Do Masculine Women Prefer Even More Masculine Men?

In this post, we discussed a study which showed that women with longer legs appear more attractive to men. (and men with relatively shorter legs and longer torsos are more attractive to women).

A reader speculates about what that sex difference could mean for men seeking to efficiently scour the mating market for effortless bangs.

Just as a strong jaw is masculine, short legs in a woman is also masculine (http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio).

You can easily see in those pictures short legs are masculine and long legs are feminine, and this true for both sexes. This is probably comparable to facial width and finger digit ratio as a “nurture neutral” indication of masculinity.

Women with longer legs prefer alpha males too, but apparently have greater beta male tolerance. If you look at supermodels, and other women with extremely long legs, you’ll see most don’t automatically swoon for bad boys, although they have access to them. A lot of them have photographer, artist and otherwise effeminate boyfriends. However, you rarely see a short stripper type with anything less than a standard bad boy.

I guess I’m saying a heterosexual masculine woman will have a stronger preference for masculine men, or that she has masculine men in her ancestry. The question then becomes, do her masculine genetics increase her attraction to alpha males?

Examples:
Cameron Russell (supermodel) with her boyfriend Andrew Elliott (photographer)
http://www.twylah.com/CameronCRussell/topics/andrew
http://www.fashionfreude.com/2012/11/06/victorias-secret-show-2012/vs/

Bibi Jones (porn star, stripper, etc) with Rob Gronkowski
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/19/rob-gronkowski-porn-star/70000681/1
http://wickedimproper.com/2011/11/now-wait-just-a-god-damn-minute/

As you can see from the full-length photos, Cameron is 50% legs to body whereas Bibi is 40% or less.

This reader is touching on something real. While studies are sparse (nonexistent?), it does appear to be the case that, anecdotally and observationally, masculine women tend to go for very masculine men. (Recall that “masculine” does not necessarily mean “alpha“, as we can see by the fact that many effeminate artist types do quite well with cute women.)

So the rule generally expressed is as follows:
Given the axiom that most women prefer men more phenotypically and behaviorally masculine than themselves:

a. Masculine women will prefer very masculine men and avoid feminine men, and

b. Feminine women will prefer men of average to slightly higher than average masculinity and tolerate feminine men.

As a rule, this makes some sense. Sexual polarity is the cosmic force that breathes life into all other psychodynamic human motivations. When the sexual polarity is weak, or reversed (i.e., wimpy, soft men with hard-charging, hard-edged women), any nascent attraction is incapable of being sustained, and any relationship that results from such unions will have more obstacles to overcome and higher risk of infidelities than relationships that are sufficiently polarized by conventional male and female attributes.

Therefore, women will want to choose masculine men to retain that all-important polarity, but the degree of male masculinity required to reach a suitable level of polarity will vary based upon the woman’s own inherent masculinity.

This rule of what I will call “Shifted Female Masculinity Preference” — that is, the idea that the preference of women for masculine men is shifted to greater masculinity in men relative to the women’s own masculine attributes and psychological traits — has plenty of exceptions, and so I would not set my watch to it, nor should you, the efficient pursuer of women, rely on it exclusively to streamline your seduction operations. It’s a loose rule you can use to winnow a lot of prospects to a manageable number.

For instance, if you are a brooding emo WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIFT, you should focus your attention on long-legged women, but never dismiss short-legged women outright. Mesomorphs and “act first, think later” types should tune their radars for short-legged chicks with a twinkle of mischief in their eyes.

Another potential flaw in the rule (besides its lack of robust predictive power) rests in its premise: Are shorter legs and longer torsos really indicative of greater masculinity in women? Manjaws certainly are, but lots of short-legged women have very feminine faces. One way to resolve this issue is to determine if manjaws and short legs correlate in women.

If the rule is accurate and indicative of broad sexual market mating outcomes, we can expect to see greater masculinity in the children of short-legged women, and greater femininity in the children of long-legged women. And, inferring from Satoshi Kanazawa’s (unproven) theory that feminine couples produce more daughters, the former will bear more sons (and perhaps shorter sons) and the latter more (and perhaps taller) daughters.

One other thing we can infer is that less masculine men who date feminine women will compensate for their lower aggression and muscularity by being more psychologically dominant. And in fact one does find that the artist lovers of model chicks tend to be masters in the art of emotional manipulation. The more physically masculine men rely on their presence to assert dominance, but are often weak in the arena of subtle mental persuasion, and have a habit of ostentatiously mate guarding their women, leaving them susceptible to female machinations. This is why more masculine men get used as cat’s-paws by their girlfriends while more feminine — in both body and mind — men are tougher to manipulate. This imperviousness in some men to female manipulation is attractive to many women, and helps create an impression of dominance that fuels the necessary sexual polarity.

The Dark Enlightenment Visualized

A reader passed along this infographic showing the online nodes that constitute what is termed the “Neoreactionary Space”, which you can read about at the source.

I don’t have anything to add, except to say that the Chateau node should be bigger, hairier, and swinging insouciantly.

Women Will Qualify You, So You Must Resist Their Efforts

Take a look at this image capture of a search engine auto-fill:

80% of the questions asked by men are selfless in nature. They are questions about how to please a woman and make her happy. 70% of the questions asked by women are selfish in nature. They are questions about how to get noticed by men, and how to manipulate men’s affections.

These are the male and female ids auto-exposed. Female solipsism is powerful and is an inextricable part of their nature as sexual beings. Women are hard-wired from the womb to turn their focus inward, because their eggs are biologically more valuable than sperm. Men are hard-wired to turn their focus outward, because that is how they acquire status and how they win the love of constitutionally diffident women.

As a man who understands the raw, vital power of game, it behooves you to accept female solipsism for the unalterable fact it is, and to avoid its traps and leverage it for your own ends. Women, selfish at heart, will be driven to QUALIFY men for adherence to women’s personal preferences. Selfish people want to know what others can do for them.

Selfless people want to know how they can please others and win their favor. That’s a crucial difference between women and men. And this difference stems from the essential sex difference.

Many beta males will take the lesson to mean they should bend over even farther to appease women’s selfishness. But that is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. Abiding a woman’s natural selfishness will only create more selfishness. That’s a beast you don’t want to feed.

The correct response to women’s selfishness and concomitant compulsion to qualify men is to sidestep their efforts to derive your mate value and turn the tables on them, effectively using women’s own psychological inclination against themselves. Instead of relinquishing to her judgment, YOU become the manipulator of romantic yearning and the keeper of mate standards.

Women love this, because this is what alpha males with options do. A man who is in some sense LIKE A WOMAN — a man who judges prospective mates and qualifies them according to his whim — is a man who signals to women that he has loads of options in the sexual market. And as we all know, women can’t resist the allure of the preselected man.

So instead of wondering “how do I make a girl feel special”, start thinking “how can I make this girl miss me”. It’s a subtle shift in thought that will accrue enormously satisfying rewards. Because the sexual spoils go to the selfish pricks.

One Blessing Of Outbreeding

The Boston Marathon Muslim bombers (see what I did there?) were identified and corralled relatively quickly. The reason for the quickness is this: Outbreeding.

To put it more conventionally, a cultural-cum-genetic predisposition toward love-based monogamous marriage that strengthens outbreeding and restricts inbreeding is what helped authorities identify and track the bomber suspects.

By limiting inbreeding, a phenomenon which usually occurs via cousin marriage, the circle of trust is widened. When police ask for tips, this built-in higher level of trust is effectively an enlarged witness pool, ready to jump in with assistance.

Clannish societies, like Chechnya, are more inbred societies. People there look out for family first, the general public good a distant second. Had the Chechen Muslim brothers (see what I did there again?) committed their murderous act in Chechnya, where clan blood is thick and civic-mindedness is thin, it is likely that they would be on the run for a long time, because family members, 2nd, 3rd, or 10th removed, would be all omertá and the cops, such as they are, would get nothing but cold leads.

America has, until lately, been an outbred society (but still mostly inbred as a continental race). White Americans are mutts of mixed Northwest European ancestry. The circle of trust is generally huge in Anglo nations, and that’s why cops can do their jobs there. Family is still important, but there’s a greater degree of cooperativeness and fellow-feeling than would be found in places like, say, Iraq.

That of course, is all ending now. Diversity and the resentful enclaves spawned in its wake are destroying fellow-feeling. Clannish people are setting up shop in the most American of towns. Cognitive and cultural stratification as described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart is further contributing to the shrinking circle of trust.

Soon now, very soon, the day is coming when future Tsarnaev brothers will get to enjoy a life on the lam in America for many, many years, protected by inner circle insiders who don’t give a shit about the fate of America as a cohesive nation.

PS One curse of outbreeding: Pathological altruism. The kumbaya genes spread out of control until wishful thinking, instead of reality-based thinking, push the stricken population into self-destructiveness.

Photo Of The Century Shoot-Out

It’s still early in the 21st Century, but already we have two photos which so deliciously capture the zany zeitgeist and cultural erosion of America that it makes sense to vote now on which one will win Photo of the Century.

First up is a pic (or, rather, a TV screen capture) of a Mercedes SUV. This is the car that was carjacked by the two Boston Marathon Muslim bombers, brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, (two dudes, it should be noted, who are about as culturally and genetically far from NW European whites as Levantine Semites are), as they were fleeing from police. On the SUV’s bumper is a “COEXIST” sticker.

The irony, it is SO GOOD, my cocky alpha smirk has gone suborbital. If you’ve been living safely away from white liberals, and never saw a “COEXIST” bumper sticker, here it is:

As you can see, the bumper sticker is kumbaya, bombs-across-America horse shit. Typical upper class leftoid self-soothing, status whoring propaganda that bears no semblance to reality, but does make the leftoid feel pretty goshdarned tickled with himself. As a YOU GOT KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT juxtaposition that belies the leftoid’s moralizing, the photo of the carjacked SUV is the equivalent of an early years Tyson uppercut. How do you think the Mercedes-driving liberal feels now that he’s been coexisted into a hijacking with a sterling member of the coexistence shock troops? Chastened? Rethinking his priors? Nah. He’s winding up to crack down even harder with his self-annihilating, self-flagellating, redneck bogeyman Whip of White Man Penance. He hopes the searing pain will blind him to the ugly, encroaching truth. And perhaps also keep him in good graces with his cocktail circuit buddies.

***

The next photo is representative of late-stage, declining America as much as the first, but its subversive message targets a different part of the culture’s underbelly (heh).

There’s nothing like a snapshot of a fat bride, her fat friends, and her beta groom collapsing under their own weight into the murky depths of America’s retreat from greatness. The symbolism here is sublime. Grossly obese, still hanging onto the customs of old traditions that are quickly being discarded, and sinking nonetheless to a suffocating doom. People who fret about the state of marriage talk a big talk about men “manning up”, but an honest observer of the scene would have to ask exactly why any man would want to hitch himself to a human RV? The marriage rate is decreasing and age of first marriage is rising, and yet no one bothers to wonder if the growing (heh) crisis of female obesity has anything to do with it.

The voting booth:

ps we’ll be back to game posts soon. this was just too juicy to pass up.

Slam Shibboleth

A dumpling faced feminist-slash-slam poetess made a video about the horrible, terrible, no good culture of beauty that oppresses women and keeps them from realizing their dreams of being ugly rocket scientists that men love so much. Watch it here.

It has 1.7 million views and 17,000 likes. The platitude pushers will not want for addicts any time soon.

Did you know CH was once a slam poetry hero? Yes, it’s true. The spirit of syncopated sulky syllable slamming once moved yer ‘umble host to heights of grandiose on-stage spasming. Chicks loved it. Hipster doofuses wished they could capture a rhythmic beat of Heartiste magic, so that they may slay their own snapperdragons.

Good news! Recently unearthed from the underworld slam poetry archives is rare video footage of one of CH’s charmed apprentices performing a satire of the droopy-eyed feminist’s battle cry to wage war against mascara and the cruel judgment of looks-ism. To fully appreciate the (he)artistry, watch the above video before watching the following. (Give the video a few minutes to buffer.)

Not Pretty
by: ChateauH

White On White War

Some leftoid SWPL freak is bitching about “white male privilege” and the unequaaaaal treatment disturbingly white American society supposedly accords white bombers and Muslim bombers. Never mind the fact that his premise — that white terrorists are quickly labeled “lone wolves” while arab muslim terrorists are “existential threats” — is a pile of horse shit. After each shooting spree with a white assailant (the number of which are proportional, it should be noted, to the percent of whites in the total population), the Cathedral spins into a frenzy happily deliberating for months about the existential threat of right-wing/anti-government/white supremacist extremist groups. In contrast, muslim terrorists, like the Fort Hood shooter, get shoved down the memory hole or dismissed as one-offs. Worse, they’re used as props by Army brass to agitate for more diversity.

The point of this particular self-annihilating white leftoid’s screed is to forewarn against any notions — lest you be thinking impure thoughts, bigot! — of closing off the border to muslim immigrants. The Equalists and ruling class Status Whores will stop at nothing to swamp flyover white country with battalions of uruk-hai; anything less would be too civilized for their exquisite gated community sensibility. The leftoid creeps don’t care that blocking all muslim immigration indefinitely until or if such time that the religion of peace is pacified by its own internal progress will reduce the threat of terror bombings on American soil. They give no quarter to the logic that keeping out people who comprise a disproportionate number of America haters with a penchant for visionary jihad and strip clubs will lower the risk of future terror attacks at home.

All they care about is more non-whites and non-Christians in America. The more of them, the cheaper the labor for their esteemed oligarchs, and the more neutered the political and social power of the hated Wrong Kind of White class.

This is the “””nation””” we live in now, for worse or worser.

Hilariously, the Salon leftoid quotes noted anti-white quasi-white man Tim Wise:

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise.

Ah yes, Tim Wise would know quite a bit about “white privilege”, wouldn’t he? Timmy boy, how’s it going in that 97% white neighborhood where you’ve sequestered yourself? There sure seem to be a lot of perks that come with preaching about unearned perks.