Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

A study with a decent sample size (N = 274 female participants) found that the index finger to ring finger ratio (2D:4D) in women predicts their potential risk of cheating.

Being more exposed to the sex hormone oestrogen in the womb leads to women’s index fingers growing longer than their ring finger.

By contrast, being exposed to more of the male sex hormone testosterone in the womb has a more ‘masculinising’ effect – and results in a longer ring finger and a shorter index finger.

Men with longer ring fingers than index fingers have been found to be better sportsmen.

Eiluned Pearce of Oxford University carried out the research which has been published in a Royal Society Journal.

She took measurements of the finger lengths of 274 female volunteers and also sampled their DNA.

They also completed psychological tests on their relationship quality.

She found that ‘women with higher (more feminine) left hand digit ratios are more impulsive and rate their romantic relationships less favourably.’ She added that the finding is ‘intriguing, because the opposite might be expected’.

Ok, a few words of caution. As with any sociosexuality research that relies in part on self-report surveys, take it with a grain of salt. Women lie, and women lie a lot when the question has to do with their romantic longings and sexual history. Women as a sex will “lie down” (heh), meaning they will undercount the number of men they have slept with and will reclassify non-vaginal sex as platonic friendship.

Having said that, we can assume, since women will lie in one direction (to socially signal more chasteness than they in reality possess), that the differences in sexual behavior or relationship satisfaction between high and low finger ratio women would hold as a valid finding, despite the magnitude of those differences possibly skewed by social expectation bias. This would only not be the case if, for some reason, high finger ratio women and low finger ratio women lied at different frequencies. That is, if high 2D:4D women lied more about their romantic lives than low 2D:4D women lied about theirs, we could not trust any uncorrected self-report data that attempted to compare the two groups.

This isn’t an idle misgiving. It’s plausible that very feminine women are more disposed to lying about their chasteness than are masculinized women, given that femininity is in general associated with a greater sensitivity to social pressure and with affinity for emotional manipulation of others.

One more word of caution: the researchers appear to have used “impulsivity” and “dissatisfaction with relationship” as proxies for “higher likelihood of cheating”. These aren’t equivalent, despite the former two characteristics being a leading indicator of the latter risk. Dissatisfied women in relationships can conceivably control themselves and resist infidelity……

HAHAHAH OH MY GOD HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I KEEL MYSELF

….but that’s not the way to bet.

Still, based on my experience with women, I believe this study has touched on a truth about women that would be more brightly illuminated with better methodology.

In the research paper, she speculates that women with the higher index finger to ring finger ration are likely to be ‘more feminized’ and more highly sought after by males.

Because they know they have a lot of options, ‘this might be associated with dissatisfaction with current partners’ and this might lead to flings – or as the scientists call it ‘opportunistic mating’ and ‘impulsive’ mating with men who are not their husband or partner.

The two main strategies in sex are ‘opportunistic mating’ – in other words having lots of flings – and a strategy ‘focusing on long-term commitment’.

She writes that ‘If females with more feminised morphology [body shape] have higher ‘mate value’,

SMV: sexual market value.

The Chateau isn’t an outpost of the world; the world is an outpost of the Chateau.

this might be associated with dissatisfaction with current partners, leading to impulsive extra-pair matings and seeking alternative mates.’

Finger length ratio is a well-tread topic at the Chateau. There has been debate whether masculinized or feminine women are more likely to cheat (proponents of the former reasoning that women with high T are hornier and thus cheat risks), but this study says more feminine women are the cheat risks, which validates a classic Chateau pearl necklace of wisdom:

Options = Instability

The researchers also looked at the ratio of index finger to ring finger lengths in males, but did not find any connection with relationship quality.

FYI, there is very little discrepancy between the finger ratios of gay and straight men. If anything, gay men have slightly more “masculine” ratios.

That last bit about the dearth of evidence for a digit ratio-to-relationship quality correlation in men is very telling. It indirectly supports my observation that women make holistic assessments of male mate quality, seeking out a panoply of hsmv traits in men, some of which contradict each other. As such, the playing field is open to men of varying masculinity and femininity — think on, for example, how common it is to see brooding artist soyboys and musclehead jocks with cute girls — and how that might manifest biologically in a natural selection process that neither favors nor disfavors for long high 2D:4D men over low 2D:4D men.

It’s interesting to speculate on the existence of Darwinian balances that keep lower digit ratio men in the game, and further to speculate that this is the reason why there isn’t a connection between a man’s digit ratio and his relationship quality.

That connection is easier to see when looking directly at the source of a man’s happiness: his woman’s beauty, or lack thereof. Forget male finger ratios; if you want to know if a man is satisfied in his relationship, just ask yourself if you would eagerly fuck his girlfriend or wife. If yes, he’s happy.

Read Full Post »

Study: People with fewer sex partners report happier marriages

The Shitlantic is just now getting around to reporting on a subject which was discussed extensively years ago on this very ‘umble blog. Yes, Virginia, sluts really do make bad wives. Sluts are unhappier in marriages, which makes them higher infidelity (and cuckoldry) risks.

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a slutty woman your wife.

Inevitably, the femcunts of muffstream media will bend the knee(s) to Chateau Heartiste, and take all of my lovefacts. (It’s a mouthful)

The more interesting part of this particular sociological affirmation of Chateau teachings is the finding that men with a lot of premarital partners aren’t as unhappy in marriage as are women with a lot of premarital cockas.

Over at the Institute for Family Studies, Nicholas Wolfinger, a sociologist at the University of Utah, has found that Americans who have only ever slept with their spouses are most likely to report being in a “very happy” marriage. Meanwhile, the lowest odds of marital happiness—about 13 percentage points lower than the one-partner women—belong to women who have had six to 10 sexual partners in their lives. For men, there’s still a dip in marital satisfaction after one partner, but it’s never as low as it gets for women…

In fact, men with 6-10 premarital partners report the same level of marital happiness as men with 2-3 partners. (It seems men who aren’t virgins are happier if they have sampled more than five pussies. For men, a point is reached when quantity becomes its own quality.)

Women with 6-10 premarital partners are the unhappiest in marriage.

Even funnier, from a biomechanical point of view, marital happiness actually ticks up a bit from men with 11-20 sex partners to men with 21+ partners.

For both sexes, entering marriage in a virginal state provides the happiest outcome.

This all makes complete sense looked through a “cheap sperm, expensive egg” filter: men are wired to compartmentalize sex, to better spread the seed. All else equal, a man with hangups about casual sex won’t be as reproductively successful as a man who can love em and leave em, and live to settle down with a marriageable woman when his rigor has mortised.

So for men, past performance is not as indicative of future marital satisfaction as it is for women, who are psychologically scarred a little bit more with each cock that carves their sugar walls. Women aren’t wired to “spread the egg” (they don’t have that many to spread, and they can’t walk away from a pregnancy like men can do); they are wired to hoard the egg and save it for high quality seed. This explains why sluts are unhappy in monogamy; they have given their eggs away so often and so profligately that no man they marry could possibly register in their hindbrains as the zenith of penis. Too many cocks have come and gone that it has messed with sluts’ ability to bond to men.

Virginal brides, by contrast, will explode with lovingtightness upon surrender to the nuptial cock, because they have no other cock with which to compare their husband’s cock. By default, the virgin perceives marital cock to be the finest quality seed she could get. Some call that love.

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, when it comes to sex, less experience is better, at least for the marriage,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist and senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (and an Atlantic contributor). In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce, while those with 10 or more were most likely. These divorce-proof brides are an exclusive crew: By the 2010s, he writes, just 5 percent of new brides were virgins. And just 6 percent of their marriages dissolved within five years, compared with 20 percent for most people.

5%? So you’re saying I have a chance! (I wonder how the percentage of new bride virgins tracks over generations. I’m willing to bet ours is the least virginal era in all of Western history.)

Only 6% of virgin-bride marriages dissolved. Well, no kidding. Given the dearth of virgins in Post-America, the man who locks one down would be a fool to let her go.

Let that be a lesson, ladies:

If you want a loving man for the rest of your life
Never take a cocka before your wedding night.

By the way, the fact of modrenity that virgins are as rare as unused buttplugs in CNN anchor desks portends horrible outcomes for civilization, as it has formed in the American miasma. As age at first marriage increases, the number of female virgins approaches zero. Few women will hold out until age 30, so if women aren’t getting married until then, good luck finding a virgin whose vagina is a Chinese finger trap instead of a hallway. Many MANY more marriages will be miserable for both parties because

a. the wrinkled newlywed bride is past her nubile peak and

b. she’s corrupted by a caravan of cocks.

(a) will reduce a man’s ardor to provide and protect, and (b) will induce a woman’s ardor to cheat and eject.

You can thank shitliberalism and the Pill for this slutty state of gnawingly empty affairs.

It doesn’t matter in practice whether sluttiness causes marital unhappiness, or is correlated with marital unhappiness. If you are a man seeking to enslave yourself in bonds that you think will sit lightly on your limbic limbs, then your best bet is to wife up a woman who doesn’t have a variety of sexual experiences. That is, go for the virgin, or near-virgin, before choosing the “woman who knows what she wants in the bedroom”.

You can teach a virgin to be a better lover; you can’t teach a slut to be a purer lover.

In the final analysis, once-frequent commenter Man Who Was Thursday condensed all these lovefacts about virgins and sluts and marital unhappiness into a pithy phrase:

Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.

PS The lead author of this study is Nicholas Wolfinger. Not a J_w? (If not, it would explain the mass droppage of realtalk.)

PPS Relevant:

Ha! An otherwise perfect meme marred by one flawed assumption: that slut grandma wouldn’t have died childless, in the paws of her adoring cats.

Heather asks the questions the legacy won’t,

Is a slut’s chance of dying alone with cats eating her eyeballs, equal to the chance she has mystery meat grandchildren?

Read Full Post »

Recall the classic CH post “Hotter Women, Better Sex“. It set off a firestorm of wow just wows from feminists and betaboys who wandered into the free fire zone. That post put forth a self-evident proposition that would seem profound and dangerous in our age of willful ignorance:

The hotter the woman, the better the sex will be for the man banging her.

I suspect the people who think that men chase hot girls the most feverishly so as to lord it over other men have an agenda.  They want to believe that human nature is not immutable; that with the right amount of peer pressure and fist-shaking at the media juggernaut men’s desires can be altered — tamed — to accommodate their conceit.  And pride is malleable where thermonuclear blasts of lust are not.

If, on the other hand, men pursue the best-looking women at the behest of hidden compulsions buried deep in the reptilian cores of their brains, then there is nothing can be done to change this fact of manhood and what it means for less attractive girls.

How your body responds to a woman during sex tells the tale.  The hotter I find the girl, the better the sex is, all else being equal.  Since men remember sex acts with crystal clear clarity, it’s easy for me to recall the exact specifications of my sexual encounters with each woman in my life.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but my jizzbombs were heavier and the distance ejected farther with the prettier girls.  Since this is something I cannot consciously control, it is proof of the innate characteristics of the male sex drive.

A dandy and indeed handy chart was included:

In the interest of science, I’ve put my beauty-to-cumload comparison in a handy chart:

hotness of woman               size of load               squirt distance
0                                            *                                *
1                                            *                                *
2                                            *                                *
3                                            pre-cum only           had to be squeezed out
4                                            droplet                      dribble
5                                            <5 grams                  2 cm
6                                            fills bellybutton        3 inches
7                                            1 tbsp                         8 inches
8                                            2 tbsps                       1.5 feet
9                                            1/4 cup                       3 feet
10                                          gallon**                      5 yards**

*insufficient data
**extrapolation

Years later, SCIENCE would tardily catch up to Chateau wisdom and vindicate that handy dandy chart presenting the direct connection between female hotness and male lust:

Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age.

***

I think the abstract speaks for itself. However, for the benefit of the short bussers: The men in the study got harder, stronger, bigger boners with the physically better-looking women. The men also had more frequent sex when they were having it with younger, hotter, tighter women. And finally, the men reported more sexual satisfaction when their sexual partners were hotter, thinner women with sexy hourglass shapes.

Young, slender, hot babes are nature’s Viagra, capable of inflating even an old man’s wrinkled wurst to heights of former glory.

But wait, there’s more! The “hotter women = better sex” CH aphorjism has, once again, been indirectly confirmed by scientific vigor (this time in a manner taken from the woman’s point-of-view, “bigger jizzbombs = happier women”). Courtesy of Rolf Degen, one of the few remaining bright spots on Twatter, a study shows

About half of all women reported getting off on men’s ejaculation.

***

The Importance of Male Ejaculation for Female Sexual Satisfaction and Function

That face you make when you came but ¡SCIENCE! still sucking.

I’ll unpack the goodness stuffed into that study.

  1. half of women have stronger orgasms when their men ejaculate first
  2. half of women have stronger orgasms when their men’s jizzbombs are fuller, thicker, farther
  3. women who considered their partner’s ejaculation an important part of their sex lives had better lifelong sexual functioning
  4. a significant minority of women considered jizzbomb volume, distance, and accompanying theatrics a reflection of their own attractiveness
  5. the size of a man’s load was especially important to a woman’s self-perceived SMV (“the perception of a large ejaculation volume can make the woman feel sexy and wanted”)

Talk about a BOMBSHELL of a study. The CH formulation — hotter women means better sex for men — is confirmed accurate by its inverse: more intense blasts of ropey jizz mean women with higher self-esteems because their desirability as sexual objects is expulsively validated.

Or: the reinforcing feedback loop runs both ways: men are more aroused by hotter women, and women feel hotter when men are more aroused, (especially if the male arousal takes the form of something that is outside a man’s conscious control, such as the size, strength, texture and distance of his ejaculate).

From this, we can safely conclude jizz volume and distance are predictive of relationship strength, because a woman who feels sexier and hotter with her man is a woman who won’t be eager to blow up the relationship. And a man who cums harder with a woman similarly won’t be cavalier about losing access to a rare pleasure-maximizing input.

The cosmic order is a harmonious thing of timeless beauty.

PS Short and tall women are sluttier and crazier than medium-height women. So if you want to make a lady your main, find a miss whose height isn’t a strain. (my guess is that short and tall women have to compete more for hsmv male attention, thus the sluttiness and craziness)

Read Full Post »

War is peace
Thots are marriageable
Population displacement is desirable

creeeeeeeeepy

This is where our unaccountable elites are coming from, and it’s funny that they don’t realize how perfectly they fit the fictional roles of Ingsoc apparatchiks working for the Ministry of Truth.

Sniveling, smug-faced, uptalking bugmen deign to rule over better men. A state of affairs that can’t last.

And it won’t, because…lo!…a rogue realtweeter slipped the shiv in the “UN Migration” Twatter vitals, providing a helpful link to the powerful “Diversity + Proximity = War” Chateau Heartiste reference list.

Faster, please.

Mass immigration is NOT inevitable (else why would our buglords feverishly propagandize its inevitability?)

Mass immigration is NOT necessary (America became a superpower during a time when immigration was massively restricted and the population was 90% White)

Mass immigration is NOT desirable (shitholes don’t make the people; shitty people make the shitholes).

The “UN Migration” group is a BIG LIE

The Chateau is a BIG TRUTH

Choose wisely.

ps I’m surprised my tremendous D+P=W reference list — including links to over 40 research papers and studies and relevant commentary — isn’t more frequently and widely ascii-dropped into the cuckboxes of various blue tick snipdicks, congressional bathhouse regulars, sjw soygoys, Eurocrat shell entities, and National Review fatbags. Or maybe it is, and all the dire rats can do in response is avoid the burn of the sun.

***

Les Saunders, Protestant adds,

Look up William Lacy Swing. He was head of the IOM for many years. He’s actually American (one of the few Americans in UN agencies considering US population and funding there of).

He is a major white genocide operative and the personification of evil.

He is about 90 years old.

By happenstance, I once stood about 7 feet away from him. He radiated evil.

Read Full Post »

If ¡SCIENCE! was a woman, she’d beg me to fill her belly with my champions.

Thanks to the id-exposing carnal house of online dating, a treasure trove of social science data has dropped, and it confirms numerous pearls of wisdom and Game techniques tenderly curated in the Chateau Heartiste Library of Love.

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one’s chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Strategic behaviors — aka GAME — can help a man attract a higher quality girl. Modest? Depends on your definition of success. I’ve always said men shouldn’t expect Game to consistently land them hard 10s, but they can expect to land girls an SMV point or two higher than what they would otherwise manage to pull without Game.

Let’s explore what’s hiding in SCIENCE’s cleavage. First, mate selection studies agree that there is a universal ideal of high sexual market value (SMV, measured as youth and beauty in women and as a combination of traits in men):

It is a common observation that marriage or dating partners strongly resemble one another in terms of age, education, physical attractiveness, attitudes, and a host of other characteristics. One possible explanation for this is the matching hypothesis, which suggests that men and women pursue partners who resemble themselves. This in turn implies that people differ in their opinions about what constitutes a desirable partner or at least about who is worth pursuing. At the other extreme, and more in line with biological studies of mate selection, lies the competition hypothesis, which assumes that there is consensus about what constitutes a desirable partner and that mate seekers, regardless of their own qualifications, pursue those partners who are universally recognized as most desirable. Paradoxically, this can also produce couples who resemble one another in terms of desirability, as the most desirable partners pair off with one another, followed by the next most desirable, and so on. To the extent that desirability correlates with individual attributes, the matching and competition hypotheses can, as a result, produce similar equilibrium patterns of mixing.

The ripples of mate choice that disturb the observable surface of the sexual market indicate much more powerful waves underneath which guide people’s romantic choices.

However, while the two hypotheses may produce similar outcomes, they carry very different implications about the processes by which people identify and attract partners. If there is consensus about who is desirable, then it creates a hierarchy of desirability such that individuals can, at least in principle, be ranked from least to most desirable, and their ranking will predict how and to what extent they are pursued by others. Historically, however, these hierarchies have been difficult to quantify. Since they reflect which partners people pursue, and not just who people end up with, one would need a way to observe unrequited overtures and requited ones to determine who people find desirable. Online dating provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to observe both requited and unrequited overtures at the scale of entire populations.

This explains the category error made by feminists of either sex, by tradcons, and by suckup white knights when they incorrectly conclude that people’s first choice in mate is the mate they end up with. Nope. Bobbing in the wake of every successfully reciprocated choice is the lovelorn detritus of more attractive but unfulfilled choices.

“Aspirational” pursuit of mates completes the full sexual market picture, filling in those blank spaces normally left overlooked by a quantitative data focus on how men and women eventually match up.

We also explore the ways in which people tailor their messaging strategies and message content based on the desirability of potential partners, and how desirability and dating strategy vary across demographic groups.

Play to your audience. Don’t overgame a plain jane, don’t over-beta a hottie.

To study individual desirability, we focus on messages between users of the website in four cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Paper should really be titled, “Aspirational pursuit of shitlib mates”.

 Figure 1 shows the distribution of this quantity separately for men and women in each of the cities. The distribution is roughly consistent across cities, and although women receive more messages than men overall,

Women receive more messages than men. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs. Check.

the distributions for both display a classic “long-tailed” form—most people receive a handful of messages at most, but a small fraction of the population receive far more.

The bottom 10% of women receive fewer than five messages. The bottom 25% of men receive fewer than five messages. Female hypergamy is real. Check.

Corollary: a small fraction of online daters receives most of the messages. Online dating is low investment, low return. Check.

However, desirability is not only about how many people contact you but also about who those people are. If you are contacted by people who are themselves desirable, then you are presumptively more desirable yourself.

The Chateau’s definition of the alpha male co-signed by SCIENCE. Check.

As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older women are less desirable, while older men are more so (1819).

The existence of The Wall and men aging like wine, women like milk, vindicated by SCIENCE. Check.

For women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is 60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines.

Men are expendable, women perishable. Check.
SMV sex-based double standards are real and immutable. Check.
Barely legal sexpots and older charming billionaire werewolf fantasies reflect real romantic desires of each sex. Check.
May-December romances are normal and natural. Check.

In keeping with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on ethnicity (1520), with Asian women and white men being the most desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities.

Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an undergraduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is associated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

LMAO overeducated careerist shrikes BTFO. ps check.

We now turn to the central results of our study. First, we use our desirability scores to explore whether people engage in aspirational mate pursuit (that is, messaging potential partners who are more desirable than they are) and how the probability of receiving a reply varies with the difference in desirability between senders and receivers. […]

The most common (modal) behavior for both men and women is to contact members of the opposite sex who on average have roughly the same ranking as themselves, suggesting that people are relatively good judges of their own place in the desirability hierarchy. The distributions about this modal value, however, are noticeably skewed to the right, meaning that a majority of both sexes tend to contact partners who are more desirable than themselves on average—and hardly any users contact partners who are significantly less desirable.

Note that while both sexes aim out of their league, this has to be weighted against the number of each sex considered attractive enough for sex, and because more women than men get messaged (more men are considered no-gos by women) the result of contacting more desirable prospects is that more women get contacted in general.

…women are more likely than men to receive replies—but among both women and men, the probability of a reply is a decreasing function of desirability gap, more desirable partners replying at lower rates than less desirable ones. The differences are stark: Men are more than twice as likely to receive a reply from women less desirable than themselves than from more desirable ones, and for messages sent to more desirable women, the reply rate never rises above 21%. Yet, the vast majority of men send messages to women who are more desirable than themselves on average. Messaging potential partners who are more desirable than oneself is not just an occasional act of wishful thinking; it is the norm.

Men practice a dragnet strategy; drag the net over the ASCII sea and collect a number of tasty red snappers while keeping the nets open in the hopes of catching that prized sturgeon. Women employ a different strategy; spearfishing. Target only the alpha fish and take aim.

Conditioned on the number of messages sent, men and especially women who reach higher up the desirability ladder tend to write to a less diverse set of potential matches, in terms of desirability gap. This behavior, consistent across all four cities, indicates that mate seekers, and particularly those setting their sights on the most desirable partners, do not adopt a diversified strategy to reduce the risk of being rejected, as one might, for instance, when applying to universities.

Maybe people think very desirable prospects will love them if they “share values” and outlook. Big mistake.

Women initiate far fewer contacts than men, but both sets of curves fall off with increasing desirability gap in all four cities. One might imagine that individuals who make a habit of contacting potential partners significantly more desirable than themselves (large positive desirability gap) would also initiate more contacts overall to increase their chances of getting a reply, but they do the opposite: The number of initial contacts an individual makes falls off rapidly with increasing gap, and it is the people approaching the least desirable partners who send the largest number of messages. A possible explanation is that those who approach more desirable partners are adopting a “quality over quantity” approach, more precisely identifying people they see as an attractive match or spending more time writing personalized messages, at the expense of a smaller number of messages sent.

This seems to be a bad strategy that exists only because online dating is an evolutionarily novel environment that hasn’t yet weeded out people who practice it. I mean, the definition of anti-Game is trying too hard to impress a more desirable prospect. (Wait for it, because the study addresses my skepticism.)

Both men and women tend to write substantially longer messages to more desirable partners, up to twice as long in some cases. The effect is larger for messages sent by women than by men, although there are exceptions.

Women can be exceptionally cold toward beta males while effusing with egregious feminine ardor for alpha males. Lesson: whether you’re a beta or alpha male, don’t mistake the treatment you get from women for how women treat all men.

Among the groups we study, for instance, it is men in Seattle who have the most pronounced increase in message length.

Seattle is soyboy central. Too much estrogen. Very sad!

[Of the cities studied, Seattle presents the most unfavorable dating climate for men, with as many as two men for every woman in some segments of the user population (fig. S1)].

Isn’t pantifa headquartered in Seattle? No wonder they’re so worked up.

Here, we see an interesting difference between women and men: The women show an increase in their use of positive words when communicating with more desirable partners, while the men show a decrease. The effect size is modest but is consistent across all four cities and statistically significant (P < 0.001; table S4).

Subconsciously, men perceive their upbeat motivational emoting to be a value lowering trait in the company of cute babes. Evidence for the evolved neg?

Buckle up, because here comes the big payoff in term of implications for effective Game tactics used in the seduction of women:

in all four cities, men experience slightly lower reply rates when they write more positively worded messages. Although our analysis cannot reveal the underlying process that gives rise to these behaviors (for example, reinforcement learning), this result may offer a hint about why men tend to write somewhat less positive messages to more desirable partners.

Men have more success at getting responses from more desirable women if the men send less enthusiastic messages. Be A Challenge, Flip The Script, Skittles Man and Bring Da Movies strategies vindicated.

On average, people pursue partners who are roughly 25% more desirable than they themselves are. In the language of matching and competition introduced at the start of this article, it appears that people are pursuing a hybrid strategy with elements of both—they are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their behavior accordingly while, at the same time, competing modestly for more desirable mates.

If you really want to bang and date an HB8, you’ve got to compete immodestly for the hotties and modestly for less desirable girls. Turn that message rate pyramid upside down; more messages to the hotties, fewer messages to the wannabe thotties.

Our results on aspirational mate pursuit are consistent with the popular concept of dating “leagues,” as reflected in the idea that someone can be “out of your league,” meaning that attractive matches are desirable for but unavailable to less attractive others. Provided that leagues are envisaged as a single continuous hierarchy rather than as distinct strata, our results suggest that, contrary to popular belief, attracting the attention of someone out of one’s league is entirely possible.

Related, I’ve long had to correct misinterpretations of my Dating Market Value categorization system in which ignorant or bad faith readers assume concepts like alpha male and beta male are discrete entities rather than (as this study’s authors state about “dating leagues”) continuous SMV hierarchies.

One might wonder how the patterns we observe online might inform our understanding of offline mate pursuit and dating markets. Online dating differs from offline dating in several important ways (25). Because of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely fiercer online than offline. This may increase the extent to which a hierarchy of desirability exists online and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of fish in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back. It has also been suggested that consensus about what makes an attractive partner is strongest in the early stages of courtship, when partners do not know as much about one another (2627). While it is difficult to study early courtship offline—our method requires unrequited overtures, which are hard to observe in offline interactions—these differences suggest that hierarchies of desirability may be more pronounced online than off.

Now where have we all read this before? Oh yeah. And oh yeah.

Bloody hell, will SCIENCE ever stop slurping my knob?

Read Full Post »

From a 1963 porno mag:

The cock carousel has a rich Crimson Pill history.

The seeds of America’s decline were already evident in the sexual abandon of women unleashed by mid-20th Century. What we’re dealing with now is a post-patriarchal culture set in motion many decades ago.

As with all post-patriarchal cultures, demise is guaranteed because abandoning benevolent patriarchy violates fundamental sexual polarity rules which govern relational dynamics between the sexes.

As a reader put it, “Men adapt to nature. Women adapt to man.”

Read Full Post »

I’ve been meaning to start up a Stone Cold Truth T-shirt Company monetized through something like CafePress, but, well, life, like my meat, intrudes. It’s too bad, really, because perusing back issues of this blogsheet reminds me of all the stick figure drawings and verbal jujitsu that would look great emblazoned on a pec-hugging v-neck, to be worn to da clubs to provoke tingle-gushing shit tests.

ANYHO, a Gabster thought the following by yours truly — an ASCII tablet of inscribed Chateau Principles inspired by a stray musing about the nature of the power of sophistic skypery — would make a great graphic tee:

Jews understand that a coherent, pithy world view can subvert civilizations. Right back atcha, schlomo inc, the chateau world view, annotated:

Chicks dig power
Men dig beauty
Equalism is a lie
Sex differences are real
Race differences are real
Culture is race
Race is genes
and the hour is late

There’s a dissident business owner on Gab who goes by the handle @cryptofashion who may be interested in seeing my Weltanschauung on a line of t-shirts, papuan cock sleeves, beach towels, and bikini bottoms (waif font required).

It’s time to Make Shitlibs Uncomfortable Again.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: