Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

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 »

Rod Dreher, Über-Poseur Pussy-Pedestaler Christcuck Cuckstian Cuckstraordinaire and advocate for the Craft Brew Selfie Option, linked to a Free Northerner blog post (and tangentially to this rumble abode) to explore the reasons why young Christians have stopped meeting their potential spouses at Church.

I’ve discussed the same interesting dating market changes underlying the graphic Dreher featured at his blog and highlighted in this older CH post (with correct attribution along the margin of the graph, so the spergatroid dreher commenters can quit their bitchin’….and fyi, readers email unattributed jpegs to me all the time, so if I post a few without PROPERLY linking the source you can sleep soundly that the oversight wasn’t intentional).

Excerpted from that CH post, remarking on the sexual market changes to women and their place in it caused by the rise of bars and online dating as the primary mediums facilitating courtship:

Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy [ed: thirsty] men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.

This is coming at the change from the angle of women’s egos, and how their over-inflated and over-stroked egos will be a barrier to love and marriage. But there are other ominous portents in the major changes to the way men and women meet.

As you can see from the graph, every avenue for meeting the opposite sex is down over the last twenty years, except one. The percentage of couples who met through college is down (partly a result of college becoming 60% female-40% male). Couples who met through family is way down (continuing a long-term trend). Couples who met through Church is down (and almost near zero). Couples who met through work is way down (and likely to hit rock bottom after this #MeToo sex panic burns itself out).

The majority of couples still meet through friends, but that too is on a downward trend, set to be eclipsed soon, if the trajectory holds up, by restaurant/bar, which is the only meeting place that is upwardly trending. Couples who met through online dating appears to have leveled off. This might be a temporary lull as privacy and security issues are worked out, but I suspect it’s the calm before online dating takes a nosedive as a matchmaking facilitator. I predict this because it has dawned on women that men use online dating as a sex supplement to their “real” dating lives, and it has dawned on men that women use online dating to hide their physical flaws (fat) and to aggressively filter out any but the top 5% of men in looks (which is an unstable selection filter utterly divorced from the reality of what women want in men, and which means that exclusive online dating will end badly for women’s romantic hopes of commitment with a good man).

Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser.

What does the massive and radical change in the way men and women meet each other mean for Western society? Can we glimpse the ropey contours of our future Jizztopia?

Relevant, from that older CH post,

This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.

Church won’t be restored as a meeting place for singles any time soon, barring some unforeseen seismic shift in attitudes toward religiosity and patriarchy (the two go together when both are healthy).

Neither will college, as long as it remains a warehouse for aggrieved Diversity and intellectually mediocre but conscientious girls, and antagonistic to young White men. Feminist cuntsent culture is turning campuses into anhedonic deserts.

Family? Age of first marriage is later than ever, fertility is down, single mommery is way up, miscegenation is up, and families are geographically and socially atomized to the edge of becoming total strangers with a shared genealogy. Family will continue its downward slide as a matchmaker.

Meeting as coworkers? MEEEE TOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Nope, the days of the corporate office as informal imprimatur of marital proposals are past us. The future is the increasingly rare (and risky) after hours bang in the janitor closet.

Social media, video gaming, porn, and the attendant isolation are undermining the service of friends as the primary means of bringing people together for the making of loves. It’s possible friends can come back as the major matchmaking vector, but I wouldn’t count on it happening until Generation Zyklon matures, and by that time it will have assumed a much different pallor than what it has been for most of the last sixty years.

Online dating is stagnating. I predict it will crash further, for the reasons noted above.

Restaurant/Bar is the new Family/Church, and given that post-atomization friends mostly meet offline at bars nowadays, these venues will also be quasi-dating services run by close friends and acquaintances. The upward trend should continue.

Anything new on the whoreizon?

Clubs.

SWPL shitlibs shudder at the thought because clubs imply exclusivity (as well they should…no club is worth the membership that doesn’t have exclusionary practices), but they’ll have to get over it or just admit that their preferred venues are de facto exclusive clubs. How many blacks and browns do you see at craft breweries? Artisanal distilleries? Shooting ranges? Bowling alleys? Painting classes? Wineries? Art shows? You get the idea.

As Diversity scours at our communality and social bonds, expect to see implicitly White (or nonWhite) clubs re-emerge as forces of social glue and romantic promise. If Gen Zyklon is real, this movement will be helped along by a renewed support for the principle of free association.

One more possibility that I don’t think is a positive development: ideology will loom larger as a requirement for meeting the opposite sex. I hate this trend, because it elevates the abstract (pussyhattery) above the concrete (blood sugar sex passion). What this portends is a dire future in which ideologically oriented clubs and venues become the dominant medium by which people meet and pair off. After that happens, it won’t be long before Civil War 2.

I’ll end this post with a comment pulled from Dreher’s post, by Tex Austin:

Historians will one day seek to unravel the mystery of how, in our present unsustainable cultural moment — rife with contradictions as it is — a corner of the blogosphere intended to help hapless “betas” learn how to “bang HB 9’s” morphed into the source of the most convincing arguments for traditional sexual morality.

That said, I never thought I’d live to see Rod link to Heartiste!

Why wouldn’t he? I’ve had nothing but the moloko plus of love for Rod! Who was first to praise Rod for standing firm with Trump and for recognizing the yuge shift in the political and cultural landscape that Trump’s rise represented?

Rod is an hero to me. A true Instagram Christian. A man for the times.

Read Full Post »

Gaming Mean Girls

Game can work on middle school girls.

Now that your mind has prematurely (heh) drifted into the gutter, the follow-up context will save your mortal soul from eternal damnation. Reader mindweaponsofragnarok explains,

To show you how long Heartiste has been up:

2011….I’m awed and fascinated, high af on the Red Pill.

My daughter is 13 and having trouble with her female peers. A rich girl name Anna is jerking her around, “I’m your friend, I’m not your friend,” type games.

So I tell my 13 year old kid about Game. I tell her:

“Ignore Anna’s texts, until she sends you a few texts, then reply with one or two words at most, as though you didn’t have time or give a shit to even correspond with her. Trust me, try it!”

CH Poon Commandments V: Adhere to the golden ratio, and VI: Keep her guessing.

Give your woman [ed: or middle school BFF] 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

***

True to their inscrutable natures, women [ed: and middle school BFFs] ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

She did it, and Anna came to heel. She then used Game on boys, too, she used it on everyone. It was like I handed the kid a weapon and the answer to all social interaction became Game.

You opened Glandora’s Box for her. This is a dangerous power to give a flowering daughter.

However, she was also kind of a brat, but I sure as hell was NOT a beta daddy. I wouldn’t give her what she wanted, and she would wish death on such on me, and I would just laugh and say, “Whatever.” She would threaten all sorts of things, and i would just shut her out.

This was absolutely the best thing to do. The worst thing would have been to show weakness. She accused me of having no feelings at all. I would say, “That’s a good thing, LOL!”

Now she’s 19 years old and doing quite well.

For young daughters on the cusp of their formative years, Game save them from mean girls and preen boys. Or, it can turn them into femme fatales. The power of Game to warp female sexuality and self-entitlement is something to behold, because women live and breathe on their ability to jockey for intra-sex status through gossip, slander, and innuendo. Game can amplify all these traits in women, providing them with a better defense but also a thermonuclear offense. The wise daddio tempers his daughter’s growing power and keeps her grounded with tiny seeds of self-doubt, because the truth is that bloated female self-esteem is far more corrosive to the dating and marriage markets than is high male self-esteem.

Good to hear for this reader, his daughter learned just enough to exert active influence over her social life but not too much to make a lot of enemies and attract fly-by-night cads.

Read Full Post »

How many times have I written that stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air and that generalizations are useful for navigating the obstacles and uncertainties of life?

In a new book by Lee Jussim, a century’s worth of social psychological research was reviewed and the conclusion reached that stereotypes are robust and accurate. Furthermore, human bias and self-fulfilling prophecy generally exert weak or no effects on the accuracy of stereotypes.

The stereotypes we hold about the sexes are accurate.
The stereotypes we hold about the races are accurate.
The stereotypes we hold about our fellow-white-people are accurate.

@Atavator adds,

That’s beautiful. Oh, The Irony. So more or less, what we see is social scientists, because of political ideology, enacting the very bias they’ve been telling us for 100 years that regular people are guilty of.

Has there ever been a grander act of projection?

If psychological projection is the default cognitive and rhetorical template of shitlibs, then their loudest shrieks will reveal their rawest exposed nerves. Find those nerves, and press hard.

The yeasty feminized and rabbinical ideology of Equalism is built on a foundation of lies, and it won’t be long now before it crumbles to dust.

I’ll save you all the gauche preen that I so richly deserve to enjoy at this moment…

not gonna do it…

nope, i have way more respect for my readership than that….

ah fuck it

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: