On my travels to the four corners of the globe, I’ve noticed something very telling about the casual fashion choices White women make within different contexts. Yoga pants, as most of you know, have been staples of the White woman wardrobe for years. Basically, yoga pants are underwear, worn in public. Most styles are extremely tight, some have thigh cuts that are see-through, and all display the camel toe in its full glory, leaving little to the imagination. A few styles cut a crevice so deep in the ass cheeks you can just make out the rusty starfish.

So yoga pants are the striver class-approved slut outfit for SWPL women who want to flaunt their sexy bodies and then bitch about beta males, who have the gall to possess functioning libidos, ogling them. See, proles and SWPL ladies are more alike than not; their goals are the same, but they choose to achieve those goals via different pathways of expression.

Anyhow, to the chewy center bursting with Bartholin’s flavor. In the blacker neighborhoods — the ones gentrifying but still menacing enough to put a pep in the step of Whites who venture out after 7pm or have to walk past throngs of friendly “teens” — you will rarely see White women in yoga pants. They are more conservatively dressed. Jeans are common. Leggings with a long-ish dress or skirt over them are also common. In the heat, shorts are tasteful; no underbutt. I’m talking about SWPL White women here; the ones with mid-paying jobs, sterling Women’s Studies credentials, and big brains they drown in mimosa juice. I’m not talking about the mudshark dregs with the tattoos and needle marks.

In contrast, in the Whitest huetopias, the skin-tight, labia-compressing yoga pants are everywhere. Where da sluttily-dressed White women at? In White neighborhoods. What’s going on here?

I have a thought. Striver White women soaked in a lifetime of feminist tankgrrl indoctrination dress to attract alpha males (while having to deal with the risk of sending the wrong advertising signal to beta males), and they dress to flaunt the power inherent in their number one asset (their figures, culminating to a point at the mons pubis). In White neighborhoods filled with hirsute hipster goons concealing weak jawlines, White women feel unrestricted freedom to flaunt their creases and cracks. This freedom makes them power-drunk, and they love the torment (or thought of it) that they can cause to erupt in the silent skullcases of fearful beta males ogling them from a safe distance.

In the blacker zones, this strategy doesn’t work. Way too risky. Black-on-White women rape is epidemic (leftie White women know this even though they’d never admit it). A darkpool of dindu nuffins loitering on a street corner, veins coursing with the liberating elixir of low impulse control, will not let a yoga pants sloot, with looks that shame the mammoth black beasts the brothers are used to boffing, walk by unmolested. One thing blacks don’t do: cast sidelong, shy glances from a distance while pretending not to notice the lingerie show strutting down the street. They will let a slutty White women know, in so many jungly hoots and howls, that her goods are the sheeeeiit, and they intend to sample them.

Naturally, there will be no White hipsters to white knight for her. And justifiably so. What noodle-arm would risk a five-on-one swarm because he stood up for the honor of some cunty careerist feminist White woman who thought it would be a good idea to display the contours of her vagina to the Congo line?

This, of course, scares feminist White women. Scares them enough that they shelve the yoga pants in favor of more modest attire when blacks are a significant part of the outdoors scenery. Then, in their spite and resentment and bitterness at having to concede the core reactor of their female power to a stronger force (naggers), they will go home and spew a river of Tumblrrhea about misogynist, racist White guys who oppress the POC.

One solution to this impasse: White beta males can start hitting on yoga panties and make them pay at least a small psychic cost for their skanky exhibitionism. The results of shifting White women’s expectation bias are a positive development for White men: Either a more chaste White womanhood emerges that defers as obsequiously to White men as to Machete-Americans, or White betas start scoring more poon which boosts their confidence and swagger and thereby coaxes some respect from the SWPL White women who for now can only spare their respect for the urban orcs that forcefully extract it from them.

PA (his blog here) delivers a swift uppercut to the triple chin of America’s gender blender equalists.

The difference between man and woman: the lion fights to the death for his cubs. The lioness goes into heat when an interloper kills her cubs.

The analogy that PA draws explains why women are more amenable than men to voting for politicians who will open the borders to mass quantities of alien races. It’s just a simple fact of sex differences that women come pre-installed with a submission algorithm that executes with a supine ferocity at the exact moment a stronger, more self-confident tribe of men overruns their own men wracked with doubt and enfeeblement.

Islam (president Gay Mulatto’s preferred religion of affinity) is the ultraviolent tribe currently laying waste to the West’s shibboleths, if not the West’s lands, but give it time…if enough shibboleths fall, the spiritually impoverished people of the West will cede their lands with barely a fight (and more likely than not with an excuse for why ceding territory is a moral imperative). And if the estrogenized transom is any indication, too many women are rushing to defend Muslim interlopers from whitemalepatriarchychristianbigotsgunlovingredneckbiblebeltthumpers. Western women are figuratively, and in some cases literally, going into heat for the marauding morlocks.

Does this mean women are innately treacherous? As a political question, maybe. But I would say as a judgment on their character, no, women are who they are: by nature maximizers of their reproductive fitness, and that means to save their valuable eggs they’ll submit to the men with the most passion for conquest. They know not what they do, iow, except how to survive in a world only superficially moved beyond its primal energies.

The answer to the Woman Question, as PA alludes, is for the men of the West to deny the interloper lions access to their lionesses. Accomplish that, and their women won’t feel compulsions to shift allegiance.

Commenter maldek regurgitates a shopworn belief among a certain set of manospherians concerning the ability of LSMV women to get sex.

Women at 58 – even much worse looking and overweight women – CAN get dates easily.

No they can’t. More on this below.

They can get as much sex as they want easily. Quantity is not a problem.

Yes it is. More on this below.

The problem is, the quality of mate. Dates are from younger guys who can get laid in their own age group or younger so they date older. Or from guys their own age or older who are in one way or the other SMV rejects and have no other options.

Man with options with an SMV of 7 or higher can and prefer to date younger pussy. This hurts the old hotty even more than it hurts the overweight ex-housewife, because she is used to male attention of the 8+ area and now has to decide between low quality flesh and high quality plastic inside of her lady parts. More often than not, its the later.

Look, you don’t need SCIENCE! to tell you that fat, ugly, and old chicks have trouble getting laid. If you enjoy a halfway-respectable social life, you’ll notice time and again that the unattractive girls show up to parties and events alone, and leave alone, no man to escort them home for post-party boffing. It happens so often no one really blinks an eye, because it’s expected. If you DO need SCIENCE!, please consult the CH archives for studies clearly finding that fat chicks have sex less often than slender babes.

In the real world, fatties, fuglies, oldies and, less frequently, super hot sexpot ingenues with a case of BPD, are the ones who never seem to have a boyfriend when they meet up with their social groups. The sexpots are BF-less for a different reason: they play the field so much they’ve forgotten how to identify a quality man worth slowing down for and stashing the crazy in the crawl space.

The SMV hierarchy of “ease of getting laid” looks like this (note that ease of getting laid does not necessarily imply fulfillment of sex opportunities), in descending order of ease:

Alpha females (HB 8s, 9s and 10s)
Super Alpha males
Beta females
Alpha males
Beta males
Omega females
Omega males

Fat, ugly and old women are essentially omega females in the sexual market, and that’s reflected in the fact they have as much, perhaps more, trouble getting laid as do garden variety beta males. In line with what we know about biomechanics and sex differences in reproductive goals, Omega Females are the instant sexual access equivalent of Beta Males. They don’t get sex offers, direct or indirect, as often as prettier girls, and when they do get laid it’s usually with flings who aren’t their first choice and who don’t even feign a promise of commitment to a longer term agreement.

Omega males have it the worst, and can often go years without so much as a whiff of womb flower.

(Note the curiosity that beta females — 4s, 5s, and 6s — have an easier time getting laid than regular alpha males. The cheapness of sperm guarantees that even alpha males have to put a little legwork in to find a willing buyer.)

So while it is true that in general women can get sex easier than can men, in the particulars we see that this truth varies by the sexual marketability of the woman in question, just as it does for men. What we can say with certainty that applies to all men and women is that the curve for women’s “ease of getting laid” is shifted to the rawdog right of the same curve for men. But there are still plenty of women on the left side of their sex-getting curve who languish as insols for uncomfortable lengths of time.

There’s another psychological dynamic that puts the lie to the “ugly girls can get laid whenever they want” mantra. Women simply don’t emotionally or mentally process their ability to get laid the same way men do for themselves. If a fat chick can slum it with a piss-stained bum, that’s no comfort to her ego. Even if she has an easier time getting hobo dick than a similarly LSMV man has getting fatty furrow, that reality won’t resonate with a positive assessment of her self-conception.

Succinctly, women don’t count loser men as validation of their sexual desirability, (just as they don’t count vacation sex or anal sex as points toward their lifetime partner count). A bum willing to fuck a fat chick just won’t register in her brain as evidence that she can get laid whenever she wants. For women, the only men that register as proof positive of their feminine allure are quality men with options who have willingly chosen them over others, instead of having been chosen because the woman was desperate.

Some manosphere types (and a lot of bitterbitch feminists) forget this because, just like feminists, they frequently dupe themselves into projecting their male sensibilities onto women. That never works. Notch count, and the ability to inflate it, has a different meaning for men and women. However, their wrongness on this subject does spring from a premise with a small kernel of truth: ultimately, sex-getting comparisons between men and women are inherently flawed, because women are, barring exceptions, the receiving sex, and men are the achieving sex. Women wait to receive the sex of a bold sex-getting man emotionally judged worthy of their reception, while men are moved to action to achieve the sex of a beautiful sex-receiving woman penilely judged worthy of their injection.

Because of this intractable psychological and behavioral difference between the sexes, it’s difficult to say with precision that this man and that woman have equal capabilities to easily get laid. The man may have a shy personality or religious feeling that limits his easy sex opportunities, and the woman may be surrounded by timid men who incidentally limit her easy sex opportunities. For this reason, the evidence that fat chicks can’t get laid easily is even more damning than at first blush, given that they have to betray their native womanhood and allow emotional distress into their lives when they chase after men to get the sex they aren’t getting by waiting around passively for a man to approach them unsolicited.

In the big picture, though, the Thirsty Beta Male = Thirsty Omega Female formulation is a useful shorthand. Refer to this post the next time some butthurt blowhard goes on at length about how women have it so great because even the ugly ones can get sex on demand.

In a CH post about older men’s advantages in the sexual market, frequent sex difference and Game denialist wolfie65 avers,

There are VERY few things in this world that actually do get better with age.
High quality wine (if you like that sort of thing), high quality cheese (to a point), things made very well from high quality wood, like musical instruments or furniture.
People are not one of those things.

Generally true, past a certain age. But that threshold age from youthful to old is different for men and women. Most men aesthetically peak around 29-30 and stay there well into their late 30s. For women, their physical peak happens somewhere between the late teens and early 20s, and doesn’t stay there long.

Men who lift weights and don’t bloat up can look quite dashing to the majority of women well past their 30s. Women who lift and stay slender will keep their sexual worth longer as well, but not nearly as long as in-shape men keep theirs. So the adage that one should strike while the iron is hot is more germane to a woman’s romantic fortunes.

If men over 30 have any advantages in the dating market, they are:
1) MONEY – Very few younger men have any money worth bragging about and da wimminz do LOVELOVELOVE da moolah, all polls to the contrary.

Sure, women love da moolah, but it takes a LOT of moolah to activate a woman’s love programming. Merely being in the top quintile of SES won’t cut it. The entrance fee for unlimited access to poonworld rides is seven figures in the expensive shitlib cities. Given that most men boffing cute girls have nowhere near seven figures, it stands to reason that, although money may be a powerful attractant once accumulated over a very high amount, it’s a rather weak attractant below that number. Other, more important, factors contribute to a man’s success with women.

2) Social status – Very few younger men (athletes, rock stars) have the kind of ss women are looking for, their mostest favoritest sport being social climbing.

Younger men who aren’t musicians or athletes can accrue social status through sheer force of personality. If you make yourself the life of the party, women will notice. And, always worth reminding recalcitrant readers, BOLDNESS is itself a sign of a man’s social status. If you approach girls uncompromisingly, they will adorn you with a higher status than you would otherwise have had if you stayed in your little corner staring at them lustily.

The ZFG part is more something that benefits you, the guy, internally, as it makes failure easier to deal with.

ZFG does more, far more, than simply make courtship failure easier for a man to deal with, (specifically which in Game terminology is called “outcome independence”). Zero Fucks Given is an ATTITUDE, expressed manifold ways through a man’s words, behavior, and body language, that women have FINELY TUNED VAJDAR for recognizing, because it is in women’s DARWINIAN INTERESTS to hook up with and fall hard for men whose attitude suggests they could TAKE OR LEAVE those women. This kind of man is desirable BECAUSE he acts like he’s desirable. And desirable men have OPTIONS, which they show by never bending over backwards to appease or impress any one woman.

It’s not something she’s going to pick up on at da club, not even with her magical powers of ‘female intuition’ ESP………

Yes, she is. This is the gripe of someone who hasn’t been in a heated sex market arena in a long time. No ESP required. Women have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and tingling pussies for which men are high value, just like men have a sense originating at the nexus of their hindbrains and boners for which women are high value. Men react instinctively to the sight of a beautiful, height-weight proportionate young woman. Women react equally instinctively to the company of a masculine, devilishly charming, self-confident, ZFG man.

The sexual market is the prime market exactly because its machinations are governed by instinct instead of by considered forethought. It’s hard to undermine human instinct, though our Equalist Overlords are doing their level best to do just that.

Pman sells the science of physiognomy short. There’s evidence (re)emerging from the labcoats’ mental masturbatoriums that a person’s looks do say something about his politics, smarts, personality, and even his propensity to crime. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air, and the historical wisdom that one can divine the measure of a man (or a woman) by the cut of his face has empirical support.

For instance, facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is a reliable cue to dominant social behavior in men. Another study found that wide-faced men are untrustworthy. You CAN judge a book by its cover: ugly people are more crime-prone.

Shitlibs have a look. Shitlords have a look. And you can predict with better than 50/50 chance which 2016 presidential candidate a person supports based on nothing more than their photograph.

Physiognomy is real. It needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and the snarling equalists who lied and slandered good men to suppress the investigation of physiognomy should have their faces rubbed in the realtalk. Physiognomy isn’t just an illusion of confirmation bias, or of backwards rationalization of evoked emotions. The connection between facial appearance and character is observable and measurable, not a figment of cognitive self-bias. There are exceptions, of course, but the existence of exceptions should not be used as an excuse to sweep the reality of the rule under the rug.

Men love women who look happy. Women love men who look…. take a guess.

Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of “bad boys” and other iconic gender types.

Of course, if you were to ASK the typical woman in a public setting surrounded by her family and peers which kind of man she would rather date, she’ll say the smiling happy man. Women are loath to publicly admit romantic preferences that would expose the disturbing nature of their sexuality. But any man who’s lived a day in his life knows the special appeal that swaggering douchebags or mysterious brooding artists have to women.

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult

Nice N.

participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

Careerist, manjawed feminists extolling the lean-in philosophy wept. Men prefer deferential, submissive, vulnerable women. I.e., feminine women.

“It is important to remember that this study explored first-impressions of sexual attraction to images of the opposite sex,” says Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author. “We were not asking participants if they thought these targets would make a good boyfriend or wife — we wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction.”

The sexual market is the prime market because (among other reasons) it operates on the level of the human subconscious, where instinct and “gut” forge behavior before the frontal lobe pitches in to rationalize that based behavior as freely chosen and socially appropriate.

Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men.

Fashy coda! Affirms the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” maxim. For those cucklets who insist that women only value men’s looks, remember that women are predisposed to valuing VERY LITTLE of men, even decent-looking men, BEFORE those men have approached and displayed their masculine boldness.

It’s been covered here at the Chateau many times…women are the more discriminating sex, and that extends to women’s perceptions of men’s looks. Which is implicitly good news for less Hollywoodian men, because if women only consciously value the top 5% in male looks then the reality that far more than 5% of men are dating cute girls proves that women must subconsciously value other traits in men. This study indirectly highlights a selection of those other attractive male traits: confidence, cockiness, inscrutability, danger, and dominance.

***

Nikolai adds an insightful comment about women’s seemingly weird attraction to shame-faced men.

This is the second study I’ve seen where ‘ashamed’ or ‘guilty’ was the second most popular look for men. I think I know why this is.
When I first started seeing multiple women, dates would ask me about it and I would look shamefaced. This would prove what I was up to and I was surprised to find that they reacted positively, like those female teachers who can’t help adoring the naughty boy.
Of course, haughty and nonchalant would have been even better. That’s why ashamed only comes in second.

Anything that communicates “I’ve been a bad bad boy” will fire up a woman’s libido.

In a study of paraphilia (obsession with unusual sexual practices), a curious sex difference poked out of the findings. See if you can spot it.

That’s right, men are over-represented in every sexual perversion except one: masochism. Women are the eager beavers of sexual masojism. It is to LOL.

Any regular Chateau guest would not be surprised by the discovery that women are more sexually masochistic than men. Women are attracted to dominant men, and one way male dominance is exerted is in the bedroom. Women therefore enjoy the masochistic pleasure of submitting to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man, or will purposely assume a masochistic sex play role to fulfill their need for submission to a dominant, takes-what-he-wants man if such a man isn’t satisfyingly forthcoming with his dominance prowess.

Also, the fact that men excel at all sorts of sexual fetishes is indicative of their inherent “cheap sperm” reproductive status. Men are constantly on the lookout for mating opportunities, and expanding the field of sexual outlets beyond normie sex with an alt-right tradwife widens (heh) men’s scope of intercourse possibility. It is therefore hypothesized by your free-thinking host that very LSMV men will be found at the margins of sexual proclivity, hoping to snag some kind of scrotal relief that they are hard-pressed to achieve the normal way.

This fact is the “is” part of the “is, not ought” equation, and its existence should not be used as justification for social engineering to make sexual freaks more accepted by the general public.

That’s Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin. Photo was taken sometime in the 1970s, I’d guess.

As a psychological experiment, its raw unapologetic essence can’t be topped for rudely revealing the fundamental psychosexual difference shaping male and female desire. Both men and women — at least normal, sexually dimorphic men and women and not bitter androgynous blobs — would feel sexually aroused by this photo.

Which really says all you need to know about the sexes. Men are aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman submitting to a dominant man administering disciplinary blows to her backside. Men imagine themselves in the role of the man in the photo, and become excited.

Women are aroused by the sight of a dominant man exerting his uncompromising power over a vulnerable woman surrendering to her punishment. Women imagine themselves in the role of the beautiful woman in the photo, and become excited.

If you could only know one thing about women, this photo, and how men and women react differently to its stimuli, is sufficient to guide you through life.

Here is a photo of a just-married man with his blushing bride. Did you cringe while looking at it? That’s understandable. Her body language drops at least three clues that this marriage is doomed to roll off the divorce disassembly line.

1. He’s leaning into her (and her head is arching away from his kiss).
2. She’s (fake) smiling for the camera, instead of for him.
3. She’s got the kung-fu take-down grip on his wrist, as if she’s ready to stop his hand from roaming toward her ass.

Those are bad omens for your marriage if your bride is like this woman. Recall an ancient CH maxim (paraphrasing): If a man has to chase a woman’s love, she’ll never relinquish it.

The romantically successful couple reverses the polarity balefully evidenced in the photo above. A marriage destined for many years of reciprocal loving love looks more like the couple in the photo below:

This pic is literally the mirror image of the first photo. The man — Trump — is the one looking at the camera smilingly, his hand smugly occupying the erogenous nook of Melania’s appealing lordosis, and tickling the top of her ass. His torso, like his megashit-eating grin, is swiveled forward-facing. Meanwhile, Melania gazes at him adoringly, pressed unquestioningly into his chest, seemingly oblivious to the photographer in the room. If there is an attention whore here, it’s Trump, not Melania, and that makes all the difference in the world.

To recap:

Chasing man + chased woman: splitsville
Chased man + chasing woman: healthy relationship
Chasing man + chasing woman: unmarried couple in throes of lust
Chased man + chased woman: theoretically possible if both partners are cheating

Within these hallowed stony Chateau halls, scribes once labored to define for a general audience the characteristics of the alpha male, the beta male, and the rest of the men who reside somewhere along the SMV (sexual market value) ball curve of male desirability.

Due to this enduring confusion about what makes an alpha, I submit the following system, in the form of a handy chart, to help clear the air.  It hits on the three major factors influencing male rank — how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.

Keep in mind that there is no line in the sand that separates betas from alphas — the distribution of men by their attractiveness to women follows an uneven continuum where at the extremes a small percentage of alphas monopolize an immense number of quality women and a much larger blob of omegas struggle to rut with warpigs.

It was an accurate definition that by dint of its perspicacity was also arid. Many house guests felt intellectually nourished but emotionally disconnected by an explanation of male attractiveness that lacked sensate grounding to earthy personal observation. With that shortcoming in mind, I present a more poetic definition of male sexual market value: The Beach Body Metric. The sorting remains the same, but the measurement has changed.

Omega male: Girlfriend is never beach body ready
Beta male: Girlfriend is beach body ready in the summer
Alpha male: Girlfriend is ready for the beach year round

For those of you (newbs) who thought “beach body metric” referred to men’s physiques….HAHA much to learn you have. In the realm of romantic desire, men are visual; women are holistic. This means a beach body ready woman is likely to be dating a HSMV man, but the inverse — a beach body ready man — is not necessarily as good a bet to be dating a HSMV woman.

More succinctly, female beach body beauty is a LEADING INDICATOR of female romantic success. A hot woman with a perfect 0.7 waste-hip ratio and a BMI in the 17-23 range is as good as a royal flush to win the love of winner men.

Male physique is more accurately a LAGGING INDICATOR of male romantic success. That is, men who have the full suite of attractiveness traits that women love are likely to be confident men who think too highly of themselves to let their body go to shit.

The Beach Body Metric reasoning is simple:

A low value man will be stuck dating no one, or dating only fat and ugly women who have no intention, nor motivation, to shape up and re-assume a natural hair color. A man on the beach in the company of a land whale is almost guaranteed to be a loser.

A middling value man will be with a girl who still feels enough self-esteem to at least try and look good when it matters (such as on the beach). The problem for the middling beta male is that the circumscribed and temporary allegiance of his girlfriend to shaping up is a telltale sign she’s more interested in looking good FOR OTHER MEN. The rest of the year she proves by her lack of interest in looking good that she doesn’t much value her beta boyfriend’s needs.

A high value man will be with a girl who looks beach body ready ALL THE TIME. She rarely has a downtime (maybe for a few days after popping out his alpha triplets). Her commitment to looking good year-round is a major cue that she’s primarily interested in looking good FOR HER MAN, fearing (rightfully) that if she lets herself go, he’ll let himself go away. She RESPECTS her man’s sexual desire, and strives to fulfill his desire’s preconditions. Anti-feminist? You bet! Pro-healthy relationship? You bet! No accident feminism and healthy loving relationships are diametrically apposed.

If you are a man with a GF who’s never beach body ready, kill yourself.

If you are a man with a GF who only frest about her figure when summer approaches, learn Game.

If you are a man with a GF who tries her darndest to look good all the time, pinch the iota of baby fat on her ass as a gentle jerkboy reminder to keep it up.

I have remarked that one will see far more fat man-slender cutie couples than the inverse. This REALTRUE observation perfectly accords with sexual market theory: specifically, men place primary importance on women’s looks and women place primary importance on men’s social status and personality (or, less pointedly, holistic importance on each facet of a man’s character).

But libido-projecting male readers remain astounded: how could it be so?

Instead of a dry exegesis on the mechanics of the dating field and women’s evolved romantic preferences, I’ll paraphrase a pithily revealing convo I had with a girl when this subject came up.

SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: You know [fat guy X]. His girlfriend is so cute. And thin! He must bring something to the table.

EXPERIMENTAL GIRL SUBJECT: Confidence.

SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: {Faux curiosity} Oh yeah?

EXPERIMENTAL GIRL SUBJECT: He’s got it.

SHIV IN FLESH AND STEEL: {faux prying} And that makes up for the uncinematic sex?

EXPERIMENTAL GIRL SUBJECT: *laughs* I bet the sex is hot. He probably throws her around like a rag doll.

Yes, for anyone, man or woman, it’s better to be lean than fat. No one of sound mind would argue otherwise. But a fat man with an out-sized personality and bloated self-confidence will easily compensate for his extra pounds. (A fat woman has no such option, because men aren’t wired to see past her blubber to the beauty within.)

Girls have an amazing ability to overlook or rationalize a man’s physical demerits if he has equal or surpassing merits in his non-physical traits. Nothing further needs saying on this topic.

Via Shiv Maester chris, a study that puts hard numbers to women’s sexual (and thus romantic) worth.

This gives us data showing that late teens to early twenties women are twice the value of a 30 year old women, and the 30 year old woman is twice the value of a 40 year old woman.

Women who leave settling down till they have finished college and started a career/paid off college debts are screwing themselves over when it comes to capitalising on their attractiveness to secure a high value long term mate.

By examining what men are willing to pay for sex, Professor Sohn provides a new window onto this issue of fertility and attraction. Men do not have unrestrained choice in whom they marry or date, but they do get to choose whether or not to pay a prostitute for sex, and the amount they are willing to pay reveals something about what they most prefer. Economists call this “revealed preferences,” assuming that the amount we are willing to pay for any commodity gives a good index of how much we value it.

That is some stone cold id-vivisecting truth right there. Am I a sadist for pressing this news above the fold? Sure. But I am also a giver. A humanitarian, even, whose message, if heeded, will save the love lives of many, many post-America wayward women.

A 40-year-old woman is worth (sexually) half of a 30-year-old woman, who is worth half of a 20-year-old vixen. These incontestable facts about the nature of the sexual market matter, and matter in big ways, to women’s romantic fortunes.

PS Despite the age-related radical decrease in prostitute’s earnings, it is funny to note that a 40-year-old actual whore still makes more than an established 40-year-old corporate whore. Even bad sex is more valuable to men than a paper pushing HR schoolmarm.

PeePeeEss Big swinging stones to the first shivlord who sports a tee with that hourly earnings graphic above on it, and swaggers into daylight to hit on girls while wearing it.

Every once in a while one sees the exceptional couple who together smash realtrue stereotypes. I saw one such recently. A very striking, tall and slender blonde White woman kissing her asian boyfriend adieu. I’ve seen White woman-asian man couples before, but usually the woman was nothing to write home about, which is how this particular couple managed to jot a tittle in my limbic ledger.

No one wants asian guy? Not her. She wants asian guy!

Naturally my forensic Eye of Shivron whirred into gear to assess this violation of the cosmic biomechanic laws. The asian guy wasn’t a Keanuiac half-breed. Full-blooded from slope to slant. He did have some physical advantages which set himself apart from the usual ant people test-cheating hordes. He was average height (which adjusted to asian standards meant he was tall). He dressed like an A&F frat bro: crisp knit shirt, plaid shorts and sockless docksiders. Muscle-wise, also average (which again adjusted to asian standards meant he was buff). Facially, inoffensive enough to make a few asian-american girls rethink their opposition to dating inside the nippon tribe. Jawline was acceptably uncucked.

All in all, he looked completely Americanized (I’d guessed he was Japanese-American, but could easily have been Korean). Still, his alabaster lady was a White hard HB8 topping to a model-esque 5’9″ or so. And clearly, unmistakably, in love with him. (When he turned to leave her behind, I caught her staring longingly at his retreating figure for a few seconds. Those rovebirds!)

He could’ve been loaded, sure, but I think it was something else. Something that this man —

Dennis “pussy magnet” Kucinich —

the fairy godmother of manlets, has similarly exhibited in photos with his hotter, tighter, younger wife who is at least three standard deviations out of his league (if we define “league” solely by the draw of a man’s physical appearance).

Wondering what that something is which our SWAG roverboy had? Look at these Kucinich pics and see if you can figure it out:

You’d be hard-pressed to burden a man with more physical and ideological shortcomings than Dennis “The Kuntroller” Kucinich — short, weird looking, skinny, old, liberal kook — yet here he is married to a genuine red-headed hottie. His unicorn horn stands taller than many nü-Aryan shitlords’ war pikes.

Yet the photos of him with his beauty reveal his secret. Notice anything missing?

That’s right, NO HOVERHAND.

Kucinich holds his lady tight and right, drawing her into him and pressing her flesh into his feeble old mannery that does not even lift. Notice too he doesn’t lean into her; if anyone’s leaning adoringly, it’s her.

Kucinich’s alpha male body language transmits a loud and clear message: “I take complete ownership of my woman”.

Ownership, aka men’s prerogative, is a vital ingredient in romantic relationships. Feminists and manlets swoon with hysteria, but TruGirls love it when a man doesn’t mince his meat. Declaring ownership of your woman, especially in public, is a powerful signal not only to other women that you have the mysterious “he’s got it” goods, but also a reminder to your beloved that you don’t live in apprehension that she’ll someday soon withdraw her love. Body language ownership is the opposite of the appeasement and fearfulness that the hoverhand betrays of a man’s character.

Returning to our SWAG, that’s what he had. In spades. During the kiss goodbye, he drew her by the waist into his chest and squeezed her ass in full view of NSA surveillance cameras. He winked at her before turning to depart, and didn’t look back to assure she was still tailing him with her gaze. There was no hoverhand, no leaning, no awkward pigeon footing, and no tender salivary pecks and canoodles so common among beta males who think a woman’s bosom is a security pillow to nestle their weary cuckheads.

Lesson of the lovingkindness: The right attitude and an unflinching assgrab will more than compensate for a man’s physical imperfections. If only more men would learn this lesson instead of projecting the contours of their visual-centric desire onto women.

PS Anecdotally, I don’t feel nearly as much aesthetic repulsion to WW-AM couples as I do to mudsharks. Maybe my hindbrain swiftly calculates that the genetic distance, physically, behaviorally, and mentally, between a White woman and a northeast asian man is a relatively small one set against the Saharan expanse between a White woman and a black man, and therefore my disgust reflex is comparatively dampened with the sight of the former. One is taking a piss in the White gene pool while the other is dropping a steaming deuce in it. Alternately, it could be that the extreme rarity of the former makes it more of a curiosity to me, and thus less noxious, while the relatively higher frequency and, especially, propaganda-fueled essence of the mudsharkers provokes a stronger emotional response (tied up as these coal burning couples inevitably are with their anti-White Narrative sponsorship).

A reader provides a field pic of a fat man with a skinny girl, adding,

Photo taken at the grocery store (heh).

Didn’t get her face but a 7.5. Slim little thing  Well dressed. Boyfriend was a slob. Perfect proof confidence matters.

Yes, confidence matters for men. (Not so much for women. A confident fat girl will still be a romantic loser.) A confident fat man — whether his confidence is an irrational act of willpower or a rational self-appraisal based on his compensating sexy attributes like charisma, money, humor, or outcome independent ZFG jerkboy attitude — will have little trouble scoring a cute lithesome thing.

Once again, SCIENCE! affirms Chateau Heartiste maxims and squats lumply on feminist mythology while unloading a phallus-shaped deuce. A deep state study finds that there’s a neuroanatomical basis for the observed sex-based difference in emotion regulation.

As expected, males significantly scored higher in emotion regulation ability than females did. More importantly, we found the sex differences in the neuroanatomical basis of emotion regulation ability. Males showed a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, females demonstrated a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and rGMV in an anatomical cluster that extends from the left brainstem to the left hippocampus, the left amygdala and the insular cortex. The present study provides the first empirical evidence regarding the sex-linked neuroanatomical correlates of emotion regulation ability. These findings may help understand why there is a higher prevalence of affective disorders in females and maladaptive behaviors in males.

SCIENCE! and CH: dancing the duet of fated lovers. This study literally discovers neurological proof for the truefact stereotype that women are more hysterical than are men. State control…it’s a man thing. You women just wouldn’t understand.

I gotta wonder how self-deluded feminist are gonna spin this latest out-take from the HARDASFUCK sciences?

RANDOM MANJAW: “well, you see, that’s just the patriarchal culture influencing female fetuses and changing their brain wiring.”

THE SHIV OF PRIVILEGE: “is the patriarchal culture also influencing female fetuses to become raving lunatic feminists?”

PS The last line in that study abstract is lethal thoughtcrime (literally). Mood (affective) disorders largely afflict women because their brain structure provides a more fertile (heh) environment for hysteria and related emotional malfunctions to flourish. Men, in contrast, have a sex-specific brain architecture that predisposes them to the opposite: emotion-less disorders that characterize ailments like autism, psychopathy, and anti-social behavior.

PPS The Game relevance should be evident. Tap into a women’s roller coaster emotions and you can guide her to expressing herself in the way that matters most to *your* emotional needs.

Porn for women is an overlooked phenomenon, partly because the type of porn that stimulates women isn’t as visually arresting as the porn that consumes men. The pink and moist pyrotechnics we associate with the online porn that readily captures male attention does little for women (though recent data suggest more women are turning to online porn for sexual relief, the numbers are still low, under 20%).

Female porn utilizes a different medium of arousal delivery, but the effect on the female libido and ability to form healthy relationships is just as profound as that of online porn’s effect on men.

So what is female porn? It’s pulp romance — in the form of books, movies and TV — that caresses lady limbic lobes to sprout slick clit dick. In a word: words.

More wokely, a lot of that female porn is rape fantasy porn.

The premise: women are different than men, in the most fundamental ways imaginable. Evolution as old as time has resulted in a sexually reproducing species that has inherited sexual, mental and psychological traits differentiating the sexes.

If you can’t accept this premise (self-delusion is a widespread affliction in post-America), then you won’t understand how it is words can have the same power over women’s horny levels that graphic crotch-slapping close-ups have on men’s horny levels. Nevertheless, it’s true. Women are turned on when they read salacious stories that allow their hindminds to fill in the sticky details.

There are hundreds of thousands of self-published ebook authors, but according to Amazon, only 40 of these have managed to make a profit by selling over 1 million copies of their ebooks over the last five years. Ms. Wild happens to be one of them. What is her secret? […]

So let’s look at what Ms. Wild writes about in her novels. Her first novel, Hardwired, is about a young woman’s encounters with “an array of sexual kinks.” Her subsequent novels are along the same vein. At the end of the article, a writer for Ms. Wild’s new publishing house says she is happy to “focus on writing sex scenes” because: “I just want to write wicked hot books.”

And here the light begins to flicker onto the truth. Under the euphemism of “romance,” Ms. Wild peddles erotica, the literary equivalent of pornography. While her books are not filled with nude photographs or graphic video, they contain the same drug reconstituted into another form: words that translate into pornographic images which burn into the minds of their readers (to see for yourself, excerpts of her novels are available on her website).

Ms. Wild, it turns out, is the female equivalent of Hugh Hefner. She is a verbal drug pusher, shoving words as potent as cocaine at her own gender.

And droves of women are clearly addicted. In an industry that is insanely competitive, where most authors earn below the poverty line, Ms. Wild’s first novel, published in 2014, was making $500,000 in royalties per month soon after its release. Ms. Wild sold a total of 1.4 million copies of this book and agreed to a $6.25 million advance for five books. She also started a new publishing house, which has already sold more than a million copies and hit the New York Times Bestseller list with one of its first titles, Calendar Girl.

The bottom line on the numbers of female porn consumers:

But according to Laurie Kahn, producer of the documentary film Love Between the Covers: “More than 70 million people in the USA alone read at least one romance novel per year, and most of them read many more.”

The US Census for 2015 shows there are 100 million women between 18 and 64 years old living in the United States. If Kahn’s number is correct, and assuming that the majority of those “70 million people” are women, then up to 70 percent of American women are covertly consuming literary pornography.

Pleasureman wept.

Does any of this matter? Parents want to shield their kids from visual porn, but they don’t feel nearly the same protective affront when a woman is reading a pulp romance novel in public.

You are sitting on a bus during your morning commute. In the seat next to you, there is a male passenger reading Penthouse. Chances are you may feel upset, perhaps disgusted. You might even demand that he stop.

On the other side, there is a female passenger holding a book with a very plain cover, entitled Into the Fire. With a mysterious title like that, this book could be about anything. If you ask, the passenger will tell you that it is a “romance” novel by Meredith Wild. The passenger has always loved these kinds of books, she tells you, ever since she read Jane Austen as a teenager. Innocent fairy tale, you conclude.

Both passengers are consuming pornography. But the woman is doing it so discreetly that almost no one recognizes it—often, not even the statistics.

Here’s the thing: the woman reading Into the Fire on the bus is popping a public lady boner just as assuredly as a man scouring Pornclearinghouse on his iPhag is jutting impudently into the public space. From five feet away, typeset is harder to discern than a streaming PIV video; that’s the only difference between the porn-consuming man and woman and the social norms they are violating.

Among those who admit that romance literature is pornography, there is a tendency to consider it “soft-core” (some also downplay it as “mommy porn“). This implies that it is less potent and less dangerous than the “hard” visual stuff that fries the brains of men.

When viewed from a male perspective, it makes sense to classify “pornmance” as “soft” pornography. Men are more visual than women, so they respond more strongly to photographs and video. To men, images are like crack cocaine, and literary pornography is mere marijuana.

But for women, the opposite is true. Women are less visual, and so less attracted to the internet pornography that is irresistible to men. For women, visual pornography should be considered a light beer while the emotionally charged “pornmance” novel is 70-proof liquor, hard-core pornography.

100% truefact. This is something that tradcons don’t get.

And there are many “romance alcoholics.” Women get addicted to romance books in the same way that men get addicted to photographs and videos. In 2011, one psychologist reported that she was “seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books.”

Time for a NO DIDDLE movement.

Like other addictions, “pornmance” novels mess with women’s brains and wreak havoc in their lives. According to therapists, these books can cause women to become dissatisfied with their marriages, to become “dangerously unbalanced,” and according to a pornography addiction counselor, to have affairs.

A smarmy white knight would never finger a cause for the high divorce rate that didn’t apportion blame entirely on men. In the pussy pedestaler’s worldview, only drunk, abusive, layabout men end marriages. To them, women aren’t capable of crass sexual escapism driven by primal insatiable lusts.

Is it mere coincidence that nearly 70 percent of divorces in the United States are initiated by women?

The authoress of this article, Lea Singh, must be a CH reader. Little spoon?

If online porn is a problem for society, then so is word porn. If you argue that online porn is causing men to “drop out” and deep-six their marriages and relationships, then you have to also argue that word porn is causing women to do the same.

I’ve said it before to obstinate tradcons and their ironic bedfellows, the man-hating feminist cunts:

It takes two to tango. Especially if that tango two-steps to the metagrave.

I’ve argued (in this post and indirectly as a question in the Dating Market Value Test for Men) that raw smarts isn’t especially relevant to a man’s romantic success. A high IQ may help in the mate market, but probably won’t help nearly as much as nerds hope.

The best that can be said for having a quick wit as a man is that it’s associated with perceived charisma, which is sexually attractive to women. (And that’s how I see it in everyday life; the charming men have a silver tongue lubed by white matter to spare.)

Another net benefit of male high IQ may be a slightly increased desirability as a long-term relationship prospect. Women seeking long-term lovers will place greater emphasis on those male character traits that suggest a willingness to settle down and get to the job of providing for her future brood.

Mostly, though, high IQ is largely superfluous to pickup, beyond what it can do to elevate a man’s witty repartee.

Reader zdeno adds to the Heatristian judgment on male IQ and sexual success:

In my mental model of game and genetics, everyone is imbued with two qualities that are both mostly genetic: 1) Natural game, i.e. good looks, charm, athleticism, social acumen, and 2) Ability to consciously improve game through applied effort, i.e. intelligence, conscientiousness, openness to experience.

What percentage of people have the intellectual ability to actually read about and understand the evolutionary background of human female sexual behaviour? Or even just memorize routines?

Style, Mystery, TD and others like them had weak natural game, but could understand and apply theoretical game very well. Someone like gunwitch had strong natural game plus a reasonably above-average ability to apply new concepts.

FYI, old-timer PUA Gunwitch was arrested for domestic assault a couple years ago, if I recall correctly.

So on one hand, you have the anti-PUA’s who claim that game is generally ineffective, attractiveness is immutable, etc. They are idiots. But there are also a lot of new-agey, “all-of-your-limits-are-in-your-MIND” PUA’s who are equally unrealistic. A short, ugly, slow-witted man who dutifully studies game will never out-seduce a smarter, better-looking man who puts in the same amount of effort.

This is generally true (although I have seen instances of dumber men out-seducing smarter men, simply because the former didn’t get caught up in their heads, and had a street urchin’s facility with spontaneous badinage). But I agree with zdeno’s overall point that more IQ — UP TO A POINT — is better than less IQ in the realm of romance. I qualify my agreement because I’ve known too many men with stratospheric IQ who suffered from debilitating personality flaws, like social ineptitude, weirdness, creepiness, or jarring body language tics.

***

Reader johnny caustic chimes in:

What is the _reason_ why humanity’s most brilliant writers couldn’t figure out what women are sexually attracted to over several millennia?

Well, to be fair, a lot of brilliant writers did in fact figure out what women want. The problem is that their insights keep being ignored by the generations that follow.

Because the markers of a man’s fitness have to be _difficult_to_fake_, so a woman isn’t easily fooled into falling for a less fit man. Evolution programmed women to respond to male behaviors that males don’t recognize as being special at all, because those are the most reliable indicators. Guys wind up thinking that women are primarily attracted to money or looks or expensive cars because they literally don’t perceive the very traits in men that are getting women wet.

Good point. This is why the concept of game is so difficult to grasp for so many; and, in fact, a lot of game principles — like body language, qualification, negs, and kino escalation — are a bit esoteric for the less-than-averagely smart man to comprehend. You can’t improve your attractiveness to women if you have no clue what women find attractive, and if in fact your male cluelessness is an extended phenotype of women’s inscrutable mate selection criteria.

Some claim that Game operates on a premise of flawed female detection. That is, Game exploits a bug in the female mate acquisition algorithm, leveraging the fact that women subconsciously resort to short-cuts and proxy cues to ascertain a man’s alpha bed cred. Now of course, male looks are hard to spoof (although looks can be improved with better framing, i.e., more stylish clothes), but many other male attractiveness traits are spoof-able. (Even wealth. There’s a known pickup trick in circulation involving the use of fake ATM receipts.) Game, under the Flawed Female Detection theory, is essentially a system for changing the optics of an average man to resemble that of an HSMV man with social status, charm, power, dominance, and (perhaps most crucially) ZERO FUCKS GIVEN outcome independence aka sexual market options.

So, a case can be made for the FFD theory, but an equally valid case can be made for the theory that women are perfectly attuned to what they want in men, just as men are, and that a significant part of what women want are men with the charming/asshole-y/jerkish/PUA behavior that Game attempts to deliver. This latter contra-FFD theory rejects the notion that jerkboy charisma is a cue for some other, nebulously related, male trait, and asserts instead that the jerkboy charisma ITSELF is a male attractiveness trait that women conspicuously desire.

This Fine-tuned Female Detection theory of female mate choice elegantly explains why it is not all that uncommon to see a man with no job or looks who somehow manages to hook up with scores of women through sheer confidence and swagger; the attitude he projects is a SELF-EVIDENTLY HOT COMMODITY, because women crave the love of men who act like they know women crave their love.

The globalist warehouse of planned obsolescence consumerism, Amazon, uses the same Takeaway Game that Trump and PUAs use to seduce their respective objects of love. Reader Mutant Seven notices the relevant algorithm,

I was howling over today’s post, “Trump’s Takeaway Game.” The takeaway close is a brilliant maneuver and I fall for it every time – even though I know about it! I keep a bunch of shit in my Amazon “save for later” queue, just to monitor the price fluctuations. These are things I want but don’t at all need. (A lot of people must do this, and the Amazon AI overlords must cackle in fiendish glee every time we take the bait.) Let’s say there’s an item in my queue for $10, for example a new pair of handlebar gel grips. I see it at $10 day after day but all I do is stare at it. Then it starts to move. It goes up to $11.29. The next day $13.01. The day after that $14.75. Now I’m legitimately pissed. Shit, fuck, goddamn! I could have had those at $10. Now they’re way out of price. No way! Then a few days later it drops to $9.99. Man, I jump on that baby like it was a magna cum laude grad at Beverly Hills Cosmetology Tech. Bam, it’s mine now! Hahaha!!

Oh wait, I still didn’t really need it.

Works every time.

You can call it a brain hack. I prefer to call it a pussy pry, given that my amazingly prime (heh) consumer base is lithe ladies.

All goal-oriented language has an element of seduction, and Game denialists who support Trump should know they are as much in thrall to their happy manipulation as any “BPD damaged bar slut”. (self-refuting sneer quotes added for effect).

I wonder if something similar to Takeaway Game can be redirected to utterly discredit and socially isolate Jeff Bezos’ anti-Trump rag, the Washington Post-Op? Flood the gynecomasperger social media hives with broken links to “this great Wapo article DEMOLISHING Trump”, wait for unfulfilled ego validation to build, and then “fix” link to point to whatever mildly anti-Hillary article you can dig up on Wapo. A little bait-n-switch mixed with heightened anticipation and higher buying temperature could yield a lot of snapped shitlimbic systems.

Recall the Chateau Heartiste Fundamental Premise governing all human social dynamics.

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

The Fundamental Premise essentially states that women are more reproductively valuable than are men, and that this inherent biological disparity in sex-based worth precipitates all sorts of double standards in social policy and cultural norms.

Aaaaaaand once again ¡SCIENCE!, with love in her heart and fire in her loins, administers a meticulous old-fashioned to my tumescent ego.

Moral decision making study finds men willing to sacrifice 3 hypothetical men for every woman of reproductive value.

***

Killing someone in order to save several lives seems more morally acceptable to men than to women. We suggest that this greater approbation of utilitarian killings may reflect gender differences in the tolerance to inflicting physical harm, which are partly the product of sexual selection. Based on this account, we predicted that men may be less utilitarian than women in other conditions. In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

The id-shiv is contained in that final bolded part. That, more than anything, proves the Fundamental Premise: women are coddled only when they still have REPRODUCTIVE VALUE. As women age into the dead ovary zone, men treat them same as they do other men: with utilitarian indifference.

This, too, explains more than anything the bitter man-hating rage that your typical aging feminist spinster is capable of uncorking on “the patriarchy”. She has lost her female privilege, a privilege that, unlike the mythological male privilege, has real world evidence (and, now, scientific evidence) proving its existence.

White Knighting and Pussy Pedestaling is baked in the braincake, so to speak. As is the disposability of men. Remember all this the next time some whackjob feminist is screeching about the poor poor wymyn suffering under the boot heel of male privilege. She is constructing a semantic fantasy world and deluding herself that she lives in it. Her lying theatrics are a balm for the fear that she’s discovering what it’s really like to live as a man in what is in reality a woman’s world.

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

That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.

My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.

On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.

It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)

Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)

Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.

So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).

Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.

Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.

If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).

Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.

So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).

In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.

Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.

Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.

Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)

The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.

So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:

1. Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
2. Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
3. Sluts are ascendant.
4. Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
5. Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.

None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.