Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Via Passerby, a bombshell 2010 research paper that found shitliberalism is a product of a feministed matriarchal system, while shitlordism is a product of a traditional patriarchal system.

CH, this is interesting. Young people raised by single mothers or from families where the mother had more influence are more likely to be lib/left (egalitarian), young people raised by their father or from families where the father had more influence were more likely to be more right wing (anti-egalitarian).

Definition of egalitarian in this case: support of racial and social equality.

Additionally, males were more right wing than females.

***

Abstract

Using 4 samples of adolescents from 3 nations (Australia, Sweden, and the United States), the authors explored whether the gendered nature of the family socializa-
tion environment affected young people’s level of group-based social egalitarianism. It was hypothesized that the greater the father’s influence in the family, the greater the children’s level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism. The results were consistent with the authors’ expectations. Children from father-headed households had the highest level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism; children from mother-headed households had the lowest level of group-based anti-egalitarianism; and children from dual-parent households were in between. Similarly, children from homes in which the father had the greatest decision-making power tended to exhibit the highest levels of anti-egalitarianism, whereas children from homes in which the mother had the greatest decision-making power displayed the lowest levels of social anti-egalitarianism. Family structure did not interact with either the nationality or gender of the child.

Single moms produce soyboys and pussyhat sluts.

Single fathers produce warriors and tradwombs for the West.

Don’t you love when science affirms your gut instinct? It’s like, why bother with painstaking methodology and securing grant money when you can just open your door and step outside for a front row view of the world?

THAT MEN HAVE HIGHER AVERAGE LEVELS of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism than women is one of the most thoroughly and consistently validated research findings in contemporary social and political psychology…

…the relative influence of male and female parental figures should influence the general group-based anti-egalitarianism of their children. Specifically, because of the relatively higher level of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism found among men, the greater the overall relative influences of male versus female parental figures, the higher the average level of group-based anti-egalitarianism children would have.

“Social dominance orientation” = a great trait for players and pappies alike.

But how exactly was social dominance orientation measured in this study? This way (fyi left unmentioned but safe to assume: most of the test subjects were White):

This [anti-egalitarian/social dominance orietnation] scale assesses the degree to which one supports or rejects social equality. Because two of these four items specifically refer to race and were also embedded in a series of other questions referring to race and social class (see Sidanius, 1976), this scale has a distinctly group-based flavor. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following four stimuli: (a) White superiority, (b) racial equality, (c) increased social equality, and (d) social equality. Each response was given on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). All responses were then coded into the direction of anti-egalitarianism.

That first stimuli goes right for the id, eh? I’ll guess that, paraphrasing, the responses broke down to “men invade, women invite“.

Swedish families tended to have slightly less male-dominated family decision-making patterns; Texas families tended to have slightly more male-dominated family decision patterns.

Stereotypes R Us!

And from the Conclusion:

Though the strength of the effects was relatively weak, the data indicated that the greater the father’s presence and decision-making power within the family, the greater the child’s level of group-based anti-egalitarianism. However, consistent with the invariance hypothesis (see Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), these family structure and family power variables did not interact with the respondent’s gender. In other words, these environments had essentially the same effects on boys and girls. Thus, the gendered-environment effect appears to be relatively constant across both the gender of the child and nationality, at least within the restricted populations sampled here.

Altogether, these results suggest that group-based anti-egalitarianism is not only affected by one’s own gender, but is also a function of the gendered nature of the family environment. Not only do men have a tendency to display transsituationally higher levels of group-based anti-egalitarianism than women do, but one’s degree of group-based anti-egalitarianism will also increase as one is exposed to male parental figures, regardless of one’s gender. […]

…these data were collected in the 1970s and 1980s, an era when paternal custody of minor children was less common than it is today….a contemporary sample of paternal caretakers would most likely have more typically male social attitudes than a sample of paternal caretakers from the 1970s and 1980s.

Will it be single fatherhood that saves European Christendom? Or will it be single mommyhood that destroys it? The race, so far, is a losing one for Team Patriarchy, but that last lap is where the warriors show their mettle.

Naturally, this paper being the product of social scientists, genetic influence is given no quarter. It could simply be that the issue of single moms inherit their pathological pussyhattery, while the issue of single fathers inherit their tribal protective instincts, and these inheritances get confused for attitudes resulting from the “gendered nature of the family in which one is raised”. Nevertheless, it confirms for everyone who doesn’t have their senses numbed by SJW screeching that there is something intuitively dangerous about ordering one’s society around matriarchy at the expense of patriarchy. You simply can’t entrust your nation and its posterity to the political preferences of women or feminized men.

To be fair, the authors did skate close to mentioning the possibility of causative mechanisms unrelated to self-survey responses:

Second, because these are correlational and self-report data, one is faced with the perennial direction-of-causation problem. Thus, rather than family structure’s affecting social attitudes, it is possible, on the one hand, that the respondents’ social attitudes were affecting their recollections of family life. On the other hand, this direction-of-causation problem is much more of a potential issue for the family-power, rather than the family-structure, variable. It is possible that those with high levels of anti-egalitarianism, for whatever reason, recalled their fathers’, rather than their mothers’, making most of the family decisions. In contrast, it is unlikely that respondents’ anti-egalitarianism attitudes also affected their recollections of family structure, regardless of whether they were raised in a single-mother, single-father or dual-parent household.

How about we play it safe and orient our society around discouraging single mommery and encouraging Father Knows Best?

Read Full Post »

From CH commenter Bucky,

That can be said for almost every POF profile

FACT: most mudsharks look like this whale. Old, blubbery, and desperate.

FACT: despite the above fact, our 30 year old Nigerian can STILL DO BETTER (and he knows it)

“I’m happy. I’m overwhelmed.”

Can we make #DisappointedNigerian a meme?

From commenter clarence boddiker,

90 day fiance is the basic cable television warehouse of the most beta cringeworthy soys out there.

There’s a new trend now, highlighted on the show, dudes who are trying to get 3rd world 4’s to marry them even though neither one speaks the other’s language. So, this dude travels into South America to marry some 20 year old meh chick and their married days and engagement are spent speaking into an iphone’s translator feature.

So we’ve got obese catladies marrying disappointed dindus who will love them until they get the green card, and we’ve got soyboy betas traveling to jungly paradises to meet schwarzenegger’s maids and coo at each other through iphone translators.

A dystopian prophet like Houllebecq could not write stranger fiction if he tried.

The post-modren West is the story of deeply ugly people, inside and out, trying to escape the reality and demands of the sexual market. I have coined it….The Fuggernaut. And it will consume us if we don’t beat it back to the abyss from where it was belched.

Read Full Post »

All the proof anyone should need that the typical beta male can rise above his SMV station and snag a girl “out of his league” (as SMV leagues are conventionally defined (often superficially)) is seen in the ease with which the same beta who wilts under the effervescent glow of a beauty will effortlessly interact with an unattractive woman.

This contrast is so stark that one may wonder if he is observing the same man at play, or if a charming mofo doppelbänger took his place to smoothly banter with the plain jane.

The awkwardness of our intrepid beta, as he bumbles and bobbles his chance with a cutie, sweating and spazzing and spitting the lamest lines, is defied with equal verve by the smoothness in body and nimbleness of bantz he brings to casual conversations with lesser girls.

And the girls’ reactions are predictable. The cuties will shuffle their feet, look embarrassed for the man, and lean away to make an exit on the slimmest pretext. But the mediocre missus’s, they are bewitched by the Lord Byron before ’em. Such a charmer!, they cream.

This, to me, proves that the spirit of a skirt chaser lurks within every beta male. He just needs to access it, to summon the ZFG-man from the depths when he’s most needed, during those times when the HBBubbleRear nears the boundary of his phallic frontier.

williamk independently corroborates the theme of this post:

Its important to underscore the subconscious roots of this stuff. Most guys assess themselves and then behave accordingly to their (often self-imposed) pecking order. Most guys will naturally have alpha body language around a guy a 6 inches shorter than them, or a girl they don’t find attractive. It takes these exaggerated status disparities for the average man to accept he can act with self-possession. The key is squashing the insecurity that happens when the status gap is closer, or even reversed.

Self-possession. That is the core concept. Some call it outcome independence. Some call it ZFG. Others, the “aloof alpha attitude“. Or, charming jerkboyhood. Old timers call it, “devil-may-care”. Hardliners use the term “uncaring assholery“. PUAs prefer the term “amused mastery“. Over time and space, the idea is the same: the man who wants it least is the man who gets the most.

Beta males have it in them to be great womanizers. They are at ease talking with plain women or or feminists or catladies or black women. They only freeze up and suffer mental cramps when they talk with hotties.

Now, the trick is to be that self-possessed man when it matters (courting hot babes). The smoothness that the beta brings to his face time with dull-looking girls is the same smoothness that will delight hotter girls.

The good news is that, if you know and recognize within yourself a fledgling ZFG-lord who makes an appearance when it *doesn’t* matter, then you know that the possibility exists — as assuredly as your Inner Cadboy exists — that you can be *THAT GUY* when it suits you. You just have to know how to coax your Inner Cadboy from his slumber when the need arrives.

The trick, then, condenses to something I’ve written about before, and which is stated explicitly in one of the less-heralded Poon Commandments:

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

Ignoring a woman’s beauty. Easier said than done? Eh, don’t be a pessimist. Sure, you’re trying to upturn millennia of evolutionarily-carved male limbic emanations, but vee haf vays to help you control your limbido.

  1. Bang hotties. The more hotties you bang, the less each new hottie you meet will leave you tongue-tied. Penetrating hotties in the only way that matters strips them (heh) of their mystery, their allure, and their power. Every successful affair with a hottie will make you more comfortable in their company. Of course, this is putting the tart before the whores. It’s tough to learn how to bang hotties by…banging hotties. (Unless you get lucky and can springboard off a fortuitous lay to more strategically planned lays.) Which brings us to…
  2. Don’t bang uglies. The more uglies you bang out of desperation, the more you psychologically groom yourself to believe you can only get, or deserve, uglies. It’s a bad habit that you shouldn’t indulge. Which brings us to…
  3. Change your mental state. No more flattery, no more thirst, no more hot babes’ dirty looks. It’s easier to ignore a woman’s beauty when you stop mentally rehearsing how beautiful she is, and focus instead on slotting her in the same place you put everyone, male or female: a random stranger who must earn your curiosity.
  4. Total recall. When you approach a hottie, allow your eyes to cloud over as your mind drifts to sharp memories of the times you held court at a social event, or flirted like a champ with a girl you weren’t interested in. You will be at once in and out of the moment, acutely aware of your environment, but also “someplace else”, enjoying the warm glow of a memory of yourself as a king among cads. This memory will leach out and express itself in your attitude and behavior.
  5. Be cool. This takes practice, but it boils down to “don’t try so hard”. If you tell yourself, “I’m not here to impress anyone” — and saying these little motivations out loud to yourself is more effective than repeating them in your head — then you really will stop trying to impress people, because each moment you slip up and appease your target of interest, you will immediately be whisked back to that promise you made to yourself, and the silent shame will provide a rapid course correction.
  6. Focus on her flaws. It’s cheesy, but it works. Zoom in on a facial flaw, such as a mole or a funny earlobe. Do the same for a weird behavioral tic she might display. Smile to yourself as you mull on those flaws of hers. Your smile will aggravate her, and dilate her pussy. With practice, you’ll announce those flaws of her in the form of a backhanded compliment (neg), and completely flip the script.
  7. Date around. The more girls you concurrently date, the less each new girl will wow you. Fallback options defintely take the edge off meeting and seducing hot chicks.

From MattyIce,

“Invariably, [the men] all say they remember being cool as … they just wanted to shoo it away, or tell it to go find the nearest bug zapper.”

I remember distinctly as a young lad, 6th grade, this concept hitting me like a ton of bricks… “Why do all the girls I think are ugly ‘like’ me and not the ones I think are hot? I need to start treating the hot ones like I treat the ugly ones.” And the rest is history, a fond one at that!

Rule #8: Treat the hot girls like the ugly girls.

Remember it, burn it indelibly in your hippocampus, and let it guide you through life. As dictums go, this one is biblical.

Finally, some wise words from an older CH post on the topic.

  • Get into a line of work where you are ordering beautiful women to do your bidding.

If you can’t get sex with hot babes, the next best thing is authority. Fashion photographers are not known as casanovas for nothing.

  • Hang out with hot girls when they’re wasted and pissing themselves and vomiting.

This is a pretty good cure for one-itis. Don’t worry about supply. America is churning them out like cheap factory products lately.

  • Never stop macking.

The life of the lady’s man is always in forward motion. The day you slow down is the day you start misremembering your ex as hotter than she really was. By keeping women forever in your orbit, by hitting on them day and night and year after year, with intention or without, you remind yourself of the corporeal, earthly nature of women’s greatest asset, of their insufferable and dispiriting interchangeability, and your heart is steeled for the endless battle.

Finally, the Rule to Rule all Rules:

Rule #9: Act like you’ve banged her.

If Rule #8 is biblical, Rule #9 is primordial.

Approach every cute girl as if you have already supped of her tuft. This is the most valuable mental trick I can give you. Visualize her naked body succumbing in writhing pleasure to your pherocious phang. Visualize her spent body unable to walk afterward. Visualize the cocksureness you possess from soiling the purity of this princess. Smirk knowingly that you have known her in fullness. Visualization of this nature will inevitably manifest in a change in your mannerism, and in thrall she will come to believe almost as strongly as you do that you have banged her, though this will strike her odd, but nevertheless arouse her to make reality of imagination.

Read Full Post »

I am on record stating my observation that American women are becoming more masculine, in appearance, physicality, and attitude. (And, parsimoniously, that American men are feminizing.)

The sexual polarity is reversing. Societal ruptures are inevitable as the poles switch places.

Further, there are archived posts on this blog in which the category of women called “Amazonian Alphas” was identified and discussed.

From old school commenter Clio,

This woman [the Amazonian Alpha], along with the Eternal Ingenue, is the most likely of all femme fatale types to be perceived as an Iconic Woman. But whereas the Eternal Ingenue inspires dreams of perpetual love and happiness, the Amazonian Alpha inspires, in those who fall in love with her, dreams of glory, of being raised above all the ordinary people who mill around on the face of the earth. She is the Maverick Alpha’s natural mate [Editor’s note: think John and Cindy McCain], although she may choose a more ordinary Classic Alpha. Often she is unable to find a man she considers worthy of her, and may remain single.

Keep that last sentence in mind as you continue reading this post.

The Amazonian Alpha is usually very intelligent and generally beautiful or at least physically impressive, being statuesque of build, like Maud Gonne, the Irish nationalist who made Yeats miserable, and often athletic as well.

And then, another detour into clear-sighted personal experience which would be vindicated by SCIENCE:

My experience with Amazonian Alphas I have dated is that many of them have striking facial bone structure and an often exotic beauty. They are never “cute” or pretty in the dull, washed-out, southern sorority sister way. They have the kind of angular looks and prominent features that a sizable minority of men will not find attractive. They are usually taller than average and wear heels everywhere and know how to walk in them. You will never see an Amazonian wear flip-flops. She’d sooner submit to a beta male like yourself.

Because Amazonians are the product of the union of a successful alpha male and his beautiful wife, they often inherit their fathers’ blazing intelligence, cocksure attitude, and ambition. If they are lucky, they will inherit their mothers’ beauty, but this doesn’t always happen. More than a few alpha females look like drag queens in pantsuits.

And now, a word from our ¡SCIENCE!:

Tallness in women correlates with masculine ambition. […] Researchers theorize the higher testosterone which contributes to taller female height also masculinizes the female brain.

***

Height in women predicts maternal tendencies and career orientation. […] In pre-reproductive women (aged 20–29, n = 679), increasing height related to decreasing maternal personality (lower importance of having children, lower maternal/broodiness) and decreasing reproductive ambition (fewer ideal number of children, older ideal own age to have first child). Increasing height also related to increasing career orientation (higher importance of having a career, and higher career competitiveness). In post-reproductive women (aged over 45, n = 541), increasing height related to decreased reproductive events (fewer children, had first child at older age) and increased career orientation. Results provide further support for previous studies that show physical masculinisation is associated with psychological masculinisation.

***

Tall women with masculine traits seldom have children.

How do I do it? SCIENCE, sometimes years later, will reaffirm nearly every drop of knowledge and pearl of wisdom from this blog. I haven’t hijacked the minds of the labcoats. I simply observe the world as it is, instead of concocting a world as I wish it were.

What about the field? No doubt, the deep blue slutopolises are filled to the lip with tall amazonians whose pugnacious personalities are only matched in stridency by their heavy-heeled purposeful marches through the corporate battlefield.

The blue city beyotches are tall, and getting taller. And broader-shouldered. And narrower-hipped. And thinner-lipped. And bitterer of quip.

So if you want a feminine woman with babbies on the brain, stay away from amazons.

If you want pump and dump fun with perpetually contracepted fuck machines who foot their own bills, a tall girl is your squeal ticket. Bonus: Those belle towers have long vaginal throws, so if you’re packing in length what she’s stacking in height, take it to the hilt and leave a cream pie at her bolt-locked cervical door.

PS Maybe, given the lower fertility of tall women, the continued existence of short men can be explained by the higher fertility of short women. It’s Darwinian trade-offs all the way down…

Read Full Post »

Height Queens

A comment from farmlegend about short women and tall men,

Carve it into the granite, put the tablet in Moses’ hands, and behold the burning bush – the biggest height queens of all are very attractive, very short women.

Seen it over and over and over again my friends.

IME, short dudes, like me, do better with women of average height.

Yep, I’ve observed this too. Little spinners gyroscopically gravitate towards much taller men.

I’ve written about Short Man Game (including addressing an older farmlegend comment on the topic), and the executive summary is that short men generally should target women shorter than themselves, but not to rule out very tall women. The latter will not infrequently hook up with shorter men for a similar reason that very short women prefer very tall men: biological balance of any potential sprog.

Tall men do have it easier in the sense that they don’t (typically) have to worry about target acquisition based on female height, but short men can get around this snare by learning to identify which very tall women might be open to dating a shorter man, and otherwise sticking with women who are shorter than themselves.

But the very short pixies could prove intransigent to the short man’s long game. My theory is that there is a subconscious urge in very short women to mate with very tall men so that their issue inherits a height from the fat part of the bell tower curve. Average- or slightly below average-height women don’t have this concern percolating through their limbic labia, so they will be less closed off to dating a same-height or shorter man.

Likewise, very tall women may have a subconscious urge to mate with men shorter than themselves, on the 50/50 chance that they have a daughter together who will inherit a less SMV-handicapping average height.

Read Full Post »

The strongest man in the world recently got engaged to a petite minx.

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson plays Ser Gregor Clegane “The Mountain” on Game of Thrones. More importantly, he’s 6’9” and currently the strongest man in the world. Even more importantly, he got married this weekend in his native Iceland to a 5’2” Canadian, body-building woman named Kelsey Morgan Henson.

His arm is bigger than both of her legs together.

FYI, ladies, THIS is what a female body-builder should look like: in shape, not shape-shifted into a man.

A reader emails,

The BIG, strong guy gets the sweet, petite hottie.

How come she didn’t want a pasty little guy who respects her and would never proceed to first base without a signed, notarized consent?

How come he did not want a strong wahmon with blue hair, tats, and a muffin top instead of a waistline?

IT’S NOT FAIR!!!

Big men are often found coupled with petite women. Naturally, big-framed or overly-muscled women psychologically project their preference for a big man to complement them onto men, fooling themselves that big men have the same tastes as big women. Nope. Big men, like medium-sized men and small men, prefer sexy lithe slender white hot foxy ladies.

And all women, big, medium, small, prefer men bigger than themselves.

It’s the God of Biomechanics once again making mockery of feminism and puling soyboyism.

Another little truth that feminists and soyboys run from: hsmv women LOVE LOVE LOVE to feel impotent and vulnerable in the arms of a physically powerful man. Candy is dandy, but tossing her around like a rag doll in bed makes her knickers slicker.

***

Shiv of the Week:

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 »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: