Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

PS I am always right. If I’m ever wrong (rare), it means there was a dimensional rip in the cosmic space-time continuum.

Proof that girls and boys are born to be different: Controversial study finds that brain differences between the sexes begin in the womb

The differences between male and female brains start in the womb, study says

Male brains were found to be ‘more susceptible to environmental influences’

But female brains growing in the uterus produced ‘long-range’ networks

Read Full Post »

You can buy a sweet Trump ring at Skull Jewelry.

Commenter Corinth Arkadin bought one,

Speaking of Toxic Masculinity, I got my Trump ring today (you know, the one we talked about earlier this month). Guess what it came with?

Anyone? Anyone?

A bag of SKITTLES.

I’m pretty sure the folks at SkullJewelry.com are fans of CH.

Do they know about Skittles Man? Is this real life?

Oh yes, and it was NOT subtle, like “Oh here’s a bag of skittles in thanks that we were late with your order he he Drink Your Ovaltine” type-ebay shit, NO, it was like:

“Here’s yore bad ass, YUGE ring (it is, BTW, holy living fcuk!), Good Luck pulling HB8 tail, remember to Be Skittles Man”

Ah I feel a preen coming on…

Read Full Post »

From this ‘umble hot tub jive machine, circa 2007:

Does she have a large trashy tattoo anywhere near an erogenous zone?

Slut.

Today, from SCIENCE:

…a new study has revealed the effect that having tattoos has on your sex life.

Researchers from the University of Miami have found that people with tattoos are more likely to have a higher number of sex partners in the past year.

In the study, the researchers surveyed 2,008 adults – some of who had tattoos and some who didn’t.

The survey revealed that people with tattoos were more likely to be smokers, to have spent time in prison, and to have had a higher number of sexual partners.

Worryingly, these individuals were also more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health issue, and to report sleep issues.

Professor Karolin Mortensen, who led the study, said: “Previous research has established an association between having a tattoo and engaging in risky behaviours.

I read somewhere that in America, women with tattoos have begun to outnumber men with tattoos.

As the tattoo is associated with high sociosexuality (willingness to go all the way right away, frequently, and indiscriminately), it stands to reason that women are reacting to a sexual market which is careening toward an r-selection dynamic: fewer dads, fewer damsels, more cads, more tramps. Women are going crazy with tattoo fever because they’re subconsciously advertising to less dependable but aggravatingly charming men that their vaginas are open for business, no questions asked.

Unfortunately for women with tats who are looking for loving commitment, men don’t want sluts except as sexual playthings. And the lsmv men who must settle for sluts will resent them for the duration of their short-lived simulacra of normal relationships.

What men want when looking to invest in a woman for longer than a night is clear to anyone without an agenda or a butthurt ego:

If you’re a low-option beta, you might have to choose 2 out of 3.

***

As a commenter suggested, your next pickup venue should be a tattoo parlour. Easy pickuppings!

Read Full Post »

Birth Of A Meme

Nine days ago, from a slightly larger-than-life CH proprietor,

It would be great if an ambitious meme-maker put together a photo montage of every fence, hedge, gated community, and security check that surrounded the homes of media, academia, and government elites, and then asked why this same courtesy isn’t extended to regular Americans.

Trump REALLY needs to hit the Dems on this angle. He should just tweet out pics of Pelosi’s backyard wall and ask why Dems don’t want the same security and safety privileges for regular Americans. It would be a a nuke on the Dem Party. They will have no response to it.

Today, from President Trump:

Trump, or someone very close to him, reads this blog and its social media subsidiaries.

The Chateau is the place where memes are born and soon after welcomed into the home of the President of the United States of America.

Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: