Feed on
Posts
Comments

Orca’s Razor

May 19th, 2014 by

Most of you are familiar with Occam’s Razor, the principle that of two or more competing theories to explain a phenomenon, the simplest one is likely the true one.

With a nod to Occam, CH introduces Orca’s Razor.

Orca’s Razor: Of two or more competing theories for why men don’t want to date fat chicks, the most spurious, most convoluted, and least plausible explanation that assuages the egos of fat chicks and their barely male enablers will be insisted as the correct one.

A case study of Orca’s Razor in action (via reader yeahokcool):

from the front lines of tortured logic (see comments):

guy: I’ve dated a lot of heavier girls and I’ve definitely felt the judgement from other men. The problem isn’t that men don’t like big girls; it’s that men don’t like the way other men look at them when they’re with big girls.

girl: Yeah, I don’t think this is commentary on forcing yourself to be attracted to someone who you’re not attracted to. It’s about letting societal pressure bully you out of being attracted to someone who you ARE attracted to.

reality: yes, you are being judged by other men and women because you are everyone innately knows that only losers are fat and/or date fat people. furthermore, women fail, yet again, to realize that their attraction to men is entirely different than men’s attraction to women. i love how much women (fat ones, particularly, i imagine) just WANT these comments to be true!

Orca’s Razor is in effect the inverse of Occam’s Razor. Instead of slicing away superfluous concepts, Orca’s Razor slices the most elegant explanation to shreds, and then presents as incontrovertible fact the id gruel that is a mix of the viscera of various feelgood theories that were made up from whole cloth with the express purpose of avoiding and nullifying the simplest and truest explanation for why men are repulsed by fat girls.

Occam’s Razor: Men don’t date fat chicks because fat chicks are disgusting to look at.

Orca’s Razor: Men don’t date fat chicks because men secretly like fat chicks but have to suppress their urges to avoid being looked at in a funny, judgmental way from other men.

Like most equalist cant, Orca’s Razor is poopytalk pumped at high volume to fill you to the eyeballs with shit so you’re blinded to reality. No one is ever truly blinded to reality, as we can see by the real life decisions that people make even inside hothouse leftoid reeducation camps, but that won’t stop the walrus warriors from rolling over to crush newborn realtalk that chafes their megafauna hides.

 

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 74 Comments »

Comment Of The Week: Deere John

May 17th, 2014 by

COTW winner newlyaloof experiences what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a typical woman’s exquisitely honed talent for manipulation.

Women want everything in life – except for their men – to appease them.

Wife just called asking where lawnmower key was. I recognize this now for what it is. A shit test for me to say, “Don’t worry about it. I’ll do it when I get home.” But, I told her where the key was and to have fun. Haha. I could tell she wasn’t ready for that. She responded a few comments about hopefully being able to figure it out (again more guilt-loaded shit tests to get me to say I’d do it). I told her to have fun and she’d learn a thing or two. She replied, “Well, does it have any gas in it?” (another attempt) I replied, I don’t know, but fill it up if it needs it.” She replied, “No, I don’t want to fill it up with gas.”

See, she wanted the grass cut. She didn’t care about how busy I am or how many other priorities I have in front of the grass. She wanted appeasement on the grass, plain and simple, but she didn’t think it was worthy of her time to fill it up with gas. Think of that betas. She didn’t feel it was worth one minute of her time to fill up the lawn mower, but an hour of my time cutting the grass with it was.

Like the Federal reserve and our money supply, the more appeasement you give out, the lower your value. You’ve got to defund the Hypergamy Reserve one monetary-asshole-unit at a time.

I’m afraid it’s in the nature of woman to believe an indentured servant waiting on her hand and foot is an unalienable right granted by possession of a vagina. That’s why men need game… to disabuse women of that notion. Because the alternative is sucking up to ever more egregious demands for ever fewer opportunities at her snatch.

***

COTW runner-up is a putative female reader, cynthia, who writes,

Appeasement: to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

The MAN wants to appease. Peace, reconciliation, quiet.

The WOMAN wants something entirely different. We want drama.

You guys want the game to stop, with definitive results. We want the game to keep going forever.

Pithy. And surprisingly insightful… for a woman. (“for a woman” is the new “not all women are like that”.) Men do a lot of up-front hard work to court women, and so justifiably feel they should be able to coast once within the comfy confines of an LTR. Victory in war, followed by a long peace.

Women want none of that. They crave the drama, and get antsy when it’s missing. This is because women, unlike men, have shallow but wide and hungry egos that need constant validation. This need for validation issues from a subconscious realization that their worth is almost entirely tied up in their (fading) looks, while a man’s worth is connected to many facets of his life. Women lose sexual value at just the time that men gain sexual value, and from that dynamic is born women’s insatiable need for ego-validating drama to, paradoxically, quell their fears that their men might trade up.

Now of course there are those few men who are good at seducing women, who relish the game, and who take pleasure in turning the crank on the hamster wheel of up and down emotions. These men are dangerous precisely for the reason that women can’t help but love them so.

Posted in Comment Winners | 175 Comments »

Incel Vs Insol

May 16th, 2014 by

Incel stands for involuntary celibacy, and it refers to beta and omega males who, for a variety of factors, are horrible with women and wind up enduring long and unwelcome sexless droughts. Rumor has it there are whole forums of quasi-men who, for reasons likely having their origin in mommy’s quickness with the back of her hand, nurse a deep hatred for game and “players”, and who spend most of their time on these gayforums analyzing with the precision of a spectrometer the facial dimensions of various pick-up artists for their conformity to Brad Pitt’s visage, apparently believing that no man ever in the history of the world who didn’t look like Brad Pitt got laid with a cute chick.

The incel is now an internet caricature, loathed and ridiculed by men and women equally. But there’s a female analogue of the incel. And CH was reminded of this when resident female apologist Amy, once again bravely trying to salvage the reputation of her sistren with squirrely semantic maneuvers intended to evade the Guns of Heartisterone, made the claim that there are men who would willingly sleep with fat chicks and that this must mean those men find the fatties sexually attractive.

But what about beta fat guys with no game? There are plenty of them. Who are they going to date? They want relationships. They’re going to end up with women like this [fat] chick. And they must feel some attraction for them if they’re having sex.

Settling isn’t attraction. Settling is, for men, finding a hole that is a little bit wetter than the couch crease. Losers settle for each other all the time. But fat chicks are so repulsive to men that there aren’t enough omega males willing even to settle for them as a last resort and think of England while spelunking the pig. As a result, fat chicks are alone more often and for longer dry spells than are thin girls. And the fatter the girl, the more intractable her involuntary solitude. Call it… Insol.

The Insol is the female equivalent of the Incel. She fails at finding the one thing in life that is most important to women: The love and commitment of a desirable man. Her failure is no less dispiriting or cruelly mock-worthy than is the failure of the omega male who can’t get laid in a brothel with a fistful of hundreds.

People don’t think of fat or ugly women going long spells without love, because those women are adept in ways that beta males aren’t at concealing their misery from public scorn and pity. And, to be sure, the fat chick has a better shot of getting pumped once or twice than does the omega male of getting laid. Because of this slight sexual disparity, and because of the male instinct to project their sensibilities onto the female sex and imagine that getting laid is proof of romantic success, the Insol receives more of a break than the Incel.

Sure, you’ll occasionally hear about fat chicks getting face fucked by drunkards, but rarely will you see them in long term happy relationships with men who aren’t complete rejects. And this reality grows with the pounds. Female fatness has exponentially increasing blowback. Ten extra pounds won’t put too big of a dent in a chubster’s sex life, but 100 extra pounds will relegate her to incel with the omega males.

Loser women, like fat chicks, can sometimes pull off a simulacrun of a relationship, but only after a lot of time alone and sacrifice of anything worth living for. The occasional sight of a fatty in an LTR notwithstanding to the contrary, most fat women go epically long times without a man’s love. You just don’t see them because most fatties don’t advertise their loneliness the way loveless beta males advertise theirs.

The problem with the “even the ugliest/fattest women can get laid” trope is that the issue is not whether a fat chick can manage once in her life to get a weirdo to drill her face for three perfunctory seconds in an alcoholic haze. For women, sex isn’t the relevant metric. Women want love and commitment with a high value man. On that score, fatties fail miserably.

Even if we limit our claim to three second drunken sex with losers, fat chicks still have problems in that department that thinner girls don’t have. It’s hard to directly compare the two groups because thinner/prettier girls are less slutty than fatties and fugs, but if we draw on the subset of sexy thin girls who don’t mind boffing the same losers that fatties boff, then we would find the fatties badly outcompeted for the sexual attention of those losers.

Simply put, there is the tendency of people to miss what they don’t see. Omega and to a lesser extent beta males repeatedly try and fail with women. We see that. Fat chicks, being women first and fatties second, are more passive about courtship. When they fail, it tends to be less spectacular, less conspicuous. They are simply ignored rather than rejected. When fat chicks fail in the dating market, they retreat away from men or they surround themselves with female friends so that they can continue engaging the social scene without the stink of celibacy driving them to isolation or handicapping their ability to converse with strangers. The involuntary loneliness of fat chicks is thus more concealed than the loneliness of loser men.

In contrast, incel men don’t have large groups of socially attractive male friends to shield them from their own failure. The sexual poverty of the male incel is more readily apparent in his loner lifestyle and his bitter, stunted personality. When he fails, he retreats, regroups, fails, retreats again, and the cycle continues. His failure is unmissable.

In the grand scheme, incels and insols are two sides of the same coin. Both lose in the sexual market. Both lose in the LTR market. Both suffer long droughts of sexlessness. If there’s a difference between the omega male incel and the female fatty insol, it’s that perhaps the fatty can amass (heh) a couple more lays in her lifetime than can the omega male. But two extra lays over a lifetime does not a proud, confident, non-bitter woman make.

Posted in Beta, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 167 Comments »

Children’s Phrases As Game Material

May 15th, 2014 by

The title of this post is deliberately provocative. I want to force some of you “men’s men” to think outside the stoicism über alles box. I know you’re thinking, “Get out of here with this poverty game!”, but read on.

Children’s playground taunts may sound silly to the corporate-groomed adult, but as anyone who’s used them to tease women into a state of flirtatious excitement will tell you, they are effective weapons of vag seduction. Young boys are natural alphas until it’s beaten out of them (sometimes literally) or until puberty makes them forget how ably they tormented little girls into gleeful hysteria.

Naturally, as a grown man, you wince thinking about what it feels like to flirt with a woman with the aid of turns of phrase that you’d hear ricocheting from a jungle gym. But once you witness the reactions of curiosity and engagement you get, you’ll put aside your doubts. Because you’ll soon realize that children’s phrases are perfect adult vehicles to communicate the alpha attitude that women love so much.

Some modification of the delivery is all that’s required to make back-sass work for the adult you. You aren’t a high-pitched little kid blessedly innocent of ironic posturing, so your delivery will necessarily be more wry, more self-aware, and more monotonic. The following is a CH-approved list of kids’ phrases that you should add to your attraction stimulation arsenal.

smell ya later
SIKE!
blah blah blah…… NOT.
what? [repeat to taste]
to the max
as if
ooh, i’m telling!
burn!
your mom. [i like to insert this in random parts of the conversation]
i know you are but what am i
right, and then you woke up
did your parents have any normal kids?
guess who’s not wearing any underwear
in your FACE [long version: up high, down low, in space, in your face]
take a picture it’ll last longer
fatty fatty two by four [only use on obviously skinny chicks]
so funny i forgot to laugh
say it don’t spray it
hay is for horses [use when girl yells “hey!” to you]
haha, you’re on the welfaaaaare. [if girl complains about money]
what’s that on your shirt? *snap your finger under her chin or nose*
made you look!
i see london, i see france…
nice face
that’s not what your mom said last night
[motion her over with your finger] do you always come when a man fingers you?
Y R U gay [sung to tune of YMCA]
raise your hand for a high five, then when she lifts her hand you quickly drop yours and say “who’s gay”
up high, flip side, other side, down low, too slow!
i know karate [assume bruce lee stance]
*cough* princess! *cough*
get away from me with your cooties
go on with your dorky self
somebody call the whaambulance
you wish
*fingers in ears* i can’t heeear you
make “whatever” W with fingers
make “loser” L on forehead with fingers
princess says what?

Readers are welcome to add to this list in the comments.

PS Here’s the wikiHow article describing how to playfully tease girls.

Posted in Game | 165 Comments »

When Evolution Fails

May 15th, 2014 by

Can evolution fail? I offer the following thought experiment as evidence that there are circumstances in which evolution proceeds along a path that violates its own precepts.

A high SMV (sexual market value) man who likes the idea of being an anonymous father but not a real father, donates to a sperm bank. One thousand low SMV (fat and/or ugly) women get impregnated by his sperm and have one son each. Will this de facto harem leader’s sons grow up to be

a. more attracted or

b. less attracted

to fat or ugly women?

As commenter Arch Hades put it,

Higher quality male peckers have evolutionarily evolved to not want to impregnate fatties.

But what happens when a high quality male pecker makes a contribution to the wombs of low quality females via an aesthetically neutral conduit like a sperm bank? The intrinsic desire of the man for slender, beautiful women will still be passed onto his one thousand sons, despite the fact that, from his genes’ point of view, he willingly plunged the portals of a lot of gross women. He didn’t start with a predilection for fat or ugly women, so whatever genetic code he passes on through the sperm bank women won’t appear in any of his male progeny as an increased attraction for ugly women.

In this instance, the ironclad law of evolution has been overturned. The “attraction for ugly women” genes that would increase in a state of nature where men with those innate predilections seek out ugly mates and pass their predilection onto future generations does not increase in this scenario of the sperm bank acting as middleman.

Now one could say the sperm bank is unnatural and thus the laws of evolution don’t apply, but anything created by humans must be natural in the sense that culture and its appurtenances are manifestations of genetic architecture previously selected for. The sperm bank is as much a part of the evolutionary biofeedback loop as is the stick that a chimp uses to flush out termites.

What does it say then about evolutionary theory that a sperm bank can essentially sever the connection between reproductive fitness and sexually selected traits? What about contraceptives? In a sense, condoms and the pill act like individually owned and operated sperm banks, altering the ancient equation between female (and male) sexual choice and what kind of children they eventually bear (or not bear).

All this is to say we as a species are entering uncharted territory. Anyone who thinks there won’t be awesome consequences lacks the requisite imagination.

Interestingly, you can sort of see the outlines of the above ugly female client sperm bank scenario playing out in real time in the bars and clubs across America. Just substitute “ugly female client sperm bank” with “fat women”, and the picture crystallizes. Like the man contributing to a sperm bank patronized by ugly women who would otherwise only have sex with attractive women, a nontrivial number of men are crossing their lower bound of acceptable female sexual attractiveness to rut with fatties out of necessity and fear of unwilling celibacy. As upwards of 70% of all American women are heavier than their ideal weight, it’s simply a matter of insufficient suitable mate availability driving an evolutionary trend that is at odds with actual reproductive fitness or male sexual attraction predilection.

The future, should my attempts to clear the SMV fog prove prescient, looks like a horror show of gargantuan beastwomen and sexually and romantically unfulfilled men drifting in and out of each others’ lives in a loveless nihilistic melancholy.

***

PS On a related “Is evolution failing?” note, the buzzy AmRen article titled “Confessions of a Public Defender” is a harrowing read, and provokes some illicit thought about where we are heading demographically. The impression one gets from this titillating exposure to the minds and values of the zoo animal underclass is that the moral senses… fairness, reciprocity, empathy, guilt, even a basic conception of right and wrong… may very well be unevenly distributed not only among members of the same race but between the races in general. If you quake at the idea that average IQ varies by race, how badly will your bowels shake if it’s discovered that some races are more, or less, morally evolved?

CH has gone out on limbs before that have proven to be supported by trunks of strong empirical oak, and we’ll go out on a limb again, one so far up the tree that few if any will have the balls to venture out with us. Morality and empathy are evolved traits, and like many human traits they will be found in varying degrees and complexities of expression among the world’s races. Given this, the civilized nations would do well to consider that their jurisprudence systems are incapable of impartially subsuming the less morally evolved in a manner that suits their own elevated moral sense. If you cannot or are unwilling to grasp that the defendant sitting across from you is closer in temperament and moral evolution to a feral beast than to your kin, you will forever be stricken with crippling doubt about the nature of your race’s achievements and philosophies.

Demographically, then, it becomes imperative that advanced peoples act to limit the fecundity of relative moral degenerates in their midst, or barring that to erect barriers against the incorporation of the upwardly moral and the downwardly amoral. And yet the exact opposite appears to be the rule of the land currently. Evolution is failing, thanks to a warped altruistic impulse that has provided and sustains a fitness advantage for morally infantile, and thus exceedingly dangerous, humans. Again, like the sperm bank scenario above, the state of nature has been upturned and bifurcated by a middleman — in this case, misplaced leftoid equalist generosity towards lesser people who would impulsively kill them without losing a wink of sleep — and traits that would normally get culled due to the dual pressures of sexual and natural selection become instead numerous and widespread.

Deus ex machina has become hominis ex machina.

PPS This post is supameta, and readers will find it hard to resist pointing out the impossibility of evolution “failing” in a system that is part of the natural universe, but as humans we have also evolved a disposition to employ value judgments that maximize our Darwinian fitness, which is a jargony way of saying that an impersonal natural process can indeed fail if it results in the failure of the one species which has proven capable of identifying that process.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Goodbye America, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 168 Comments »

Study: Women Prefer Men Of Few Words

May 15th, 2014 by

💋Science💋 has once again dropped to its knees and slobbered the knob of CH, vindicating the Heartistian observation that women love laconic men.

For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. […]

When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine.

Terse charm > loquacious charm > charmlessness. Gabby men are simply not very attractive to women. Men who keep their cards close and don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves are sexier to women. Men whose jokes are powerfully succinct rather than tiresomely pedantic are considered socially savvier. Brevity is the soul of wit and, apparently, the stroke of clits.

There are times when following the exception to this rule will be personally beneficial, but you should strive to express yourself more laconically, more pithily, as you work to craft your new sexy identity.

They found that people are naturally drawn to friends and colleagues with voices that sound familiar.

People prefer those who have a similar accent, intonation and tone of voice to themselves, for example.

Theoretically, group selection shouldn’t exist, but in practice there’s a lot of evidence for some sort of in-group favoritism motivating human interaction.

Posted in Science Validates Game | 106 Comments »

Fat Chick Drops Load Of Blubber On Louis CK, Fatty Apologists Mysteriously Rejoice

May 14th, 2014 by

E’rebody not in da club getting tipsy over this blubbery fat chick scene from a recent Louis CK episode.

For reasons that cannot be explained by the established laws of logic, a great hue and squeal from the ungulate freak parade has arisen to rejoice over this scene as a breakthrough for Realtalk™ about the lives of fat chicks.

“As brilliant as the speech is, and as brilliant as Baker’s performance is, what makes this work is Louie’s willingness to just stand there and take it,” Forbes contributor Allen St. John writes. “He makes a few lame gestures in self-defense, but even if Vanessa largely refuses to judge him, we don’t. Louie is a jerk.”

Baker told EW she thought the scene “was so beautifully written.”

“My interpretation of it was that she’s (telling Louie), ‘You saying, “You’re not fat,” is like saying, ‘The worst thing a woman can be is fat, so I’m not gonna call you that,’ ” Baker said. “Whereas she’s kinda like, ‘Yeah, I’m fat. You know, I’m nice, I’m funny, I’m cute — so who cares?’ “

Writing for the A.V. Club, Libby Hill applauded Louis C.K. for starting the conversation.

“No matter how sad it may be that the only way many will start to understand this maligned populace is if a white guy explains it to them, the fact remains that through the platform of his critically acclaimed show, Louis C.K. has given voice to the fat girl,” she writes.

Funny, all I saw was a fat girl bitch about how tough it is for her to date and have happy relationships. This is news to anyone? No, of course it isn’t. The keepers of GoodSpeak want this scene to stand in for a “national discussion” about yet another loser cohort of society so that they can mold the direction the ensuing “discussion” takes. And you can bet the direction the Hivemind keepers want to take it is toward more and more proselytizing about how wonderful it is to be a fat girl (fat men get a media pass from this supposed wonderfulness) and how easily fat girls can get men when they aren’t demanding that men stop ignoring them and love them for their inner beauty.

Frustratingly for the Hivemind, Chateau Heartiste exists to jam sand in their sophistic gears. For example, here’s the true message of the Louis CK fat girl screed with all the tears and passive-aggressiveness and barely concealed entitlement stripped from her big-boned frame.

FATTY: Why do you hate us so much?

That’s not hate, Ms Wideload, that’s disgust. Fat chicks are like wet dog shit. You don’t hate the dog shit, you just don’t want to step in it.

Now if the dog shit starts making a nuisance of itself, say, by getting in your face and demanding you accept its under-appreciated beauty, or by organizing dog shit advocacy groups to change culture and law to better accommodate the feelings of dog shit, and to persuade others to become more like dog shit, then one may feel actual hate toward the dog shit.

FATTY: What is it about the basics of human happiness, feeling attractive, feeling loved, having guys chase after us, that’s just not in the cards for us?

To ask is to answer. Romantic attraction is biological, which is ultimately genetic, which means it is unalterable by weepy protests to the contrary or by reeducation camps masquerading as sitcoms. Most men are as repulsed by fat women as most women are repulsed by weak men.

FATTY: How is that fair?

Fairness has got nothin’ to do with it.

FATTY: And why am I supposed to just accept it?

Because you don’t yet have the legal recourse to force men to bed with porkers.

FATTY: You know what’s funny? I flirt with guys, all the time.

The uglier the woman, the more actively she has to communicate her sexual receptivity.

FATTY: And I mean, the great looking ones, like the really high caliber studs, they flirt right back, no problem.

They know they have a better shot with your hot skinny friend if they’re magnanimous with you.

FATTY: But guys like you never flirt with me, because you get scared, like maybe you should be with a girl like me.

More like, they’re worried that flattering a fat chick will give her the wrong idea.

FATTY: You know, if you were standing over there, looking at us, you know what you’d see? That we totally match.

Fat chick projection. Physically a fat man and fat girl match, but men’s SMV is more than the sum of their fat deposits.

FATTY: Have you ever wooed a fat girl?

I’ve mooed a fat girl.

FATTY: Go ahead, hold my hand. What do you think’s gonna happen? Do you think your dick’s gonna fall off?

No, it’s much worse than that for the fat girl. His dick won’t do anything.

FATTY: You know what’s sad? That’s all I want.

Lack of options = low standards.

Some mush-headed liberals, though, are unhappy with the message.

But not everyone is a fan. Writer Dan Weiss explored the episode for The Concourse, noting that “there’s zero representation for actual FAs (‘fat admirers,’ which is admittedly a voyeuristic term; I prefer the classic ‘chubby chaser’) on TV.”

I prefer the term fatty fucker. And if the wailing of fat chicks is any indication, there aren’t nearly enough desirable fatty fuckers to feast at the porcine troughs of America’s fatties.

In this putatively “groundbreaking” Louis CK scene that has the Jezebel hags dizzy with the possibility of careening down a fresh semantic path that defies the mirror, Louis is no more a jerk than is any woman who turns down a man for insufficiently meeting her attractiveness criteria. But since the lamentable is a fat chick instead of an awkward beta male it’s socially acceptable to sympathize with her loser pain and revile the man who presumptuously clings to his outmoded sexual preference.

Conflict, and unfairness, are intrinsic to the sexual market. Attraction is innate and impervious to cultural campaigns to alter its algorithm. If fat chicks resent that, there is a solution…

Push away from the table.

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, Ugly Truths, Videos | 219 Comments »

Amish Facebook

May 14th, 2014 by

Commenter “The Burninator” muses about what an Amish Facebook page would look like.

I can’t imagine an Amish girl’s FB page.

Her:

“Today I churned butter with mama.”

Like 1

Amish father:

“Get back to work, girl!”

Like 124

😆

You have to hand it to the Amish. They have the preternatural ability to avoid corruption by the pozzed American dysculture while living in the belly of the beast. Part of the reason is the “boiling off” selection effect that results from their rite of passage known as Rumspringa, which assures that the Amish left in the community evolve the personality traits to successfully deter outside influence.

Another reason has to be hard work. Toiling in the fields or the farmhouse tires a body and mind so thoroughly that social media distractions become less tempting. The Amish are preoccupied with survival and community. The non-Amish are preoccupied with white privilege and gay weddings.

Posted in Culture, Funny/Lolblogs | 119 Comments »

The Misery Of The Househusband

May 13th, 2014 by

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”

 

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Status Is King, The Good Life, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 225 Comments »

Appeasement Is No Way To Win Wars Or Women

May 12th, 2014 by

Maxim #54: A woman’s happiness is inversely proportional to efforts to accommodate her demands.

Corollary to Maxim #54: The more a woman’s demands are catered, the more irrational will her future demands become.

Appeasement is relationship death. Appeasement is the damping oscillation that brings a woman’s tingle to rest. There is hardly a self-defeating behavior a man can exhibit more hazardous to his love life than appeasement of his woman’s fickle and endlessly reconsidered stipulations. Once you go down the road of appeasement, the cliff side is an inevitability.

Given this reality of female nature, the riddle is why so many men resort to appeasement when the heat is on?

Part of the reason for the reflexive beta male embrace of the appeasement strategy is that it does work… occasionally, and only temporarily. Betas are so scared — picture a shivering, frightened little bunny as symbol of their state of minds — to provoke their women’s ire that appeasement becomes not only the emotionally satisfying recourse, but also the logically rationalized one based on retrieved pleasant memories of those few times it worked when nothing else works for them.

Barring competing effective strategies to pacify a pissy wife or girlfriend, an appeasement gambit only has to “work”, say, one out of ten times for it to become the go-to prostration for befuddled beta males. And remember that in the beta male’s worldview, a working romantic strategy is one that doesn’t end with his lover leaving him. The bar for healthy LTR management is set very low in the beta universe.

(For comparison, the typical alpha male standard of satisfying relationship health is the continuance of morning surprise hummers.)

A beta husband may be able to briefly calm his wife down by appeasing her, but the escape he narrowly engineers is just a trap door to a pit of lifelong termagant torment. That’s the poison appeasement pill he swallows: Quick relief, followed by progressive system failure. Tragically (and comically), he knows no other way.

Commenter ‘having a bad day’ serves up his own hard lesson in the futility of appeasing women:

my wife was like that too. pick a fight for no reason, not getting enough attention, blah blah blah…it almost ruined me and my ‘happy home.’

but wife’s behavior was based on the ‘best friend’ model of marriage that was indoctrinated into my impressionable young mind throughout my life…

who knew that women didn’t really know what they really want…? (that’s the real ‘crazy’…)

i had bought into the feminine imperative and was trying to ‘have it all’…best friend, lover, confidant, etc…and she hated it!

she was a follower, because all women are followers if they are happy. (just like the ‘teachings’ around here state.) it really is true…if they are happy, they are following someone they can look up to, admire, respect, feel safe and protected by, blah blah blah…if not, not happy…

the ‘crazy’ comes out when she doesn’t have that in a way that is unmistakable. she’ll put pressure on the relationship (shit test) to check for leaks…no leaks = anything you want…with a big shit eating grin at being able to please her ‘leader’

the ‘big crazy’ comes out the same way you train a guard dog…you push it a little, it ‘fights’, you let it ‘win’…you push a little harder, it reacts, you let it win…soon enough you can break a baseball bat over its head and it’ll still rip your arm off…same with women…and the younger, more fertile (hotter) the woman, the faster the escalation goes…so she can ‘win’ at uncovering the ‘beta’ (so no sex) or ‘alpha’ (so anything you want, just use me and not that other chick over there…)…because her body knows that her time is short, and it wants those better genes…

my marriage was shot because of the ‘friendship model’, but i got some game and turned it around, thanks to this place and the related ‘outposts’ and for that i am truly thankful…

my wife is ecstatically happy, deferent, doesn’t pick fights, apologizes for being crabby or in a bad mood, goes out of her way to offer support, etc. in other words, she has become much more feminine…

she does NOT want to go back to the ‘best friends’ model of marriage. Just today, i was doing something and happened to slip back into a beta response to something, and she got kind of panicky, and told me ‘you know, i don’t want you to beat me, but you need to sack up, and make a decision.’ (direct quote…) she did not want me to be her ‘oh, i don’t know, what do you think?…’ ‘best friend’…and yes, there was a little bit of panic in her eyes…but only a little, and then it went away when i told her what i wanted…so she could work on being a good follower…

better follower = happier woman…

Why do women come to resent their appeasement in time? The male mind formulates, “She’s getting what she wants, why isn’t she happy?” The problem is projection: The male mind draws a direct connection between wants and demands. Accounting for a few Machiavellian exceptions, when a man makes a (rare) relationship demand, you know that’s what he wants. And so men project their mental experience onto women. But what most men (and most men are betas by definition who lack a sufficient learning curve in the hearts and beds of women) don’t comprehend is that women have a disconnect between their demands and their wants. When a woman makes a demand within the context of a relationship, it’s a reflection of her want, not the want itself. Her demands are better understood as either child-like gropings toward self-expression of confusing and troubling emotions, or subconscious gom jabbars (tests of mind) that aid her in her hypergamous (yes) quest to obtain the best man her looks and femininity can afford her.

Seen in this way, appeasement is a strategy that misses the mark entirely or, worse, fuels resentment because it is evidence of failure to live up to a woman’s ideal lover and protector. And it makes sense if you put yourself in women’s stilettos; appeasement is the biopolitical strategy of the weak, and what woman wants to be with a weak man? Weak men are inherently untrustworthy. You can’t know with the requisite certainty that a weak man will have your back when threats emerge. Grrlpower glorification notwithstanding to the contrary, women are slaves to their hatred for weak men, and a manjaw or six figure salary won’t change that innate female revulsion for pliant men. This visceral revulsion is so strong that even the obvious benefits of a reliable and generous provider can’t fully extinguish a woman’s bodily disgust at the thought of receiving his seed.

“Women with the really good, stable guy felt more distant at high-fertility periods than low-fertility periods,” Haselton said. “That isn’t the case with women who were mated to particularly sexually attractive men. The closeness of their relationships got a boost just prior to ovulation.”

To ensure that the findings were not an anomaly, Haselton and Larson repeated the experiment with 67 other co-eds in long-term relationships. This time, however, the researchers administered a better-recognized measure for relationship satisfaction than the one they originally used. They also administered a questionnaire aimed at illuminating a dimension not studied in the first round: pickiness. The questionnaire asked the women to rate how characteristic such faults as being moody, childish, emotional, thoughtless and critical were of their mate.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility.

The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.

“Since our female ancestors couldn’t directly examine a potential partner’s genetic makeup, they had to base their decisions on physical manifestations of the presence of good genes and the absence of genetic mutations, which might include masculine features such as a deep voice, masculine face, dominant behavior and sexy looks,” said Haselton, who is affiliated with UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

Men can’t (pragmatically) change their Hollywood looks, but they can change their behavior to conform more with dominant behavior that is typically associated with irresistible alpha males. A big first step that doesn’t require huge amounts of willpower is simply avoiding the temptation to appease women.

They also plan to look into how, if at all, the [aggrieved female] behavior is perceived by the male partners of these women.

“We don’t know if men are picking up on this behavior, but if they are, it must be confusing for them,” Larson said.

You bet it’s confusing for them, if by “them” you mean beta and omega males with limited experience navigating the shoals of women’s ids. Men who have bedded more than two or three women know the score, and the female behavior that’s confusing for most is for them an opportunity to play and enlarge the scope of their authority. The plain fact of this highlights the trade-off inherent in the womanizing lifestyle: The sexual experience that permits exploitation of women’s mate choice ploys to one’s personal benefit will also degrade a man’s ability to feel transcendent emotional attachment. Knowledge inevitably leads to cynicism, which is corrosive to romanticism and relationship stability unless one has the unearthly capacity to resolve the tension between self-interest and self-transcendence.

Relationship appeasement, then, is a Pyrrhic victory, buying time at best. When you stand accused by your woman, don’t act like a guilty party. Instead, act like a powerful authority figure suffering a self-incriminating tantrum from one of his acolytes, no matter who is technically at fault. I’ll give you an example from CH’s own repository of rendezvous.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ GARDEN HOSE: Sorry. I’ll stop.

hahaahha. Bizarro world CH. No, that’s not how it went.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: [silently waits a beat, then stealthily moves in to perform the same asshole move at half intensity and half speed.]
GIRL: Cut it out! What’s the matter with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: Would you say I’m being the biggest asshole you’ve ever known, or just a run of the mill asshole?
GIRL: Enough of an asshole.
HADES’ HOWITZER: Cause you know, I can turn it up so I’m number one asshole in your heart again.
GIRL: [starts to smile] Seriously, you have problems. No don’t turn it up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: [pulls same asshole move]
GIRL: Fuck!
HADES’ HOWITZER: Oh yeah, that hit the sweet spot.
GIRL: Grow up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: You know what I’m hearing? “Please pee on me in the shower tomorrow morning.”

To all the beta male readers: Next time you feel the need to appease, stop, and do the opposite. Pacification is the province of pussboys. You will take the road less traveled. The road to goad. Expect push-back. That’s a good thing. If you can stand strong against the immediate headwinds, you’ll find a tranquil, and deliriously scenic, vista open before your eyes.

Posted in Game, Girls, Maxims, Relationships, Ugly Truths | 247 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion