts the old hotty even more than it hurts the overweight ex-housewife, because she is used to male attention of the 8+ area and now has to decide between low quality flesh and high quality plastic inside of her lady parts. More often than not, its the later.

Look, you don’t need SCIENCE! to tell you that fat, ugly, and old chicks have trouble getting laid. If you enjoy a halfway-respectable social life, you’ll notice time and again that the unattractive girls show up to parties and events alone, and leave alone, no man to escort them home for post-party boffing. It happens so often no one really blinks an eye, because it’s expected. If you DO need SCIENCE!, please consult the CH archives for studies clearly finding that fat chicks have sex less often than slender babes.

In the real world, fatties, fuglies, oldies and, less frequently, super hot sexpot ingenues with a case of BPD, are the ones who never seem to have a boyfriend when they meet up with their social groups. The sexpots are BF-less for a different reason: they play the field so much they’ve forgotten how to identify a quality man worth slowing down for and stashing the crazy in the crawl space.

The SMV hierarchy of “ease of getting laid” looks like this (note that ease of getting laid does not necessarily imply fulfillment of sex opportunities), in descending order of ease:

Alpha females (HB 8s, 9s and 10s)
Super Alpha males
Beta females
Alpha males
Beta males
Omega females
Omega males

Fat, ugly and old women are essentially omega females in the sexual market, and that’s reflected in the fact they have as much, perhaps more, trouble getting laid as do garden variety beta males. In line with what we know about biomechanics and sex differences in reproductive goals, Omega Females are the instant sexual access equivalent of Beta Males. They don’t get sex offers, direct or indirect, as often as prettier girls, and when they do get laid it’s usually with flings who aren’t their first choice and who don’t even feign a promise of commitment to a longer term agreement.

Omega males have it the worst, and can often go years without so much as a whiff of womb flower.

(Note the curiosity that beta females — 4s, 5s, and 6s — have an easier time getting laid than regular alpha males. The cheapness of sperm guarantees that even alpha males have to put a little legwork in to find a willing buyer.)

So while it is true that in general women can get sex easier than can men, in the particulars we see that this truth varies by the sexual marketability of the woman in question, just as it does for men. What we can say with certainty that applies to all men and women is that the curve for women’s “ease of getting laid” is shifted to the rawdog right of the same curve for men. But there are still plenty of women on the left side of their sex-getting curve who languish as insols for uncomfortable lengths of time.

There’s another psychological dynamic that puts the lie to the “ugly girls can get laid whenever they want” mantra. Women simply don’t emotionally or mentally process their ability to get laid the same way men do for themselves. If a fat chick can slum it with a piss-stained bum, that’s no comfort to her ego. Even if she has an easier time getting hobo dick than a similarly LSMV man has getting fatty furrow, that reality won’t resonate with a positive assessment of her self-conception.

Succinctly, women don’t count loser men as validation of their sexual desirability, (just as they don’t count vacation sex or anal sex as points toward their lifetime partner count). A bum willing to fuck a fat chick just won’t register in her brain as evidence that she can get laid whenever she wants. For women, the only men that register as proof positive of their feminine allure are quality men with options who have willingly chosen them over others, instead of having been chosen because the woman was desperate.

Some manosphere types (and a lot of bitterbitch feminists) forget this because, just like feminists, they frequently dupe themselves into projecting their male sensibilities onto women. That never works. Notch count, and the ability to inflate it, has a different meaning for men and women. However, their wrongness on this subject does spring from a premise with a small kernel of truth: ultimately, sex-getting comparisons between men and women are inherently flawed, because women are, barring exceptions, the receiving sex, and men are the achieving sex. Women wait to receive the sex of a bold sex-getting man emotionally judged worthy of their reception, while men are moved to action to achieve the sex of a beautiful sex-receiving woman penilely judged worthy of their injection.

Because of this intractable psychological and behavioral difference between the sexes, it’s difficult to say with precision that this man and that woman have equal capabilities to easily get laid. The man may have a shy personality or religious feeling that limits his easy sex opportunities, and the woman may be surrounded by timid men who incidentally limit her easy sex opportunities. For this reason, the evidence that fat chicks can’t get laid easily is even more damning than at first blush, given that they have to betray their native womanhood and allow emotional distress into their lives when they chase after men to get the sex they aren’t getting by waiting around passively for a man to approach them unsolicited.

In the big picture, though, the Thirsty Beta Male = Thirsty Omega Female formulation is a useful shorthand. Refer to this post the next time some butthurt blowhard goes on at length about how women have it so great because even the ugly ones can get sex on demand.

Read Full Post »

It’s been said by others, but it’s worth reiterating here. Open borders are an impossibility. If you remove one border, two more, smaller, borders will be created in its place. It’s like the titular creatures from Gremlins. Spill water on one, and five more mogwai spawn.

The logic is inescapable. A big border protects a lot of smaller entities within the territory it rings. Abolish the big border, and small borders will organically arise to protect the smaller entities that were once protected as a whole behind one big umbrella border. Abolish the small replacement borders, and still smaller borders will be formed to protect the integrity of the multiplying units of partitioned entities and territories.

For real life examples of this phenomenon in action, see any gated community, school with metal detectors, or bulletproof glass-enclosed 7-Eleven check-out counter. If you remove the national border, the citizens will respond to their unwelcome vulnerability by erecting borders around that to which they can still control entry.

Open borders libertardians like Cheap Chalupas either are too stupid to understand this or, more likely, are too disingenuous to bother understanding. Perhaps for them, ensconced in the swaddle of their own leafy, 95% White, high trust suburban borders, the recursively multiplying, mitotically dividing, expanding universe of atomized borders and supporting Surveillance State machinery necessary in a Diversitopia are a feature instead of a bug. If that’s how they think, then here’s to hoping their cushioned principles are put to the test the best possible way: with swift and unremitting exposure to the reality of the borderless world they champion.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,589 other followers

%d bloggers like this: