Reader IHTG passed along this photographic progress report of a girl who, presumably, improved herself from a flatbread plain jane 5 (PJ5) to a lordotically pleasing HB8 by hitting the squat rack and improving her posture, (and by discovering the allure of the come-hither smile).

I say “presumably” because I don’t know the provenance of this photo. It’s possible, though unlikely, that she got Brazilian butt implants. Also, photoshop, but I don’t see any telltale giveaways.

However, what she has done to her body by improving so dramatically its ability to arouse men is something I have seen happen to women who hit the squat rack for a couple of years. Yes, a commitment to the king of exercises — the squat — will, without exception and at any age, carve a better ass out of a woman. The squat is truly a girl’s best friend. I have yet to see a girl at the gym who spent any significant time squatting with anything less than a temptingly tap-able turdcutter.

Oh, and don’t be a fatty, ladies. (sadly, it needs to be said)

***

PA protests,

I agree with the spirit of the post but that steatopygous ass is disgusting.

Yesterday coming up a subway escalator, I saw a perfect ass. It was intoxicating. Leggy girl in jeans. It looked a bit like this:

I agree (as would most White men) that the girl in this photo has a nicer body than the kardashianette above. Slender, tight, and pert without the gross hindquarter ostentation typical of the jungly women. I should probably clarify (for the record): Redhead with the bubble butt is more fuckable than Redhead with the flat ass. Butt Redhead with the 2014 vintage ass is just right. (You can see lots of pics of Redhead here on her Instawhore.)

Steatopygous primate asses are all the rape rage right now; likely this reflects a combination of Western negro worship and a shift in the sexual market to r-selection strategies which emphasize presentation, sluttery and good-to-go authenticity. A truly beautiful White European women’s figure tends to exhibit plumpness in the breasts and ass in balanced proportion, anchored on pleasingly wide birthing hips and retaining a decorous femininity that allures rather than assaults.

An anti-Game theme that occasionally surfaces in Dank Right blogs that lean towards the tradcon is the idea that learning successful methods and means to seduce women is somehow indicative of a *beep boop* sperg mentality which women hate, and that is why “Gamers” have trouble with women.

The premise is false along multiple fronts, but the major departure from reality is the belief that this tradcon caricature of PUAs, or the term I prefer, “self-improved casanovas”, is wholly alien to the natural born Naturals who “have a way with women”. This belief assumes the man who actively learns how to seduce women is an autistic reductionist, or a nerdy systematizer, who will never really get women because of his emotional limitations.

No doubt, Naturals work their magic with an intuitive gracefulness they have likely possessed since puberty, and maybe earlier. I’ve had the fortune to count a number of Naturals as friends. I’ve seen them in-field, and their crimson art is truly a majesty to behold. They seduce with an effortlessness and serene confidence that can only be acquired from years of successful beddings and other forms of positive feedback from women.

And the naturals I knew (and know) were/are not preternaturally handsome. They were average-looking men who seemed more handsome than they were because they projected their charm and masculinity through smirks, squints, and slickly smooth verbal sorcery.

So what about the Self-Improved Casanova (SIC) and his commonality with the Natural? What Game haters don’t seem to grasp is that Naturals behave around women EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as “reductionist spergs” do. The main difference is skillfulness of execution, but that is something that the latter will improve with practice. Another difference: Many Naturals don’t actually know why women react so well to what they do. Relying on intuition tends to dull one’s faculty of self-assessment.

Naturals perform intuitively the same pickup techniques and strategies that SICs perform with foreknowledge. That’s the only real distinction between them. In fact, much of what the Game-aware community knows about women’s sexual nature and about the male behaviors and traits women strongly respond to is gleaned from a collection of observations of Naturals interacting with women in the field.

The *beep boop* impression comes about because some people who encounter Game teachings are uncomfortable with the systematic analysis and breakdown of a human activity — romance — that historically has been thought of as magical, nebulous, and even divine. And, yes, many Game newbs are men who don’t have intuitive social grace, and while they are learning how to be better with women will tend to exhibit the *beep boop* quality until they get more comfortable applying what they’ve learned.

All of which is to say, Naturals and Game practitioners are a difference in degree, not kind.

***

It occurred to me to clarify that this post shouldn’t be read as a brazen assertion that any man can, with enough practice, become a Natural. That is false. By way of analogy, not every man can, with practice, become a pro baseball player. But he can become a better recreational baseball player than he would be without practice.

So it goes with seduction Systematizers emulating Naturals. If you are a born sperg, yours will be an uphill battle indeed. But if you apply yourself, you WILL get more dates, and with cuter girls than you would have gotten “just being yourself”. It works this way because the courtship behavior of Naturals (aka alpha males) is a code like any other human behavior that is open to cracking. Once cracked — that is, once you see the Vaytrix — emulation of the behaviors of Naturals will work to your non-Natural’s benefit.

Masculinity is invasive, femininity is invitational. Funny how the most fundamental biomechanical sex differences play out similarly in the bedroom and on the geopolitical world stage. A comment from Steve Sailer’s:

strutting military-age youths with smartphones, giving Germany’s surrender a weird sexual vibe that nobody yet has explained satisfactorily even in retrospect.

Is it really that hard to explain?

The sexual appeal of strutting military age young men would be to whom? To women, both young and old. If the appeal is sexual it can’t be to anyone else. It is to women.

Does that mean an invasion of these Muslims is appealing to women? The smart answer seems to be No. But if the sexual appeal is not to women, then there is no sexual appeal, but we know and we feel there is a sexual appeal. Therefore the correct answer has to be YES. And the smart answer has to be wrong.

The sexy men are invading because the women want it.

And it’s stupid but it’s not false.

When men make a mistake, they invade somewhere they should not have–due to male desires blinding their reason.

When women make a mistake, they invite someone they should not have–due to female desires blinding their reason.

The reason we have not yet seen an explanation is that we assume politics are based on male desires. And second, women do not understand their own desires, so they would be less able to articulate this than I am. What woman would say, “I know it is stupid, but I need to see if these sexy, strong foreigners might make better lovers and rulers.”

But that’s the answer.

Setting aside for the moment the theory that there is a Freudian undercurrent of debased sexuality that motivates Western White woman’s advocacy for the mass importation of third world refugees invaders, there is something real and profound to the general observation that invasion – the storming of beaches, the colonizing of foreign lands – is a male thing, and invitation – the throwing open of borders and homes to alien peoples, the coddling and sanctification of wretched refuse – is a female thing. And just as it is with intimate consummation, so to does Woman find her purpose opening her nation’s thighs (and sometimes her own thighs) to receive the impudent cock of a dusky totem.

Examining the “White women desire swarthy refugee cock” hypothesis, another commenter replies to the above quoted comment,

The people who crave the complete destruction of the european peoples like to say this – and it can be persuasive for people who look at alternative news sites because those sites focus on the military aged male aspect of the invasion – but the truth is the opposite and in plain sight when you look at the pictures used by the mainstream media to manipulate the public.

The pictures the MSM show are nearly always children and mothers in distress.

You’re right the deliberate destruction of the european peoples is being brought about because of western women but the reason is the media are deliberately manipulating their sympathy for the children.

Just look at any msm news since it started.

What was the major turning point in the media’s propaganda campaign – the dead kid on the beach.

There is certainly truth to this, but only so much. Plenty of European women have now seen video streams and photographs of young Muslim men crowding into Germany and elsewhere, and yet they still heartily support the resettlement of a large and growing fraction of the Muslim world into their homelands. I don’t believe media propaganda can anymore shoulder sole blame for influencing all these shitlib White women to take selfies holding signs saying “Welcome refugees!”. There is a deeper, darker psychological compulsion at work, and yes it could have a sexual dimension hitched to a social status whoring dimension.

Whatever the psychological motivation of refugee-loving White European women, it has to stop, or be stopped, soon. The survival of Western civilization is at stake.

Another commenter writes on the same topic,

Women are instinctively attuned to selective pressures, and when a woman sees foreign people flooding in and people seemingly powerless to stop it, her limbic system starts to presume that selective pressures favor some gene or genes in the former and starts to think about acquiring those genes for her own offspring, especially since those genes are going to confer immunities to diseases and pathologies that the foreign people are likely to bring along with them that the natives aren’t going to be immune to.

Women are aroused by male strength and dominance above all other considerations. If the wider culture and ruling classes are arranging society so that Muslim migrants have the run of the place, and the native White men are hindered from expressing their displeasure and acting on it, the native White women will begin to feel desirous of those migrants, feeling in their bones that these are the tribe leaders they are looking for. But this is heady, Heartistian id analysis that is far too dark for most people, so I don’t expect any public shaming campaign of women’s redirected desire to begin any time soon.

This is a video of Dutch women at an airport singing a song welcoming Muslim rapefugees to their homeland.

A reader helpfully noted that most of the women are middle-aged hags and depressed-looking hippie retreads who probably stink of patchouli and practice cat yoga. The one young girl in the video glances around wondering wtf is going on.

From the very beginning of this blog, there’s been a propelling theme carrying culture discussions: The sexual market in the West has changed, in many ways radically changed, over the past half century, and this has had profound impacts on how men and women relate. Technology has driven much of the change, but social patterns and government intrusion have also contributed to the reorganization of mate choice habits.

One outcome of the modern sexual market which was predicted here (although not stressed as much as it should have been, given the nature and primal urgency of current events) was the growth of the demographic of unmarried, unloved, childless, aging, bitter White spinsters who sacrificed their prime fertility years riding the cock carousel (or riding its close cousin, the social media attention whore carousel). The French author Houellebecq has also tackled this theme of a fractured, and fracturing, sexual market, most notably in his book The Elementary Particles.

When women reach a certain age, and the lustful leers of men have abandoned them for younger lure, they realize the best is not yet to be, and a nagging sorrow settles on their hearts. For aging women who don’t have the comfort of a husband or children or supportive family network, this sorrow is very near grief. Some women will respond to this insult to their femininity by turning inwardly, finding release through self-help books, gardening, or arts and crafts. Others will vent their rage at the world, despoiling the political sphere with nonsensical feminist boilerplate.

And then there are those spinsters who react to their dispossession and displacement from the sexual market – and the maternal market – by exacting revenge on their outer world (homogeneous White Europe) with a summoning of succubi from their inner world. These are the women in the video above: benumbed, loveless rejects throwing open their butthurt hearts to trashcanistan migrants, expressing through their imbecilic kumbaya chanting a dual longing for sexual and maternal satisfaction. Merkel falls into this category, but unfortunately her psychological spinster distress could mean the destruction of Germany.

Childlessness greatly exacerbates this state of despairs. A societal decline in fertility means fewer children to care for, watch after, and guide through life, either one’s own children or the children of relatives and even close friends. After an unkind dismissal from the sexual market robs women of their instinct to arouse desire in men, a kinderfrei society robs women again of their other awesome love and yearning: fulfillment of their maternal instinct.

And make no mistake, the spinster’s pain doesn’t require a woman to remain unmarried. Weak, enfeebled, sycophantic beta male husbands can trigger this crisis of femininity just as assuredly as unmarried solitude, for the resentful wife of a pathetic beta feels as isolated as the single woman with her cats.

The title of this post is half-glib. I don’t think spinsters are solely responsible for the West’s present insanity. But they are a piece of the puzzle worth putting into place. The only way stone cold patriots will defeat the evil descending on their lands is first through understanding the nature of their foes and the elements of their culture that breathe life into the evil.

Piggybacking on the previous post (and perhaps modifying it), here is a research paper (h/t Irving) authored by Chateau VIP guest Satoshi Kanazawa which uncovered some ugly truths about sex differences in xenophilia (pathological love of foreigner).

For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly, the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age 50. […]

Interestingly, a separate analysis (not shown) demonstrates that the interaction term between sex and age in a combined sample of all ages is not statistically significant, except for religion. It means that, at least for nationality and race, women do not gradually and linearly become more xenophobic over the life course. They suddenly become qualitatively more xenophobic sometime between the ages of 40 and 50.

The entire paper is a great read, beyond the salient finding quoted above. Kanazawa is a skilled messenger of evolutionary psychology, even when putting forth theories that are more speculative in nature than established fact. Kanazawa’s basic contention – that wars are fought ultimately for access to, or protection of, pussy – dovetails with the CH premise that the sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

Anecdotally, I have heard far more support for rapefugees, and more generally for open borders, from young White women than I have from any other group of people. (The men I know don’t bring it up, but a few of them, when forced into a conversation about it, hemmed and hawed or meekly cosigned their girlfriends’ opinions. Even the alphas are susceptible to this inglorious path of least resistance.)

The women might not truly believe what they claim to think about letting in Muslim refugees — CH Maxim [X] explicitly advises watching what women do instead of listening to what they say, for the two are quite often at odds, especially in a mate market context — or they might believe it only insofar as they are signaling their conformity to GoodWhitethink, and otherwise don’t feel very strongly about helping rapefugees and throwing open the borders to the third world.

Whichever it is, there is no doubt young, single women (and yes, this includes single White women) vote IN DROVES for the antiWhite leftoid candidate on the presidential ticket. Kanazawa would appear to be onto something regarding the evolutionary psychology underpinning the easy acquiescence of young fertile women to invasion by foreign conquerors. And, as is becoming dishearteningly more obvious, when invasion isn’t looming on women’s horizons, invitation extended to the foreigner to traipse into their White homelands will substitute nicely.

To swipe a page from the Alinsky playbook and pin a suitably baneful term on the phenomenon: women suffer from ignorant xenophilia, and the cure is (*smarmy liberal voice*) education.

I hope that I’m getting a skewed impression of women’s true feelings regarding border control and White demographic displacement, because if I’m not then the fate of our White nations is sealed, barring repeal of the 19th Amendment.

Alternately, a YUGE increase in the population of marrieds and decrease in the age of first marrieds would also improve the electoral prospects of proto-nationalists, because married women tend to vote like their shitlord husbands. Care of children and preservation of family has a way of focusing female minds.

On a hopeful coda, data analysis of profiles on the OKCupid online dating website tangentially contradict Kanazawa’s finding that maximally fertile White women fetishize foreigners more than do men. If dating preferences can be extrapolated to immigration preferences, then White women want to import swarths as much as they want to date swarths… which is to say, not much.

Related, Kanazawa has a shitlord face, for an Asian.

Woops, that’s not Kanazawa. Here he is:

Recall the hoverhand. It’s a physical tell of beta male awkwardness and psychological discomfort around women. Chicks assuredly do not dig it, because chicks have a finely tuned receiver for body language cues that reveal a man’s mate value. The male hoverhand says to girls, “I do not get laid much, and I am really desperate and horny for female love. Will you choo choo choose me? Please excuse my flushed face, I just got finished fapping to 31 tabs of porn.”

Appositely, you will never see an alpha male hoverhand. The confident, experienced gentleman has no trouble resting his hands on women’s supple flesh, even women he just met. And women love him for this, because his poised palming bespeaks a winner who gets laid a lot, who is not desperate for female attention, and who doesn’t fear potential rejection from women who may initially flinch under his brash brace.

Guess who doesn’t hoverhand?

That’s right. Donald “My Hand Will Claim Your Body Like Columba’s Guac Claimed Jeb’s Heart” Trump.

Trump’s got his hands around the waists of two cuties, and there’s no air between his palms and their bodies. Not even his fingertips hover. The alpha male takes ownership of women, and Trump is doing that here. (FYI, women love to be owned by a powerful man.)

Also notice that Trump is employing the “flirting” hand position. Not too presumptuous (like the hineyhand), not too sheepish (like the friend hand). And certainly not the virgin hand. You can accuse Trump of many things, but you can’t say he’s an incel beta male. Trump’s flirt mode is always on, whether it’s directed at Hooters girls or at American voters.

***

Since we’re on the topic of Trump and his ability to put on a daily clinic in Game principles and tactics, reader Travis writes,

Hailey accuses Trump of being “angry” and tells the people to ignore him. Trump agrees and amplifies…

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/13/trump-3/

His response is basically, “You’re damn right I’m angry. I’m angry about how this country is being run. And so are the American people. Anger is good. Anger is what this country needs.”
I know it started out as a joke, but I’m really starting to believe that either Trump, or one of his aides is a Chateau lurker.

I was recently emailed by an anonymous admirer who said he/she has insider access to Trump’s campaign and that there were at least two Trumpites who read this YUGE, BEAUTIFUL blog. I can’t verify the truth of the assertion, so take it for what it is (100% TRUE).

If you look hard, there are outposts where Shitlords and Realtalkers feel free to speak unassailable truths. One reader passed along this quote from an Israeli politician who was offering an explanation for Europe’s open borders madness and supine welcoming of their rapefugee replacements.

Israeli politician agrees with your observations on the women of Europe + Migrants.

“Western Europe is kneeling and inviting the noble Muslim savage to rape it,” wrote the maverick politician on his Facebook page. “What is the meaning of this phenomenon? Were there only German women at that train station in Cologne? Where were the men?”

The Muslims who leave their home countries seek Germany, Sweden and Finland not just for financial reasons, he speculated. “There is something much deeper at play here. Western Europe is actually the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in God – the US, too, is mostly populated by believers. Western Europe is an island of atheism; the situation there is reversed.

“This is a culture that has removed God from its consciousness. It took God out of the game and locked Him up in museums,” Feiglin theorized. “The pressure of the Allahu Akbar culture bursts naturally into the irreligious vacuum – it is a matter of physics, really. Of intercontinental maleness and femaleness.”

“Generations of denial of God have engendered a craving for authority and meaning,” the philosopher-politician explained. “The police does not attempt to prevent the rape just as it did not attempt to prevent Kristallnacht, because in truth, it is desired. The battered woman syndrome, the subconscious, the political correctness of Merkel and those who invite in the immigrants, actually desire it. […]

“The circle closes with crazy speed,” Feiglin observed. “Women’s liberation disappears. The State will not protect you – get used to it. Your Godless religion has evaporated. Find yourself a man – a Muslim one, of course – to protect you. There is no other masculinity.“

“The battered woman syndrome” is just another way of politely saying “generic female sexual nature”, because all women, to lesser or greater degree, desire their submission to a powerful and dominant alpha male. And the dominant alpha male needn’t be manifest through the individual man; the strict orthodoxies of patriarchal religions like Islam also fill the role of authority that people, but particularly women, deeply and profoundly crave, beyond even conscious apprehension.

This is an important topic, because it befuddles not just equalist leftoids (who were never going to be un-befuddled) but also race-aware white knights who despite their willingness to grapple with many ugly truths that frighten mass media and the culture gatekeepers, nonetheless exhibit a strong allergy to thinking clearly when the subject is (White) women and their peculiar habits of mind. (These alt-white knights also co-opt a rhetorical crutch preferred by the shitlibs they hate: glib and snarky ad hominem against those who do speak truthfully about female nature.)

Men invade, women invite. The essential sex distinction is the male disposition to conquer and acquire power and the female disposition to accede and acquire the charity of the powerful. All real world evidence points to these diverging male and female essences. It would be funny if it weren’t dead serious that every single global crisis contradicts the feminist (and lickspittle manlet) worldview.

Today, a Swedish woman was stabbed to death by a Muslim refugee. Add her body to the running count of White female victims of rapefugee runaway entitlement. It has been three weeks since the Cologne mass sexual assaults on German women at the hands (and groins) of Middle Eastern men. It has been two months since the Paris attacks when Muslims killed hundreds of White Frenchmen and -women.

Dwell on recent history. Now consider this: two days ago, a German poll revealed glaring sex differences in male and female support for various German political parties. “Frauen” are women. The “AfD” is the anti-immigration party.

I don’t think you’ll see anything more shocking than this snapshot of the German female id. It calls to mind that Plath pith, “Every woman adores a fascist”. What’ll it take to convince White women that it’s in their best interest to shut the borders to hordes of nonWhite orcs?

“Best interest”? Maybe that’s the problem. Women’s best interest isn’t necessarily aligned with their men’s best interest. That Israeli politician quoted above is onto something dark and ominous when he accuses the West of assuming the role of intercontinental femaleness — the psychological condition responsible for civilizational ennui and exhaustion and prostrate submission to invading foreigners. Western men have become their women — gelded freaks who dress in mini-skirts to “support” victims of the Cologne sex attacks — and into that masculinity void unapologetically patriarchal Muslim migrants rush to provide that “other masculinity” which animates the hindbrains, and the ginewaves, of so many young fertile WHITE women.

Because who is going to protect these White women? White men in mini-skirts? It is to laugh. And though many women will claim otherwise to reporters holding microphones and even to themselves when uncomfortably alone with their thoughts, their actions expose a different motivation.

I call this sex-disparate phenomenon “The Feminine Mistake”. It was a mistake to hand to women inordinate power – at 51% of the population, women hold the levers in democratic societies – over public policy and the nation’s constitution. Women are who they are; they can’t help themselves when they vote for equalist leftoid nation-destroyers.

If the White West is to save itself from its worst instincts and sentiments, it’s going to take something that most cucks, manginas, and male feminists are loath, or scared, to do: tell women to step aside, because they are royally fucking up the place.

Another drearily familiar rapefugee news story contains a portentous subtext.

All over Europe, women are suffering the consequences of the Muslim invasion disguised as a refugee crisis, and one reporter’s encounter was captured on video. A group of Muslim migrants thought she was too attractive, then showed her what happens as a result.

The video is at the link above. There’s nothing NSFW in the video; it’s just the usual enriching perspectives we’re instructed to appreciate from our colorful third world Diversity.

A reader gives his interpretation of this vibrantly multicultural scene, and issues a warning to the White Men of the West.

Here is the reality.

These guys have monumental, stone cold asshole game.

They treat this woman like absolute shit, and she is fascinated by it, she keeps calling them back for more.  She lets the guy take the microphone out of her hand.

In the pussified world of Western European girly-men, these guys stand out as masculine, hard men who say what they want, take what they want.  They walk down the street like they own it.  They don’t smile.  They double down when challenged.  They give sub-zero fucks.

CH readers will see where this is going … .

The dried up miserable vaginas of Europe’s women will be engorged and dripping at the sight, and they will be blushing and squirming in their chairs and playing with their hair even as they say, oh, how awful … .  Then they will do everything they can to get more of these unapologetic bastards into their country, and look for the opportunity to be called a slut, have their hair pulled, their clothes grabbed and pulled off, be slapped, be violated, be dominated, be owned.  As more of these videos circulate, the man-starved women of Europe will become increasingly desperate to spread their legs for a vicious and hateful pummeling by these invaders.

They will forget their own so-called men ever existed.

And to get all “meta”, feminism was a civilization-wide shit test, and the men of Western Europe and the USA failed.  They have been reduced to sniveling beta status ever since.  The poon of the West is desperate for a stern and iron Alpha ramming by anyone, and the first guys who showed up are these Muslim dirtbags.

Looks like it’s their lucky day.

Note that the foregoing is clearly correct for the Germanic countries.  The Muslims will own the place in a generation.  This is not true in Eastern Europe, only the west.  The Poles, Hungarians, Serbs, will absolutely without blinking shoot, hang, stab, run over with trucks, set on fire with gasoline, or club to death every Muslims they can get their hands on before they will turn over their women.

Hyperbolic, but he’s onto something. After watching the video, I wouldn’t go so far to say the female reporter is sexually aroused (she could just be chirpily stringing the rapefugees along to make sure she gets entertaining quotes), but the wider theme explored by the reader is by and large true: when stronger* men invade your public space, your women will eventually, and often in contradiction to their own stated wishes, gravitate into an orbit with the dominant invader male valence and assume the submissive position.

*Stronger in a sexual market context means less appeasing, bolder, and firmer of frame. IOW, an asshole.

The lesson is that when an existential crisis threatens the nation, its women simply can’t be trusted to correct course. Men must steer the ship. And if that means dismissing their women’s opinions while they get to the hard job of making their country great again, then so be it. The dismissiveness will probably reignite their women’s desire for them.

The conclusion one must draw is the utter incompatibility of the White K-selected races with the less-than-White r-selected races. Multiculturalism is a failure. Worse, it’s a deliberate failure; an attack by the ruling classes against their own people.

The saracens are a different breed, possessing a natural ZFG attitude and patriarchal insolence towards women that may not buy them much poon in their homelands but acts like a tingle generating explosive reaction in secular, betatized, domesticated, and effeminated European societies. The shy, shoe-gazing, polite White European beta male – representative of his tribe – is rendered impotent when contrasted against the brutish brown man’s street theater, and the White man’s women notice the contrast, and their hindbrains, despite the best intentions that some may have, map out sexual market hierarchies accordingly.

PS Refreshingly, there are some young women who know the score.

If there is hope among White women, it lies with the virginal cuties. But, as reader Diversity Heretic averred, the White man’s chivalry comes with a necessary cost.

Okay, you want male protection. Male protection comes at the price of female deference. If you want to compete with (and displace) men in the job and education marketplaces, if you want women to be defense ministers, if you want to pursue a career at the expense of being a wife and mother, if you want income and status equality with men, if you want to ride the alpha cock carousel until your early thirties, then expect to find a beta male provider who’ll buy with a ring what you gave away free when you were younger and hotter,

THEN CHICKY BABE, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! GUTEN GLUCK UND GUTEN ABEND!

PPS PA writes about white knighting (when it’s appropriate, and when it’s self-toolage.)

PPPS Reader Philomathean adds,

I’m not convinced the majority of White women support the invasion because they long for a mud breach in their vaginal canals. It’s state sponsored, socially approved moral posturing no different in spirit than an Oprah inspired kaffeeklatsch.

I reply: But women lead the moral posturing to open the borders. They are lapping men in their eagerness for more diversity enrichment. There is a deeper psychological compulsion that animates women’s politics, and I contend it begins at the source of female sexuality: their innate desire for strength and dominance in men. Right now, that female desire has been redirected to outsider males, because their own men are hamstrung from reacting in the proper masculine manner to the alien threat (and too many are donning miniskirts as feeble signs of protest).

There is a relationship between a woman’s marriageability and her “down-to-fuckability” (shortened: DTFability). It’s quite robust and replicable.

Down-to-fuckability is fancy scientific jargon for the impression a woman makes that she is eager and ready for sex, and that bedding her would not be much of a challenge. DTFability also suggests an openness to sexual experimentation and to trysts in public locations.

DTFability is similar to, but not the same as, sluttiness. For a woman to qualify as a slut, she has to have racked up a higher-than-average cock count. A better synonym for DTFability would be skankitude, which embodies the stylistic and behavioral qualities of sluttiness but not necessarily the high cock count that is the trademark of the slut.

A woman who is commonly considered by men to be “down to fuck” is a sexpot identified by her skimpy clothes, whore hoop earrings, tattoos, slut eye and other quirks of appearance, as well as by her seductive flirtations and aggressively sexual demeanor. Masculinized women with the telltale “manjaw” and careerist ambitions are representative of the DTF woman; they don’t play coy and they love giving head.

Marriageability refers to women who are “marriage material”. These women are the polar opposite of down-to-fuckable women. A marriageable woman, by her appearance, style and demeanor, implies a low risk of unfaithfulness and a high disposition to romantic loyalty, and following from these implications she likely possesses a pretty good maternal instinct as well. These things matter to men who are considering settling down and starting a family with “the right woman”. A faithful, loving, affectionate woman is a woman who is unlikely to frivorce or cuckold a man.

Looks-wise, marriageable and down-to-fuckable women aren’t all that different from each other. Beauties can be found in both groups, although DTF girls tend to a “hard” look and a psychotic thousand-cock stare, while marriageable girls tend to look softer, kinder and, less encouragingly, diffident. DTF girls inspire horniness in men; marriageable girls inspire romance in men.

Horniness and romantic investment aren’t positively correlated. Their relation is haphazard at best. Yes, men generally want to spend lots of time with women who make them horny, but women who inspire nothing BUT horniness exert a relaxation effect on men’s more subtle sexual urge: the urge to protect and provide. In scientific terms, a DTF girl is a “fucknchuck”, while a marriageable girl is a “waitnmasturbate” (i.e., men are willing to wait for the marriageable girl to open up sexually to them, while they endure the wait by masturbating).

And that explains the inherent tension in men when choosing between marriageable and DTFable girls. Men love the sexy, alluring ingenue with the come-hither eyes and Mariana Trench cleavage, but they don’t so much love her infidelity risk and her reckless, indiscriminate coquetry. And men also love the coy, demure, innocent blushing beauty with the promise of a hymen and a chaste sensibility, but they don’t so much love her prudery, sexual timidity and loose-fitting cable-knit sweaters.

So men looking to the future with a woman that goes further than a one-night-stand or a three month fling must find a balance between the two female genera. A woman who is too sexy is a divorce and cheating risk. A woman who is too prudish is a bed death risk, comfortable with weeks of sexlessness and having an aversion to blowjobs (which when she gives them can result in her face twisting into a rictus of disgust; quite the mood killer with the lights on).

Which brings us to:

The Marriageability-DTFability Relationship Curve

This curve captures the essence of the subconscious decision-making process that goes on in the minds of men judging women for their marriageability. A High Marriageability woman is NOT the most prudish and faithful; such a woman will dutifully bear and raise your children, but she will not dutifully bare herself and raise your churro. A very Low DTFability woman earns a “meh” on the marriageability question.

Peak Marriageability occurs at the inflection point where a woman is still relatively chaste but has a nascent talent for projecting a hungry sexuality in your general direction. This is the Sweet Spot (to complement the Wet Spot). A man would feel comfortable leaving a Sweet Spot wife for stretches at a time, and simultaneously would never dread having to hear from her the snapper-sutured lie “I have a headache”.

After this point, the more DTFable a woman becomes — which, in practice, means the more a man will push hard for first date sex with her — the less marriageable she is. A woman with a porn star look and Megyno Kelly’s aggrocunt short haircut will arouse a desire to rush her home and pile drive her through the mattress. What she won’t do is make any quality man with sexual market options reach for his wallet to buy her a fancy dinner, let alone a diamond engagement ring.

A smart woman knows where this balance lies, and works it to her advantage when trying to snag that perfect man into marriage. If there are glowing reviews to be written for the High DTFability girl, it’s that she isn’t satisfied with missionary alone, she gets down to business without a lot of insufferable wavering, and if you have even a lick of experience with women you’ll know how to spot her cruel wantonness and avoid serious romantic entanglements that could cost you your sanity and sense of self-worth, if it was precarious already.

Recently, I had box seats to a brief lovers’ spat on the sidewalk. The couple starring in the show crossed my path perpendicularly. It was a telling scene, flush with unspoken truths about the differences between men and women. She’s following him, begging for his attention. The girl has that frantic look like her baby is floating down the river in a basket and she’s chasing after it.

All the while (not a long while, maybe twenty seconds total), he’s striding purposefully ahead of her, oblivious, or affecting an air thereof, to her fevered pleadings. He stands tall, a confident posture and a neutral facial expression leading his way. He looks kind of like a dick.

I couldn’t make out what the drama was about, but it didn’t matter. There was a larger message in this theatrical release. I thought:

“This is the direction love should go. It’s natural. Woman to man. Woman gives love, man receives love. (Man gives desire, woman receives desire.) No matter what happens next, this woman desperately chasing down her man will eventually fall into his post-coital arms, the both of them happy with their respective statuses in the relationship.”

I tried to imagine by way of thought experiment how my perception of the scene would have changed if the roles had been swapped. If instead he had been pleading with his girlfriend to slow down, and she kept walking ahead of him. I twitched at the thought with instinctive revulsion. There was only one-way love in that reverse scenario, him to her. Submissive Male to Dominant Female. A guarantee of relationship extinction.

No one loves a needy man, not even himself.

How will you know your relationship is on solid ground? If she’s running after you, red-faced and trembling with love and yearning and desperation and desire and, yes, fear. The sexual polarity is aligned. The love amplified.

If you’re running after her, afraid to lose her love? You already have.

A good, if abstractedly imperfect, test of a woman’s love for you is to ask if she would she die for you. You can ask yourself this question, and if you’re honest you’ll know the answer.

Would she die for you?

Because most women wouldn’t.

I watched TED talks today and a woman there defined love as you would give your life for that person. I would die for my son without question..but for my husband probably not. I do love him, but I wouldn’t die for him..would I die for my husband when we first started dating when I was CRAZY in love with him? Nah..

You’ll know you own your woman if she’s so in love she’d at least claim in online scribblings that she’d die for you.

Tradcons and feminists have more in common than either would care to confront. Browsing popular alt-right outposts, I’ve found that a significant number of them — not all; I don’t mean this to be a sweeping indictment of the tradcon right — share with feminists a misunderstanding of sex differences and of the functioning of the sexual market (hint: it’s transactional in nature, and sneering at the messenger won’t change that fact).

So what false notions do tradcons and feminists share?

• Pussy pedestalization

That’s one. Feminists and (some) tradcons reflexively defer to the contradictory premises that female entitlement both a. doesn’t exist and b. must be catered to at all times.

• Sexual desire uniformity

Tradcons, like feminists, wrongly assume men and women share reproductive goals, or that the triggers and the expression of their desires are similar. They are not.

• Sinful male sexuality

Tradcons, like feminists, express a wanton cruelty toward male sexuality, never missing a chance to pathologize it. Where it really shows is in their hate for sex differences in attraction and arousal, which they dismiss by denying the biocentrality of visual stimulus and mate variety to male sexuality. Or, if they don’t deny those things, they demonstrate their contempt of male sexuality by deriding its emotional and sensate power over men, and belittling men who “can’t control” their natural urges.

• Denial of female hypergamy

Female hypergamy is real, (and different in kind from male mate choice motivations). Maybe tradcons are upset by the science-y terminology. That’s another deficiency they share with feminists. If it helps them get over their anxiety about being mistaken for an autistic, they could call it “dating up”.

• Denial of depraved female sexuality

No one in the “Sex Pill” community argues that male sexuality can’t be depraved. Gang bangs, facials, and homosex come to mind. But tradcons, like feminists, have a peculiar habit of denying the facets of female sexuality that tend toward depravity and darkness. For instance, female rape victims often go on to have consensual sex relationships with their rapists. And, oh yeah, there are all those coercive rape fantasies women indulge.

Similarly, tradcons (maybe not so much as feminists) tend to overestimate women’s inclination toward faithful monogamy. Studies consistently show women are less monogamous than tradcons assume and more monogamous than men as a sex.

• Denigration of male sexuality as “entitlement”

Tradcons, like feminists, have a hysterical hatred of men trying to improve their romantic fortunes. They slander normal male desire for a quality dating life as entitlement, when it’s nothing of the sort. (Entitlement is the feeling one is owed something for nothing; most men who want to get better girls know that they have to put in the effort commensurate with the quality of girl they’re aiming for.)

The entitlement slur is one of the more toxic tradcon smears against men. The tradcon mercilessly mocks the man who strives for a cuter girlfriend, but lavishes praise on the woman who screens for Mr. Right. Self-discrediting.

• Belief that marriage is an equal sacrifice

Tradcons, like feminists, want to believe that women sacrifice as much as, or more than, men do when deciding to marry. Not true. Men must tacitly renounce the heart of their natural, God-given sexuality to marry; women don’t. Women have a greater disposition for monogamy than do men, and a weaker urge for sexual variety and profligacy. Marriage is therefore an easier transition for women to make than it is for men to make. This sex discrepancy in monogamous marriage sacrifice demands an array of legal and informal cultural recompense for married men. (This recompense can take form in big and small ways; e.g., “king of the castle” privileges, wife taking his name, etc.)

Btw, Tolkien and CH are on the same page about men and their greater marriage sacrifice:

• False equivalence between male and female cheating

Tradcons, like feminists, abhor sex-based “double standards”, refusing to accept that double standards are a fact of life when the species in question is sexually reproducing. Tradcons love to lump male and female cheating under one umbrella of equal awfulness, but the comparison deserves more nuance than that. One, female cheating can result in pregnancy (especially true before the Pill and latex condom, which was the environment humanity evolved in for most of its history). A cheating wife impregnated by her dalliance was a serious cuckold risk to her husband. The same cannot be said of a cheating husband.

Two, when women cheat, they tend to hypergamously cheat, (they turn the sex spigot off to their husbands). Men cheat in the harem-building style, mostly for physical pleasure (as opposed to the yearning for romance typical of cheating wives), and often retain love for their wives even during the times of their extramarital trysts.

***

My evidence for tradcon resemblance to dumbfuck feminists comes from reading what a lot of them who are normally straight thinkers on a number of hot button topics have to say about sex, love and women. I don’t attack all tradcons, but I do note there are quite a few of them who are as dumb about sex as shitlibs are about race.

(This is a good point to remind tradcons that one can be both clear-eyed about innate sex differences in desire AND about the importance of monogamy/marriage to Western Civ.)

The reflexive tradcon white knighting for the female sex finds its source in the same place all people tap when considering the lamentations of the women. It all gets back to the Fundamental Premise. Women are the reproductively more valuable sex (by order of the cosmic overlord), and this eternal truth explains innumerable societal phenomena related to the instinctive urge by both men and women to favor women’s concerns at the expense of men’s concerns.

***

It’s been claimed that the Sex Pill is the gateway drug to the Race Pill. But I’ve noticed a lot of race realists have trouble with sex realism. Is it a problem of demographic bias? Maybe race realists are older (less naive about race) and settled down. They’ve been out of the seduction game for a while and have forgotten what climbing-the-walls horniness feels like, or how much tougher it is to seduce younger, hotter, tighter chicks than older, hoarier, looser women?

A reader offers this photo of the Lion Trump as evidence of perfect alpha male body language.

Everything from the posture, to the stride, to the body language, to the insouciant look on his face screams alpha and oozes charisma.  These fledgling beta male gamer types could learn volumes from this photo alone.  Jeb too.  But he’s a lost cause.

Jeb is useful as a lesson in what not to do. He’ll never let us down on that job.

As for Trump’s victory stride… yes, I’d have to agree that is about the most alpha male pose a man could strike. The open torso and Christ-like welcoming hands ready to embrace believers are the foundation that support the entire alpha edifice. Open body language is alpha because it makes one vulnerable to attack, which implies that the man intentionally opening his body is confident no one will dare attack him, or if he is attacked he will fend it off easily.

Women (and men) perceive this gregarious posture as the look of an alpha male, because it triggers ancient stirrings in the primal cores of our brains. We are a divinely inspired species, but the animal instinct is always there, lurking, to remind us of our earthly shackles.

FYI, open facial expressions evoke the opposite perception in people. Wide eyes, raised eyebrows and open mouth communicate beta maleness. Combining a closed facial expression with an open body language is the recipe for influencing people’s perceptions of you as the arch-alpha.

From a long thread at MPC about the “red pill”, the assertion in this post raised an eyebrow:

One of the major problems with the Manosphere (that betrays the fact that it’s really just a vehicle for misogynists to try and get laid)

What did I tell you about tradcons sounding just like feminists in their shared compulsion to pathologize male sexuality? So now men with a working libido are “misogynist” according to the tradcon worldview.

is that they demonize female promiscuity while glorifying male promiscuity.

I don’t read red pill sites (except on rare occasions when readers send a link to one they regard as worthy of my attention). Speaking on behalf of the Chateau lordship, there is no “demonization” of female sexuality here. The telling of ugly truths about female nature is not the same as railing against female sexual nature and hoping it goes away or can be turned into something more benign to an equalist view of the sexes. (A glib “is, not ought” should suffice here.)

Now, it is true that, in a vacuum, female promiscuity is far worse than male promiscuity.

“In a vacuum”. How sophistic. Since when has the sexual market ever operated “in a vacuum”? Never. And yet, for reasons explained here ad nauseam (although apparently not nauseam enough), female promiscuity is more corrosive than male promiscuity to relationship and family stability and, scaled up, to societal stability. Yes, sluts really are more dangerous to social health than are cads.

However, male promiscuity REQUIRES either female promiscuity or homosexuality in order to occur.

This is the assertion that roused an eyebrow. (Ignore the homo slur, which is typical MPCspeak when faced with the task of explaining vigorous and unapologetic male heterosexuality.) Superficially, it sounds credible. After all, it takes two to tango. More cads must necessarily mean more sluts to complete the pairings.

Except, it doesn’t work that way. Betraying a deep ignorance (or willful dissembling) about the nature of the sexual market and the psychosexual differences between the sexes, this MPC poaster fails to grasp the reality of female hypergamy and male desire for variety, and how those intrinsic dispositions can affect the arithmetic of romantic pairings.

The top 20% of women strongly prefer to be with the top 10% of men. The top 10% of men will spread their seed among the top 30% of women (and often more widely than that), only strongly preferring the top 10% of women when they are serious about commitment and settling down.

The hypergamy-polygyny nexus results in a shaky equilibrium where a small percentage of cads are having sex with a larger percentage of women. But these cads jump from woman to woman, or they keep multiple women as sexual outlets in a de facto harem, meeting up with each one on an irregular basis, (hence the common complaint among woman dating jerkboys that the jerks they love are never around).

What this means in practice is that one promiscuous man will date ten less promiscuous women, since each of his lovers is likely to be with only him and not sharing him with other men in a multiple concurrent sexual relationship arrangement. (Women are more averse than men are to fucking multiple lovers concurrently.)

Conclusion: yes, male promiscuity can coexist with female chastity. Or a reasonable 2016 facsimile of female chastity.

Up to a point.

Eventually, if there are enough cads (cf., Africa) then sluts will have to increase in number to keep up with the changing ratio of fevered flings to lukewarm LTRs. A society in which 90% of men were promiscuous cads would require a boost in the numbers of promiscuous sluts to bring balance to the sexual force. Or one VERY slutty woman to service all those men.

This article has a really interesting graphic showing how men and women pair up based on their occupations. Perhaps unwittingly, the data prove the existence and intractable reality of female hypergamy — the tendency of women to date up, or to want to date up, to men who are higher than themselves in social, economic, or occupational status. (I’d include “personality-based” status, as well. Women LOVE LOVE LOVE clever, funny, charismatic men.)

When it comes to falling in love, it’s not just fate that brings people together—sometimes it’s their jobs. We scanned data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community Survey—which covers 3.5 million households—to find out how people are pairing up. Some of the matches seemed practical (the most common marriage is between grade-school teachers), and others had us questioning Cupid’s aim (why do female dancers have a thing for male welders?). High-earning women (doctors, lawyers) tend to pair up with their economic equals, while middle- and lower-tier women often marry up. In other words, female CEOs tend to marry other CEOs; male CEOs are OK marrying their secretaries.

A lot of traditionally-minded alt-righters with arthritic White Knight reflexes are just gonna have to come to terms with the fact of female hypergamy, and how this ancient biomechanical rhythm shapes the sexual market even to this day, when abortion, the Pill, and anonymous urban living are de rigueur adjuncts of courtship.

***

Some readers would demur that hypergamy isn’t sex-specific, pointing out that men also strive to find the best possible lover they can get.

My rebuttal is two-part: One, men don’t date up based on social, economic, or occupational status. Men, if and when they are able to date up, do so based almost entirely on women’s looks. We’ve all seen or experienced how men trade up when they’ve come into a financial or social status windfall — younger, hotter, tighter women, as the GBFM would put it. So male hypergamy — what is more precisely termed “physiogamy” — is different in kind from female hypergamy.

Second, male physiogamy is also different in degree from female hypergamy. Women are biologically compelled to aim for a man higher in SMV from themselves, and this compulsion is strong enough that many women will accept long bouts of solitude before settling for a man at their own SMV level (usually at the moment when The Wall first looms on the horizon). When men aim higher, they a. don’t aim quite as high as women aim and b. won’t opt out of the sexual or marital market (like women will often do), if they don’t get everything they want in a lover.

Men invest less psychological energy than do women to the goal of maximizing mate quality, and this is perfectly reasonable from an evo psych view, considering that women have a limited number of eggs and are effectively knocked out of mate competition for nine months plus many years after. Women can’t afford a “mistake” like men can afford it.

***

In before some alt-righter broken record claims posts like this one are the equivalent of an MRA whine to reorient the world according to the entitlement complexes of the Eliot Rogers of the world.

The reality is just the opposite: This post is a clarion call to see the world FOR WHAT IT IS, to not live by pretty lies, and to leverage the ugly truths — in this case the ugly truth of female hypergamy — to one’s personal benefit. And, I will argue, individual men demanding the best of women for themselves will redound to the benefit of the whole of society. (Likewise, women demanding the best of men.)

Men and women have competing reproductive goals, because it is required.

Molon MAGA!

This photo of the four remaining couples at a dance marathon was taken circa 1930, in Chicago. Can you spot the alpha?

Right off the bat, it’s not the two fine mate guarding gentlebetas hugging their dance partners from behind. Too protective, and they look like they’re delivering the Heimlich maneuver. If one of those guys instead had his hand cupped over a breast, kneading slowly and deliberately, he’d vault into alpha male consideration.

Number 7 is hovercrotching, a distant cousin to hoverhanding. I know you’re tired, man, but NEVER STOP GRINDING. Also, that pose is Lubio-level GAY.

But number 15 (or 51), he’s our leading alpha male contender. Passed out, from exhaustion or drink? Who cares! Normally it’s easy to be a ZFG alpha while asleep, but this dude is literally off his feet and his Children of the Corn woman is holding him up. That’s how you know a man is alpha; his girl enables his lack of commitment.

Truly, though, the real alpha male in this scene is the guy in the background refusing to participate in the spectacle.

***

Bonus Spot the Alpha, Ye Olde European Bounder Edition:

This one was primarily included for entertainment purposes, and to remind the sarcastic, Game-hater Poosy Pedestalizers pulling the “durr you’re teaching muh dik to White men” gambit that the fine art of wily seduction has been a storied part of White European history since at least Ovid.

The answer is obvious: The alpha is The Trumpening, front and center. That’s ¡Yeb! in the background, sulking and fiddling with his pocket turtles.

The woman, ofc, is Megyn Kelly, her billowy dress concealing the snail trail she’s leaving on the chair.

White man-black woman couples are exceedingly rare. Not as rare as asian man-black woman couples, but close to that level of rarity. In the past year, I can recall seeing maybe five WM/BW couples.

Given the small sample size, it’s difficult to identify patterns and generalize about the traits of WM/BW pairings. But I will try. Here’s what I’ve noticed (take it with a grain of salt-n-pepa).

– The White men drilling for oil are usually big nerdy galoots. They are tall and burly, but walk with an ungainly lope. Nevertheless, they could probably win a few fights if their lives depended on it. (Being big, however nerdy, also helps stay the impulsive beatdown fists of any black men who see the Towering White Nerd with his black girlfriend.)

– If I had to guess based on appearance alone, I’d say the White men with the black gfs make a reasonable living and aren’t likely to stray.

– The black women in WM/BW couples aren’t particularly facially pretty, but they are all thin. And they don’t have steatopygous ghetto glutes. Their figures resemble the bodies of well-muscled, athletic White women.

– The black women dating White men are very dark. Almost purple. This might seem strange, but their dark skin contradicts their facial features, which tend toward less prognathism and more toward a Horn of Africa caucasian-ness. Don’t get me wrong; they will never be mistaken for dark-skinned White women, but their black features are more exotic than urban hood rat.

– I suspect the black women dating White men are African immigrants, or 2nd or 3rd generation removed from immigrant parents, going by their skin darkness, noticeable lack of permanent scowl, and fashion sense (which is understated and in line with the style norms for White women).

– I have never seen a WM/BW couple with a mystery meat kid in tow. The couples’ rarity of occurrence might explain this, or…… the White men jump ship before marriage and kids loom large in their black girlfriends’ minds.

My theory: White men who date outside the race do it for the exotic bedroom pleasure factor, not for the affordable family formation reason. A White male shitlib will never admit this, but when thrust comes to buns the arid subconscious calculation of the inherited traits, positive or negative, of any mixed race child will give him pause. And the typical White male shitlib, for all his virtue signaling, secretly knows the score on race and genetics.

So, one may ask, why don’t White women who burn the coal make the same subconscious calculations before shitting out a mocha chip? First, mudsharks are generally low sexual market value; fat, ugly, dumb, and low class. Without black men to service them, they might never get laid and conceive a child. Second, women can be their own worst enemies when a dominant or charming man raises their horny level. Women don’t get climbing-the-walls horny very often as a rule, which means that once aroused they are capable of making horrible mistakes of judgment.

Cheers!

PS It’s my impression that, despite the rarity, the numbers of WM/BW couples have increased in recent years, keeping in line with US Census Bureau data that mixed race couples have increased by a nontrivial number in the past two decades. The Council on Igloo Affairs cackled with glee.

For evidence of our true sexual natures when artifice and compromise are stripped away, we look to the world around us and watch it go with our lying eyes… and if distrustful of our powers of observation we look to the historical record for an idea of how our distant ancestors navigated the sexual market.

One such very distant ancestor to humans, it turns out, was polygynous (one man, many women).

“The Y chromosome tree for gorillas is very shallow, which fits with the idea that very few male gorillas (alpha males) father the offspring within groups,” Hallast continued. “By contrast, the trees in chimpanzees and bonobos are very deep, which fits with the idea that males and females mate with each other more indiscriminately.” […]

Study leader Mark Jobling, also a geneticist from the University of Leicester, noted that “humans look much more like gorillas than chimps” when considering Y-chromosome data and mtDNA.

“It’s interesting to compare the shapes of the trees between humans and our great-ape relatives,” he said. “This suggests that over the long period of human evolution our choice of partners has not been a free-for-all, and that it’s likely that humans have practiced a polygynous system — where a few men have access to most of the women, and many men don’t have access — over our evolutionary history as a species. This is more like the gorilla system than the chimpanzee ‘multimale-multifemale’ mating system.”

A figure that gets bounced around the realtalkosphere frequently is the 80/40 ratio: 80% of women, but only 40% of men ever reproduced, over the course of human history and up until the relatively unique modern era. If this number is accurate, its implications are astounding.

One, it confirms a degree of influence on mating systems from female hypergamy. Women’s deeply hypergamous compulsion to prefer the shared company of an alpha male over the monopolized company of a beta male is a tough truth for most to accept. Though it is a universal truth subject to mitigation by recent evolution just like any human trait, and certain races of women may have been selected for a less hypergamous disposition.

Two, it suggests an ultraviolent past, far removed from the noble savage fantasies percolating in liberal minds, when death stalked men constantly. If murder, lethal accidents, and animal maulings were common throughout most of pre-modern human history, then there wouldn’t be many men surviving to reproductive age, skewing the sex ratio.

Three, most ominously, it portends dysgenic evolution in modern societies. We are near a 1:1 ratio of reproductive success for women and men in Western societies. This is a great egalitarian achievement from the perspective of those who would lose in a sexual market governed by the laws of nature, but the equal mating field may come with a stiff (heh) price: too many low fitness misfits passing on their mutational loads to future generations. Nature, in the end, always wins. No Title IX, condom, or Pill will thwart Nature from her appointed mission of culling the losers and rewarding the winners. And as of now, it appears the winners of tomorrow are those with healthy genomes and an aversion to contraceptives and the sex and the city liefstyle.

Bertrand Russell is a patron sadist of Chateau Heartiste for good reason; when he’s on, he’s quite good at cataloguing the ills that befall those cultures which turn their backs to the gods of the copybook headings. Here he is on the welfare state and its corruption of the sexual market:

If you got a chill reading this, that’s normal. You see how prophetic Russell was — the rise of single momhood, the destruction wrought by the divorce industrial complex, the encroachment of leftoid authoritarianism, the disavowal of kin and country — and you fear what is to come next.