Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

The original post is here. VertigoPolitix must be an admirer of Le Chateau. He does an admirable job putting my words to speech.

Read Full Post »

Male preselection, aka the observable reality that the desirability of men to women increases when men are desired by women, gets a boost from ¡SCIENCE!:

Men are more attractive when desired by other women, study finds

Published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers from the Universities of St Andrews, Durham and Exeter believe that a man is given an “attractiveness boost” when he is desired by other women.

This is because he is perceived to be more kind, faithful and a better father.

Right observation, wrong interpretation. These cues may play a role in the additional desirability of preselected men, but they aren’t the primary reason for women’s arousal in the company of men who are surrounded by adoring women. The more honest explanation for the “mate copying effect” in women is that preselected men are proven HSMV commodities — the love of other women validates the preselected man’s sexual worth. Women need this validation because it’s a shortcut to determining if a man would be a quality mate. Why do women, but not men, exploit third party opinion to gauge a potential lover’s worth? Because women are HOLISTIC mate value assessors; women judge a lot more about a man than just his looks. Men predominately rely on their eyeballs to tell them which women are worth pursuing and courting.

The women were asked to rate how attractive they found each image before being shown the average rating given by the rest of the group.

Interestingly, when the women were asked to re-rate each image shortly after, their answer changed in favour of the social information.

On average, a participant changed their initial rating by around 13 per cent when rating the attractiveness of men’s faces depending on what other women had said.

In the zero sum sexual market, even a 1% edge can mean the difference between incel and normielove.

“Women appear to copy the mate preferences of other women but this might simply be because humans have a general tendency to be influenced by the opinions of others,” said research leader Dr Kate Cross.

A strong sex difference operates here. Women tend to be more influenced by group opinion.

A trait which is often seen in female birds and fish, the idea behind mate copying or The Wedding Ring Effect, is that by already being in a relationship or desired by other women, a man has already proven that they have some desirable characteristics.

When a woman sees an ugly man with attractive women, she thinks, “what does he have going on? I must find out.”

When a man sees an ugly woman with attractive men, he thinks, “she’s ugly, they’re gay.”

The findings are also supported by an earlier study from Oklahoma State University which found that 90 per cent of single women were interested in a man they believed was taken, while a mere 59 per cent wanted him when told he was single.

The “wedding ring effect” can be spoofed by single men in two ways: wear a wedding ring, or surround himself with female friends who will act as his wingmen completely unawares of their purpose to him if he chooses exploitation over honesty.

If you decide on the female friend strategy to boost your preselection score, don’t ruin the effect by acting like a gay-ass beta orbiter. You aren’t supposed to give women the impression that you’re a gay bestie helping your girls hook up with chads. You’re supposed to be *that guy* who’s socializing with women whom he may or may not be banging, while still keeping an eye out for fresh meat. And when the girl you’ve got your eye on asks about the nature of your relationships with your female company? “Oh them? They’re my caravan of migrants, always following me around.”

Read Full Post »

Shot:

2016Avowed polyamorists are almost universally VLSMV (Very Low Sexual Market Value). This is especially true of polyandrous arrangements. The male facsimiles who volunteer to be shared by one (ugly) woman are so wretchedly unlovable that only the mentally diseased leftoid webzine Salon can identify with their cause.

2010Maxim #109: Consensual polyamory is a contrived hookup service for undesirable sexual market rejects.

2014Open relationships are almost never two-way.

One party to the “creatively ambiguous” polyamory agreement is getting the metaphorical shaft, and the other the actual shaft. The shafted is typically, but not always, the male (no need to sully the word “man”), whose role is as the eminently mockable “beta bux” (or beta hugs) available for service during those three weeks of the month when the female’s libido goes into hibernation. That he may live with his openly open-legged girlfriend doesn’t mean he’s getting the lion’s share of her vagina. But he is getting the lion’s share of her feelings and tantrums and moodiness. […]

Genuine, egalitarian, open polyamory for all practical purposes doesn’t exist among white Westerners. There’s always one or another party out in the asexual or anhedonic cold, nursing feelings of rejection and traumatic self-doubt. And if that party is a willing participant to his or her sexual/romantic exclusion, it’s a good bet he/she is psychologically broken, mentally unstable, physically repulsive, or suffering from clinically low sex drive. In other words, human trash.

Open relationship participants are almost always hideously ugly.

Polyamory is a mating ground for human rejects. Whatever else it offers, the open relationship ruse assists the comically low value sector of humanity to live amongst each other and experience pleasures of the diseased flesh.

True open relationships are predominantly polyandrous.

The general complexion of contractual open relationships — where all participants are voluntary and aware of proceedings — is one ugly to mediocre-looking woman on the pre-Wall fast track lavishing in the flaccid attention of two or more omega males. Invariably, the more masculine (and it’s all relative, so maybe it’s better to say “the less androgynous”) of the males would be the one who is actually porking her.

Illicit open relationships are predominantly polygynous.

“Open” relationships that form organically from the unspoken (and initially unacknowledged) impulses and romantic decisions of one or another partner nearly always manifest into polygynous arrangements: That is, illicit open relationships are distinguished by one high value alpha male discreetly juggling multiple concurrent female lovers. Pickup artists call the illicit open relationship the MLTR: Multiple Long-Term Relationship. Genghis Khan called it Tuesday. […]

In the real world, the openly polyamorous nirvana of ‘sex at dawn’ is really the circus sideshow abattoir of ‘sex before personal hygiene’.

Chaser:

Thank you, SCIENCE, for once again taking my balls on the chin.

***

PS If our society seems to be efflorescing with more openly proud polyamorous arrangements connecting ugly bluehairs with low T soyboys, that is likely because our society is filling up with more lsmv losers desperate for love and affection. Look around, is America currently an HSMV or LSMV nation? Obesity, pussyhattery, sluttery, and soylent grins are an epidemic.

HSMV men create good times.
Good times create LSMV men.
LSMV men create hard times.
Hard times create HSMV men.

Read Full Post »

I was standing near a couple who appeared to be navigating the psychosexual thickets of a second or third date. White girl and Street Shitter. He was chatting incessantly. She looked depressed. Every so often I caught her checking out my Great Whiteness. I could see the redirected sex thoughts and the rue mingling on her face.

If current dating market trends hold, there’ll be a lot of ruing in post-America. The Rue Side of History.

Read Full Post »

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).

***

Update

I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Read Full Post »

This is The Gay Mulatto’s presidential portrait. Now where have we seen that coverhand* before? Ah yes.

…hands clasped in front of their crotches — is the international symbol of beta maleness. It bespeaks a deep shame of their vestigial masculinity. They cover their junk and hide it from the world, in case some ugly State U cunt is triggered by a micro microaggression. Shocked by the impudence of their twitching members, they beat them down and shroud them in hand-woven burqas. Perhaps one or two of these anti-men walk with their butts out a little so any hint of groinal protuberance is pruned, like an unwelcome sapling that has dared to reach for sunlight over an expanse of lawn sod with feminist armpit hair.

*Coverhand: when the hands are positioned to conceal the radiating aura of a man’s power — his crotch — from view. Usually indicative of a nervous tic or low self-esteem, especially when in the company of women.

Horrible art, btw, in both style and substance. All sorts of skewed perspectives, a cartoonish (i.e., African) color palette, and that try-hard deep thinker pose. So Fake. Has the Gay Mulatto ever had a facial expression that wasn’t marred by a vapid smug affectation? “And unto this, Conan, destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow…” Yeah, no. Barry is not Conan. For one, Conan was less comically vain.

A visual comparison of a long line of previous President portraits should help throw into lark relief the amateurish and retina-scraping WE WAZ ROUSSEAUian gay mulatto addition to the lineage.

Zoomable link.

The bitter halfbreed born of an alcoholic absentee father and a manjawed EatLaySlut Globalist Girl clearly hates Heritage America, otherwise he would not have gone out of his way to choose a portrait “artist” who would render Obama as a figurative middle finger to the White men who came before him.

An emailer: “It’s Obama in his natural habitat, surrounded by homegrown ganja!”

Hah.

It gets better worse. Michelle’s portrait:

Interesting hair choice recapitulates White Hair Privilege and expertly hides her over-muscled traps. Note: looks nothing like The First Linebacker.

The Gay Mulatto disgraced the Office, in Boomercuck-ese, and he’s proud to let you know how little regard he has for it.

Want nightmare fuel? The obamas aren’t a one-off. As America’s demographics succumb to the Hued Wave, the obama portrait is the first of many more, increasingly ugly and primitive, presidential portraits to come. Final portrait, if the Trumpening fails to stem the invasion:

***

While I’m on the subject of Yet Another Sign of America’s Decline, obama’s portrait artist, Kehinde Wiley, is a blackity black man whose portfolio contains these Love Wins rorschach tests:

Let’s play a game: Reverse the Races. Imagine the shitlib media reaction if a White artist hired by Trump to paint his portrait had also painted White women holding the severed heads of blacks.

I’m guessing mass chimpouts and CNN dispensing with the veneer and just scrolling FUK YT across the screen. NPR would have had a special roundtable to call for a renewed “national conversation about race”, aka “Ugh White People, again”.

Read Full Post »

MMMmmmmmm…..COULD BE! Via Captain Obvious,

1:43PM Eastern Time; Tuesday, January 20th, 2018: Some lady calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show, just said she thinks the shitlibs are living in a bubble, just like the Truman Show.

1:45PM: Rush re-iterates, “this Truman Show environment you’re talking about…”

COMPARE: “Liberalism Is The Truman Show“; November 20, 2017; by CH.

Is this a stretch? Fuck no! It’s plain as the FBI’s high treason that Rush and his millions of listeners have paid their visit to this ‘umble abode.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: