Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Beauty Ratio

Take a look at this series of photos. Which woman, left or right, is more beautiful?

How elusive is the concept of beauty? Apparently, not very. With a few microtweaks of geometric proportions, a woman’s face can turn from plain to pulchritudinous. The Marquardt Beauty Mask uses the pentagon and decagon as a foundation that, when a face is aligned to the mask, objectively proves that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder (beyond the trivial biological fact that a visual processing center in the brain must apprehend beauty), but rather is a definable and universal constant of formulaic precision that can be replicated and duplicated to achieve the identical hornytoad response in men the world over.

Nihilism and cynicism are perfectly justified when the timeless mysteries of human wonder yield to the investigative scalpel of cold numerical analysis.

[crypto-donation-box]

Short answer: A lot.

The girlfriend of a jailed alpha male helped organize a helicopter prison break for him.

Yes, folks, she was part of a team that commandeered a helicopter and landed it on the roof of a prison complex, so that the man who drives his dick into her can do it in more romantic settings than a conjugal visit cell. Twue wuv!

Lest you think this Allie Capone is some ugly ghetto skank who resembles the abused crack ho spouses on COPS, here’s her pic with her thug life lover. I’d tap that.

As beta males buy disillusioned 35-year-olds drinks and get thanks but no thanks cold shoulders in return, some inmate with a professional smirk waits for his hot fucktoy to land a fucking helicopter on the prison roof to fly him to freedom. And disingenuous hand-wringers wonder why men aren’t “manning up”.

What is the point of CH posting an endless procession of these chicks dig jerks stories? Is it to gloat? Well, yes. But it’s also to remind everyone how utterly different female sexual psychology is from male sexual psychology. Most people lose sight of that difference, or they try hard to ignore it. And with good reason; it’s unpleasant to ponder. But game as it’s understood wouldn’t work if men and women responded to the same mate value cues. If that were the case, whatever women did to maximize their appeal to men would work equally as well for men seeking to maximize their appeal to women.

It doesn’t, because men and women are radically alien to each other in some very important respects. There aren’t any men landing choppers in prison yards to free the thug babees they luv.

[crypto-donation-box]

Why Men Don’t Have BFFs

Watch this video of a man and a woman, respectively, dropping a mickey in their dates’ drinks.

When the man attempts to drug his date, a mongrel horde of white knights descends upon him to break him on the wheel. But when the woman does the same to her date… crickets. Not a stir among the white knight brigade to defend from bodily harm the man who is the victim of her mickey. Only one person — a woman — steps up to tell the guy that his date put a pill in his drink.

This is all unsurprising to Chateau regulars who are familiar with the fundamental premise governing human sociosexual dynamics.

Interestingly, this reluctance to come to a man’s aid (relative to the eagerness to do so for women) is why men’s same-sex friendships are so much deeper and more meaningful than women’s same-sex friendships. When a man has earned another man’s true friendship, their loyalty can last for decades, through the worst tribulations. Women’s friendships are, by way of contrast, quite a bit more… how shall we say?… gossipy and fickle.

This is the reason why women invent terms like “BFF”, (Best Friend Forever). When you can’t really count on your friends to be there, you artificially pump the value of your friendships with branding exercises that allow you and them to think the relationship is more profound than it is. Men have no need for such verbal calisthenics, because a man’s close friends have earned their place in his world by their action, not by their word. His loyal male friends are presumed BFFs. No marketing or product branding required.

[crypto-donation-box]

i was on transit today and it seems like white people are getting less and less common. just disappearing. transit is like a microcosm of multiculturalism. dead eyed somalians sitting awkwardly next to old chinese ladies. nothing in common. aknowledging each other as mere objects. no sign of life. riding by ugly buildings with grey skies above.

Lifted shamelessly from a Reprobate Right outpost.

[crypto-donation-box]

The Jizzebel hokumguzzlers have built a retard empire on the fantastical premise that demonic men oppress angelic women, and that the end of such oppression would herald a femme utopia for land whales, skanks, proud sluts, transborgs, homonormatives, globular polyamorists, selfie-abusers and really cool smart chicks with pink hair who use the word “douchecanoe” a lot and think that makes them a member of the literati.

Except that, out here in the real world where the rubber hits the hole, it’s about as ass-backwards a belief as one can diligently nurture in the face of contradictory facts. If stepping outside the confines of the gloomy bedroom internet portal and listening to ♥science♥ hold any quarter with the self-delusion set, they would have to recant everything they profess, for the facts show that women are the worst enemies of women.

Who hurts women? Real rapists (as opposed to the phantasm of “regret rapists“) very infrequently hurt women. But the threat to women, as measured by battle effectiveness and sheer force of enemy number, is other women.

The rumor spreading, shunning and backstabbing of “mean girls” may be a relatively accurate picture of women’s social interactions, one researcher says.

Though both men and women use such indirect aggression in relationships, women use backbiting to demoralize competition and take sexual rivals out of the picture…

“Women do compete, and they can compete quite fiercely with one another,” said Tracy Vaillancourt, the paper’s author and a psychology professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada. “The form it typically takes is indirect aggression, because it has a low cost: The person [making the attack] doesn’t get injured. Oftentimes, the person’s motives aren’t detected, and yet it still inflicts harm against the person they’re aggressing against.”

Why do women choose the tactically lower risk method of indirect attacks? Because of the fundamental premise that acts like a brain virus upon everyone’s underlying psychology: women are biologically the more valuable sex.

That led Vaillancourt to hypothesize that the behavior is rooted in humans’ evolutionary past. But why would sneaky meanness have become so ingrained in the female repertoire?

In short, because mean girl aggression works so well.

Because of women’s role in childbearing and rearing, they are less expendable than men and couldn’t risk injury by settling disputes with their fists, said Anne Campbell, an evolutionary psychologist at Durham University in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the work. Instead, social exclusion and talking behind someone’s back allowed women to work out conflicts without endangering their bodies.

This research lends support to the suspicion that the feminist zeal to cavalierly throw around the accusation of misogyny at men is really a classic case of psychological projection of their own states of mind. Or: only a real misogynist would impute misogyny to everyone else’s motives. You have to be one to know one, right ladies? Heh.

In related crimethoughts, those who drop the “raciss” accusation on the slimmest pretexts are likely themselves raving racists. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Not only does such cattiness make the targeted women too sad and anxious to compete in the sexual market, some studies suggest it can make men find rivals less attractive — provided the badmouthing comes from a cute woman, Vaillancourt said.

Yeah, that last part is the crucial condition. A fug badmouthing a hottie has about as much influence over a man’s judgment of female attractiveness as another man would. That is to say, none. What would be interesting to follow up on would be an experiment that examined the reactions of hotties and fugs to social ostracism by other women. My bet is that hotties can withstand female cattiness a lot better than can uglier women. Because hotties have constant feedback from men that their worth in the sexual market is unassailable.

Women often punish perceived sexual transgressions, Vaillancourt said. Studies in dozens of countries have found that women use indirect aggression against other women for being “too sexually available,” Vaillancourt said.

“It’s women who suppress other women’s sexuality,” because if sex is a resource, then more sexually promiscuous women lower the price of it, Vaillancourt told LiveScience.

Slut walk sloganeering notwithstanding to the cuntrary, most slut shamers are other women. Men may avoid sluts for marriage, but they won’t shame them. Why shame a snatch freebie from landing in your lap?

One way to avoid the most destructive effects of girls’ indirect aggression is to make sexual policing less powerful, Campbell said.

“We want to achieve a situation where that accusation [of promiscuity] had no power, where we don’t have that double sexual standard,” Campbell said. “But how we get there, I don’t know.”

Good luck with that. She may as well try to get humans to subsist on hemlock.

And women don’t compete over things they don’t value, Vaillancourt said. So women who put less emphasis on dating, or women who are past their sexual peak, are less likely to engage in mean girl behavior (at least over men).

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

So women backbite, backstab and fall back from attacking other women when the heat comes around the corner. That’s some RealTalk™ the Jizzebelers assiduously sweep under their gnarly rugs.

The fembot soul serrating doesn’t stop there. What other sins against women that feminists routinely accuse men of committing are committed by women in at least equal measure? Welp, how about objectification?

A new study has confirmed something women have been complaining about for years.

The research, out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and published in the Springer-published journal Sex Roles, essentially corroborates the belief that people tend to focus more on the breasts and figure of a woman when analyzing her appearance than they do on her face. […]

People tend to focus first on the important information about a woman.

Unsurprisingly, women with narrow waists, full breasts and larger hips – the classic hourglass figure – were rated more favorably than their less voluptuous counterparts, even when men were asked to assess a woman’s personality (rather than attractiveness) based on her appearance in the photos.

But perhaps what’s most interesting is that women also tended to objectify other females in the same way that men did. They, too, spent more time focusing on figure than face.

Can you believe the nerve of those men… hold up, wait a sec… hmm… those women objectifying women that way? Ugh, I can’t even… wow just wow… creepers!

Feminism will go down in history (along with her parent ideology equalism) as the stupidest potpourri of delusions ever propagated by a mass of degenerates sufficient in number and influence to dump their poison in the public’s ear. The Chateau stands ancient and true, thwarting the lords of lies at every point of attack.

“Generally speaking, people are more positive towards a more attractive woman than a less attractive one,” lead researcher Sarah Gervais said. “However, attractiveness may also be a liability, because while evaluating them positively, ‘gazers’ still focus less on individuating and personalizing features, such as faces, and more on the bodies of attractive women.”

There’s an important game concept tucked in the crevice of this quote. Can anyone find it?

.

.

Answer: Thermal exhaust port. Hot women have weaknesses, primary among them the nagging fear that they’re only loved for their bodies. You, as an aspiring assaulter of the pink abyss, can exploit this point of id entry into the attractive female’s ego. Disqualify and challenge — “I only hang with women who have something going on for themselves besides their looks” — then assuage and connect — “I know people judge you on superficial stuff, and how tough that makes it for you to find someone who can connect with you on a deeper level. I get that”.

A cute girl’s ego is like a finicky vineyard. You must first coax the fruit to their exquisite ripeness by introducing slight stresses to the soil of her self-conception; you must avoid overwatering and over-fertilizing, which can cause the grape (ego) to become too plump and lacking in distinction; and finally, you must pluck her exercised ego at the perfect moment and turn it into a fine wine that she is eager to pour a glass of herself for you to appreciate. Chin chin.

[crypto-donation-box]

The following open source, feminist bromide translation service is offered free of charge. Share with your local warpig!

exploitation, noun
1. anything that gives straight men pleasure.

threatening, adj
1. an instance of consensual lovemaking.
2. an erect penis.

“Men are threatened by [X]“, clause
1. rationale offered when men don’t like what feminists like.

rape, noun
1. regret.
2. unsatisfactory sex with a beta male.

rape culture, noun
1. invisible, unidentifiable, cosmic force that helps provide justification for massive redistribution of wealth from men to women.
2. normal, healthy society.

slutwalk, noun
1. a gathering of half-naked ugly women imagining that men want them.
2. a gathering of half-naked cute women orchestrated by a rich man living in the Upper East Side as a ruse to get laid.

social conditioning, noun
1. biology.
2. all-purpose explanation for any innate human behavior or sexual preference that vexes feminists.
3. hope.

BBW, proper noun
1. a fat woman looking at herself in an hourglass-shaped funhouse mirror.

“smart and sassy”, adj.
1. annoying.
2. ugly.
3. fat.
4. what women with the above three traits put in online dating profiles in lieu of a full body photo.

[X] privilege, noun
1. anything that isn’t immediately recognizable as feminist privilege.
2. the sin of someone being better at something than someone else.
3. the quality of not being a loser.
syn.: envy

creep, noun
1. a boring niceguy who makes an innocent pass at a woman.
2. a male target of a feminist’s psychological projection.

asshole, noun
1. noncommittal lover.
2. sexy cad who doesn’t know feminist exists.
3. irresistible man.

mansplaining, noun
1. logic.
2. reason.

whine, noun
1. legitimate complaint.

double standard, noun
1. a reality of human sexual nature which bothers feminists.
2. holding women accountable for the consequences of anything they do.

“WOW, JUST WOW”, exclamation
1. emotional response to hurtful facts.
2. a resounding admission of defeat in the marketplace of ideas.

War on Women, proper noun
1. a make-believe land dreamed up by feminists and their male enablers to explain away the natural consequences of sex dimorphism.
2. a shibboleth offered by community college professors to starry-eyed, naive coeds, for the purpose of easily seducing them.
3. propaganda to divert attention from the fact that women in the whole receive every societal and cultural advantage in life.

cisgender, noun
1. normal human being.

LGBQT, proper noun
1. abnormal human being.

heteronormativity, noun
1. the imagined cause of a misfit’s deep feelings of shame and inferiority.

“I am a feminist because [X]“, clause
1. rationalization for having no dating life or marital prospects.

Women’s Studies, proper noun
1. lifetime poverty.

“No self-respecting woman would date [X]“, clause
1. An obvious face-saving excuse ugly women say when rejected by men.
2. No True Feminist fallacy.

[crypto-donation-box]

Imagine an obese single mom head-slapping her racially ambiguous child, watching Lena Dunham’s floppy tit on TV, reading hack erotica about billionaire vampires, gouging the salaries of productive beta males for colorful iphones, soda by the gallon and cable subscription packages… forever.

If you aren’t *shudder*ing, you aren’t paying attention.

[crypto-donation-box]

Here’s a theory which I don’t think has been expressed elsewhere, because it seems on the surface to challenge long-held conventional wisdom among the pro-truth, anti-feminist crowd that feminism was the result of an unruly alliance between alpha males seeking to enlarge their pool of attractive, single women and ugly omega females seeking separate status whoring avenues where they wouldn’t have to compete with married mothers on their turf.

Most avowed feminists and feminist leaders are dog ugly, so that part of the alliance rings true. But what if it was beta males, rather than alpha males, who were the other prime movers of Boomer feminism? (Boomer feminism was the beginning of the really warped variety of feminism that supplanted suffrage and Prohibition.) Did beta males enjoin the feminist sabotage of civilization because they thought it would cramp the style of alpha males? The betas probably didn’t grasp the long-term consequences of their project, but crippling their competition was the short-term goal they had in mind when they allied with the femfreaks. They were probably thinking (beneath the layers of socially presentable equalese), “Aha, elevating women to positions of power will help kick out those entrenched alpha males and level the male playing field. More poosy for us!”

Poor pathetic beta male feminists. Little did they realize that helping women become economically self-sufficient and freed from the “slavery” of marriage allowed them to ignore betas for the sexy alphas promising nothing but a good time. The one bit of leverage beta males bring to the sexual market table — their emotional and financial provisions — they trashed in a fit of spite against the jocks they hated in high school.

That’s my theory. I think it makes sense in light of the whiny resentment modern “male feminists” like John Scalzi reveal toward incorrigible charmers who defy the logic of gender politics and not only suffer no consequences for their impudence, but profit from it.

[crypto-donation-box]

And, to a lesser extent, men more like women, at least in an outpost of the West.

Facial structure of men and women has become more similar over time. […]

Researchers found that craniofacial differences between contemporary men and women are less pronounced than they were in the 16th century. The researchers also found that, while craniofacial features for both sexes in Spain have changed over time, the changes have been particularly significant in females. For example, the facial structure of modern Spanish females is much larger than the structure of 16th century females. This difference may stem from improved nutrition or other environmental factors.

The manjaw is not a figment of the imaginations of CH scene observers. Western women really are looking less feminine and, likely, becoming more psychologically man-like because personality traits and physiology correlate.

So this is the world the West is hurtling toward: A steaming mass of lantern-jawed, hairy forearmed, gratingly obnoxious feminist witches. A world of Amanda Marcottes. What could be a worse sexually unimorph combo than the entitlement and irrationality of women hitched to the aggro posturing and striver pretensions of men?

The study doesn’t say how much of the masculinization of women is genetic versus environmental, but the distinction is academic, since once a woman has taken on male traits it’s nigh impossible to re-feminize her within the window of her fifteen year peak sexual marketability.

Whether it’s more calories, better (or worse) nutrition, or sexual selection favoring self-sufficient careerist shrikes, the path to divinely inspired and exquisitely vulnerable female beauty appears to have hit a thicket of brambles. And who are the biggest losers in this manjawed milieu? Beta provider males. What do they bring to the marketplace of ids that a go-getter bitch with her own pursestrings doesn’t already have? A cuckold victim promissory note?

[crypto-donation-box]

RappaccinisDaughter writes,

The problem is that so many guys attempting [the neg] DO NOT understand the difference between a “neg” and an insult. From what I’ve read on here, a “neg” is supposed to be playful…like you were teasing a bratty little sister, but not trying to make her cry. Instead, what I’m seeing out there is guys saying these unbelievably rude things.

Example: I was meeting some friends for dinner, but I got there early and had to wait at the bar. Some random strikes up a conversation with me. We speak for a couple of minutes, everything is polite and friendly, when he comes out with this whopper:

“You know, those child-bearing hips of yours almost make up for how small your tits are.”

That interaction went from, “Hmm, maybe he’s got some friends that might like to come hang out with me and my friends after we’ve all eaten,” to me actually giving the guy the finger and telling him to go fuck himself. Which I generally never do because I think it’s tacky, but I was so shocked and insulted that it just kind of popped out.

RD is aghast at the rudeness of her negger, but a small change in wording is all it would take to reframe RD’s middle finger into a muffsome tingle. For example:

“Your sexy hips balance out your athletic boobs.”

There. This is what a neg should sound like coming from a better negger. It’s only superficially a compliment. The “athletic boobs” part, sliding in as it does like a sneaky syntactical fucker soon after the conspicuous flattery, adds that necessary ingredient of backhanded ambiguity that so enthralls women’s need for intrigue. When delivered with plausible naivete, the woman is left with no one to accuse of rudeness, and her middle finger is stayed. Instead of outward rebellion at her devious suitor, she turns inward to wonder what he meant by “athletic boobs”, (to most women, the description evokes the image of tiny but firm titties), and in the turning inward she becomes invested in him and, ultimately, in his approval.

I hope now people are starting to get a feel for proper neggery. It doesn’t have to be complicated, although negging as an art form can require a high skill level. A simple disqualification — “It’s nice for a change to talk to a girl like she’s one of the guys” — is really all that you need to say to successfully pull off a neg and pique a girl’s curiosity about you.

It wouldn’t be CH if a sly postscript precision-engineered to get under combatants’ skins weren’t appended.

PS Despite the horrible negger in RD’s anecdote, you’ll note that she remembers him days later. A woman’s hate is far preferable to her indifference as an emotional medium through which you can insinuate your obscure charms. To put it curtly, no man ever banged a woman who didn’t know or care he existed, but plenty of men have banged women who started out with hate and disgust (but not boredom!) in their hearts. Of course, it’s ideal to begin the dance of symbolized copulation in the throes of genuine romantic ardor, but hate will do in a pinch.

PPS Better to err on the side of too much assholery than too little. If you can’t think of a good neg, dropping a bad neg is, most of the time, still better than talking about the weather. At least you’ve pinged her radar. Because hell hath no blowouts like a woman bored.

[crypto-donation-box]

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »