Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ugly Truths’ Category

A couple weeks ago, CH wrote:

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

A day ago, a mainstream Hivemind megaphone had an article about some old skank who slept with a bunch of losers while her cucked beta husband — although bless him he managed to prevent this feminist crone from reproducing — meekly acquiesced to his wife’s spiritual eatpraycumguzzle journey. Oh, and the raging narcissist wrote a book about it all.

Get ready for “The Wild Oats Project.” And not just the book. Get ready for “The Wild Oats Project” phenomenon — the debates, the think pieces, the imitators and probably the movie. Get ready for orgasmic meditation and the Three Rules. Get ready for “My Clitoris Deals Solely in Truth” T-shirts.

The reader who forwarded the article noted, “Are you psychic? Right on queue the mainstream media shows up with a trial balloon for polyamory.”

Psychic? Only a little. Mostly, leftoids are just really easy to read.

Yep, open marriages full of wonder and free of hostility or jealousy will be the newest old frontier the replicant Leftoid Industries will attempt to normalize as authentically human. After that’s accomplished (bet on it), gay pederasty is next.

Legal and social sanction of polyamory is not the same as widespread embrace of the sex at dawn lifestyle. That hoped-for popular embrace of polyamory by the left-behinds of society may never come, if current arrangements are indicative of future compositions. FACT: Most open polyamorists are hideously ugly. Polyamory is not the free choice of physically and psychologically attractive people. FACT: The typical nasty three-way in a willingly conjoined open relationship is one leather-faced high T cougar whose labia could survive the chemical bath of deep sea volcanic vents, one wretched, low T omega male “primary” whose job it is to sniff the cuckcum in his wanton whore’s granny panties and masturbate, and one slightly higher T (or, more accurately, lower E) beta male who couldn’t afford an internet connection for better quality virtual vagina.

Ad revenue for major Hivemind media organs has been dropping like a stone. I guess they’ve decided to say “fuck it” to serious journalism and let loose with the technicolor ejaculate of their gnarled ids.

Read Full Post »

European natives are grappling with the issue of free speech. Reader Cortesar writes,

“European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” [is] a model law which defines the limits of tolerance”

It is safe to say that Orwell is turning in [his] grave overwhelmed by jealousy. How in the hell he could not come up with such a brilliant concept as “a framework for promotion of tolerance which defines the limit of tolerance

——————————————————————————————————
“We need practical solutions and so we have prioritised the adoption of the European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance.”

This Model Law, drafted by leading European experts and legislators, and supported by the EJC, defines the limits of tolerance, which is the demand for security. This is intended to be a pan-European law that for the first time deals with not only the general commitment to tolerance, but defines the values that needs preserving and the limitation of tolerance towards
minority groups who risk the security of other minorities and of their host countries.
——————————————————————————————————-

Behold the universally beneficial uses of high IQ.

It comes down to this: Free speech, small government, community trust, and, among other virtues, a public sphere blessedly unpolluted by leftoid newspeak, are incompatible with a massive, multiracial, legalistic conglomerate of spineless cowards, pacified matrix pods, and malicious parasites. America and the EU will have to break apart if they are to survive united.

UPDATE

Related: Commenter Flip notices the belching of the Hivemind Hatemachine:

I went to one of the Ivy League colleges and flip through the alumni magazine, and every page is dripping with hostility to straight, white, Gentile males.

That’s the alpha and omega of 21st century America right there. Underneath all the stürm und drang it’s just white hot hatred for flyover straight white gentile men. Time to throw a wrench in the machine.

Read Full Post »

What men are subconsciously thinking when they litter their texts and chats to women with smilies:

this will show her how happy and upbeat i am! i’m so enthused to be talking to her. so enthused! she will like me more when she sees how enthused i am that an electronic blip on a screen is making me horny big time.

What women are subconsciously thinking when they receive texts and chats littered with smilies from men:

ugh gross. that’s his fourth smiley. why is he trying so hard? he must not get laid much. if no other women want him, why would i want him? next.

CH once admonished men against the self-defeating compulsion to send women tons of smilies in an effort to build a romantic connection.

1. Too many smilies and question marks. A good rule of thumb when texting or emailing a girl is simply to refrain from using emoticons or question marks at all. Following this rule will help rewire your brain into mimicking the brain of an alpha.

Some emojis are useful as a pickup tool. But smilies — lots of ingratiating smilies — are the kiss-off of death to any budding ASCII courtship. Women are contemptuous of ingratiating betas, and a surfeit of smilies is a leading indicator of an appeasing man with the character of a chew toy. The smilies are weak.

Now, as it so happens, ♂SCIENCE♂ affirms this CH dictum.

It turns out that men who insert this little guy “:)” in their dating profiles or messages don’t get a good response from the ladies (on a personal note, I’ve heard some women say that the only thing they look forward to less than a smiley or, God forbid, winky face is an unsolicited picture of a dude’s junk… but that’s another story).

After studying a sample of 4,000 members, Zoosk found that men with a “:)” in their profile get 6% less incoming messages and 12% fewer responses to outgoing messages. Using a “:)” in an actual message decreased response rates by a whopping 66%.

You can get your hard truths later, after the party’s over, by waiting for social science studies to percolate through the genderqueersphere, or you can get them now, before the plebes have roused from slumber, as an honored guest of Le Chateau.

Men, on the other hand, love a good emoticon. So much so that women with a “:)” in their profile get 60% more messages.

To a man’s brain, an emotionally open woman is a contender to be a sexually open woman.

But wait!

Zoosk found that using the slightly longer “:-)” emoticon in a message actually increases responses by 13%.

I bet the men using the full “:-)” used it less frequently than the men sending the desperate “:)” configuration used their smiley choice. “:)” lends itself to mass beta spamming.

Ya know, forget all this smiley crap. Just stick with the tried-and-true, matchmaking basics.

“8==========D”

Read Full Post »

Many moons ago, Chateau comptrollers presented their findings on the value of makeup as a sexual market value (SMV) boost for women. Conclusion: Makeup doesn’t add much to the typical woman’s looks. Worse, the value of makeup to women appeared to be declining as a result of massive cultural shifts in the dating market.

Many esteemed, and not so esteemed, guests of CH howled with indignation. Women insisted makeup turned them into beautiful princesses, so skilled was their application that men were utterly fooled by the cosmetic magic. Some men agreed, pointing to before and after photos of celebrities and fashion models as proof of the radical change in appearance that makeup could produce.

But, as CH explained to the disputants, the 0.5 point average SMV boost from makeup is a generalization that applies to the vast majority of women. The few weirdo outliers who experience 2 or more points of SMV increase from makeup are the exceptions who prove the rule.

Now, one is certainly free to disagree with a Heartiste opinion. But, more often than not, that would be a mistake. Right on cue, 🐴SCIENCE🐴 canters into the pen so that CH may ride her toward the sunset, victorious.

Cosmetics have little effect on attractiveness judgments compared with identity.

While at Bangor University’s School of Psychology, Dr Alex Jones, (now at Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania, USA) and colleague, Dr. Robin Kramer of the University of York, recently investigated this question. To do this, they asked participants to rate the same faces with and without makeup, with the restriction that no one person saw the same woman made up and un made-up. If makeup is important for attractiveness, it should overcome the variation in attractiveness between faces easily. But if it contributes little, then the variation between faces could overshadow any benefits of makeup.

The good news was that faces with makeup were rated as more attractive – nothing new there. But when they examined all the variation in attractiveness judgments, they found an application of makeup explained only 2% of this variation. In comparison, the variation between faces accounted for 69%. This was very surprising. It’s perhaps unfeasible for makeup to completely overcome differences between individuals, but the size of its effect on attractiveness is remarkably small.

CH knob status: Polished.

If anything, CH overestimated the SMV boost of makeup. According to this research, the attractiveness enhancing effect of makeup was measly, and hugely overshadowed by the biomechanic, intrinsic differences in the facial bone substructure of women. Or, beauty is DNA deep, ladies, and men can tell the difference between a beautiful face and a plain face no matter how subtly you shade your blush.

What do these results mean? Dr. Kramer, of the Department of Psychology at York, said “These findings show that, while makeup increases attractiveness, it is a very small contributor to attractiveness judgments. […]

The take-home message here seems to be that, for better or worse, our attractiveness is mostly determined by our natural appearance, and wearing makeup will only have a small effect in comparison.”

Don’t misunderstand the message of this post. Makeup may not improve a woman’s looks much, but it does do something. Women should, and will, continue to put the penis on a pedestal and try-hard to please men by using makeup to increase their attractiveness, even when that attractiveness increase is miniscule.

A 2% improvement in one’s odds doesn’t matter much in any endeavor…. except one:

The endeavor to find the highest quality mate possible for oneself.

The sexual market is the ur-market. It is foundational. All other markets — including the venerated economics market — bend their knees to the Sex Market Overlord. We humans may not have the perception to clearly understand or believe that a sex market governs all our actions and behaviors, (as it is the wont of the cosmic force 10 amplifier that the functioning of the sex market should remain opaque to the neural antennae of daily human consciousness), but that doesn’t mean our natural self-deluded state is proof that the sex market is a phantom.

It’s not surprising, then, that men and women will breathlessly grasp at the slimmest advantages to tilt the sexual market playing field in their favor, where the only game that matters is played, and played for a zero sum outcome in a battle as pitched, if not quite as bloody, as any war for survival. It’s why women will color their faces, despite receiving little benefit and less still the morning-after when the ruse is smeared off, for an infinitesimally small leg up over their female competition.

The stakes are that high.

PS With each day, science lends its imprimatur to the CH Dating Market Value Tests. Ladies, head on over and take the test for yourselves. Like 23AndMe, the patented CH DMV test will give you a readout of your overall attractiveness to men, where you rank relative to other women, and what that all means for your romantic prospects and your happiness.

Read Full Post »

From an American Sociological Review research paper, 💋SCIENTISTS💋 (as opposed to feminist “””scientists”””) discover that egalitarian marriages — ones where in practice husbands shoulder a significant amount of the household chores traditionally the province of wives — are arid, sexless wastelands.

This article began by noting that American marriages are more egalitarian today than they were in the past, but scholars have found it difficult to offer a clear interpretation of how egalitarianism has changed the nature of marriage itself. One broad interpretation of egalitarianism is that couples exchange resources across various domains. Moves toward more equality in one area, such as earnings, might thus induce more equal distributions in other areas, like housework, a suggestion that has certainly received extensive investigation. In this article, we asked whether men and women use housework and sex as resources for exchange, or whether other logics govern sexual frequency within marriage.

Following up on the widely publicized claim that by doing more housework, husbands in more egalitarian marriages got more sex, we sought to investigate the links between men’s participation in housework and sexual frequency using nationally representative data. Our findings suggest the importance of gender display for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage: couples where men participate more in core tasks—work typically done by women—report lower sexual frequency. Similarly, couples where men participate more in non-core, traditionally masculine tasks report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender-typed participation in household labor. Additionally, although our main results examined core and non-core labor separately, we note that regressions using the share of total housework (core and non-core combined) also show a negative and significant coefficient for men’s share of housework.

Game, set, match, Sheryl “Lying Shrike” Sandberg. Doing more women’s work in the home will NOT improve a husband’s sex life, as you feminist creeps assert. It will result in the opposite: A gradual weakening of the sexual polarity until a unisexual listlessness consumes the relationship in a quellfire of anhedonia.

Any male feminist who at this point still claims that chipping in with the housework will make his wife happier and their sex life hotter is just fooling himself. Or rationalizing his abject supplication to an overbearing shrew. Housework doesn’t lubricate vagina; acting a dominant man with dropped testes who’d rather swing a splitter than scrub a toilet is what turns on women.

These results—whether using both men’s and women’s reports in a pooled analysis, relying on opposite spouses for reports of our key variables, or relying on men’s or women’s results alone—show that households with a more gender-traditional division of labor report having more sex. The pattern of results suggests the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity.

Sex-traditional division of labor is sexy because, stop the presses, masculinity in men is attractive to women and femininity in women is attractive to men.

Many confounding variables were accounted for in the paper, including overall marital happiness, religion, and sex ideology. None of them mediated the housework-sex frequency interaction. Men who did more girly chores got less nookie; men who did less girly work and more manly outdoors work got more nookie. Women who did more girly work got more nookie; women who did more manly work did no see a change in their sex frequency.

(The bottleneck variable appears to be the type of work that men do. As long as the husband is the whip-hand, the wife will desire him, regardless how much non-core housework she does.)

The lack of interactions or mediation lends support, we argue, to the notion that the operating mechanism is one that links within-couple displays of masculinity and femininity to sexual scripts leading to sexual frequency. […]

Men or women may, in essence, be turned on (however indirectly) when partners in a marriage do more gender-traditional work. Of course, men and women could also be turned off by doing work that is not traditional for their gender.

Feminists and their down-filled male lackeys trying to convince people that women “leaning in” like men, and men “cleaning in” like women, will heat up the bedroom are fighting a losing battle. Because no matter how much propaganda the Hivemind Hatemachine churns out, there’s simply no substitute for the rude reality-based imperatives that harden dicks and slicken pussies.

At the very least, our results are difficult to reconcile with the idea that women trade sex to men for doing what is traditionally viewed as women’s work. Based on our findings, sex seems to lie outside the realm of conventional exchange.

Why do feminists argue against common sense? Why are feminists anti-pleasure? Why do feminists loathe male prerogative? One answer has to do with the intrinsic character of feminists. Most feminists like Sheryl Sandberg are masculinized women, in body and/or in psyche. This deformity of nature arouses their bitterness and motivates their desire to upend normal society to not just acknowledge, but exalt, their peculiar disposition. A psychologically manly broad like Sandberg is nothing like the majority of women, but that leetle inconvenience doesn’t stop her from trying to poison sex relations and rework society to assuage her low-E ego.

The importance of gender has declined over time, but it continues to exert a strong influence over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

Clarification: The importance of gender as a matter of legal redress has increased over time, but despite these immense social and legal pressures to obliterate any differences between the sexes the natural and evolved compulsions deriving from our gender continue to have the final say over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

***

Executive summary: As per usual, non-feminist science shits in feminist faces and slobbers kisses all over the Chateau Heartiste worldview. To preen, or not to preen… that is a silly question. *preen*

Read Full Post »

Back in October, CH wrote, based on social circle confessionals, that gay marriage is a farce.

I’ll let you in on a leetle secret…

Every gay marriage that was talked about was an open relationship.

Not a one of these gays who were married, or planned to get married, held any pretense of practicing monogamy. When the topic of promiscuous married gays came up, the only surprise was the blasé avowal of the fact. The gay men announced their intention to defile the tacit monogamous stricture of marriage with such nonchalance that it would astound them to learn anyone thought they might behave otherwise.

CH didn’t know at the time that the New York Beta Times had already implicitly agreed with the Heartistian premise that gay marriage is a farce.

Many successful gay marriages share an open secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Gay marriage was never primarily about expanding the marital franchise to “historically oppressed groups” in the interest of faaiiiiiirness or haaaaaaaarm reduction, as RAWMUSCLGLUTES Andrew Sullivan perpetually insisted through his fog of roidpouting. Gay marriage is a leftoid equalist project to undermine and eventually to destroy the traditional and biologically heterocentric configuration of marriage. Gay marriage is nothing less than a front in the everlasting equalist war against white male European culture.

Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all “liberation” that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

Gays and lesbians… just like you and me. Except not at all like you and me. And that’s a truth the equalists dearly want to hide from view.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,194 other followers

%d bloggers like this: