Intermediate Carousel Girl Fashion 501

I’m a compulsive theorist, which is to say I am a Keirsey Temperament Architect. My first theories on the fashion cues signifying the degree of DTF readiness of liberated women since seeing the cock carousel for myself were detailed in “Sleigh Season Deepens”. To summarize, the amount of vertical breast channel display (not mere cleavage on top rounding over horizontally), the amount of vertical ass crack conspicuousness, and the proximity of exposed leg channeling to the promised land. The redness of the lipstick could be another cue.

These are important considerations. The price of sex is many, many times the cost of full retail value on the open market, i.e. a nubile virgin fit for marriage, a virtual theoretical in the West since at least John Wayne became an emasculated freak show (1993–1994). (I give him credit for trying to monetize his circumstances.)

There are two major sex cost categories: costs of acquisition and costs of delivery. As you no doubt know, but I’m setting the context here, there are exorbitant fraudulent costs of faux acquisition and relatively much lesser costs of instinctive acquisition; there are upfront costs of delivery, and there are ex post facto costs of state-sponsored emasculation war.

I assert that sex is actually in overall short supply and that even if you get casual sex without any delivery costs, it is expensive compared to what absurdly little it is worth for all but the most alpha of alphas who must constantly be on guard for delivery costs. On-demand sex is unobtainable for most men, of little positive value at best, and on average a substantial net loss since women are liberated to eternally optimize on megalomaniac pretenses force feed since infancy.

The fallback position masturbation is an optimal choice for most Western men and women most of the time.

According to online Forbes, the US market for vibrators is twice as much as that for condoms. They have won. The social fabric of civilized Western culture is no more.

Under such circumstances, a man is reduced to his ‘piggish’ needs, and there is shame in that lower masculinity only if you consent to an external moral agency at odds with your design as a man, an animal capable of philosophy and political agency. Thus, the congruent Western man of intellectual talent, a man who consciously embraces his natural authorization for culture as male popular sovereignty, who does not rationalize that having material things better than most ever had in history is meaningful to his BEING, who sees conveniences as reasons to become more not less, is first a nation of one in his heart and mind and entrepreneurial spirit.

Meeting our animal needs is prerequisite to realizing our higher potentials beyond female understanding. Identifying the DTF intensity of women is essential to a man’s realizing his potential, politically and socially attenuated such as it is. At the very least, he can cut his losses by not wasting his time and effort on hope and instead accurately assess cost vis-a-vis ROI, like bankers and insurers liable to hire talented actuaries must.

High heels vs. boots, which indicates greater DTF?

I am approaching this as a theorist because theorists theorize and mentally sovereign Western men by definition pursue maintenance sex as feasible and beneficial. It’s a man’s world because men make living better than animals possible. It is men who civilized women, you stupid churchians!

I freely admit my beta status, and my keyboard jockeyism. We are theorizing for fun, or you are not enjoying this post.

Why do you think long boots indicate promiscuity?

I was struggling with that, and then it hit me yesterday.

Boots indicate sexual intention precisely because they do cover.

It works like open communism and Hegelian dialectic by removing choices. Boots indicate DTF not only by removing leg skin area that would distract from the leg channel area, but by additionally highlighting the leg channel skin with contrast! Boots that do not contrast with the leg flesh or covering above are hardly indicative of DTF. High heels are certainly more of a DTF tell in that case. However, I argue that substantial contrast and height in boots are more indicative of DTF than high heels.

Let’s give heels (and bras) their due. Does not Sun Tsu or any competent military strategist advise knowing the ways of the enemy? Stiletto heels followed by other delicately thin high heels may be more indicative of DTF than other types, and I think they are, but I believe the greater indicator of carousel competitive attitude belongs to boots. Boots are practical, whereas stiletto heels are practical weapons on beta orbiters. Boots force you to get to business, but heels are an encumbrance and potential barrier, not that I don’t think stiletto heels are sexy as hell.

Boots are better suited to colder weather, so mixing thigh-highs with a short skirt is very specialized for one thing and one thing only. There are two kinds of less is more in woman’s fashion, and since fashion is seasonable though casual sex season is year ’round, thank the überJudaism money gawwwwds! What other consumerist social-engineering money loops can those pencil-neck fuckers devise? *rhetorical*

—‘Reality’ Doug, 23 April 2014


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Game Lifestyle and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Intermediate Carousel Girl Fashion 501

  1. Theodore Logan says:

    As I was reading your post, I originally thought that stilettos were the greater DTF tell, but as I continued reading, your reasons for boots make more sense. Plus, there is the hybrid boot heels that seem more popular than heels as of late.

  2. Chris Mackney says:

    Chris Mackney committed suicide on December 29, 2013 because his ex wife was using the divorce courts in America to torture him and kidnap his children from him. He wrote a 4 page suicide note before killing himself.


    LATEST UPDATE: The ex-wife is such a psychopath that is she trying to copyright her ex husband’s suicide note, in order to prevent it from being circulated on the internet. She is using her lawyers to threaten legal action against websites that published Chris’s suicide letter.

    The website “A Voice for Men” also got a letter from her lawyers and wrote an article about it yesterday:

    Full info on his evil ex-wife here
    [RD: Redacted]

    [RD: Comments, from whomever, do not necessarily represent the views of ‘Reality’ Doug or anyone else, even comments by ‘Reality’ Doug. What is truth beyond the window of transient opinion?

    Bitches be bitches. And what accurate instincts for men! Pussy proximity for pleasure, like the placement of that sucking sound, is everything you need to know about women. Perhaps a man’s unwillingness to use violence except politely on himself does not a civilized culture make. So what of silly history. A group playing all defense, perennially to not lose in the system of the house, deserves to never win.

    Mr. Mackney, it could appear from a cursory examination, was more concerned about institutional agency to solve his problems rather than his individual agency as a man to ‘make a difference’ or even start with taking care of himself. Neither do women allow men to sensually kiss their lips or ravage their bodies by bestowing permission, so never ask! Do they ask to ravage your life?! Is a father better for being a daily illustration of brokenness than to be an unseen positive example of resilience and wisdom that may be learned later? Let the proud mother prove her worth! Female instincts are the female locus of control, and they are hardwired, not going away any time soon.

    The injuries and bodies of violence by psychological subversion add up like they do from other methods, universal physics and all. In crude brilliance, evolution moves on, and apparently culture with moral reciprocity on earth is too much overhead to justify its existence among the feral/domesticable crowd who eschew personal agency not cannibalism. And their victims cling to the moral fetters given them, lead life rafts to heaven. What man loves who does not love himself first in thought and deed?

    As for me, I will enjoy the decline, sit poolside, rely on my tribe, etc. I am not a men’s rights activist. No woman’s vitality would ever respect one in truth. All people were not created compatible, much less equal. Being a civilized sociopath player of Dark Enlightenment and PUA science is more promising. Context is half the truth, in determining virtue or anything else, but believe what morals you may best think fit your nature. You will anyway.]

  3. Tarnished says:

    “I assert that sex is actually in overall short supply and that even if you get casual sex without any delivery costs, it is expensive compared to what absurdly little it is worth for all but the most alpha of alphas who must constantly be on guard for delivery costs.”

    By delivery costs, are you simply speaking of financial expenses, or do you include the potential emotional and legal costs incurred by having casual sex?

    [RD: I don’t mean the nature of the cost itself, but when payment is due/expected, beforehand as with pre-sex courtship or not beforehand as with pregnancy, regret rape, alimony.]

    Also, if one is able to get said sex without any delivery costs how is it still considered “expensive compared to what absurdly little it is worth”? I imagine this could be made possible if there are costs other than/in addition to delivery ones, but would like to hear the explanation from you.

    [RD: Correct theoretical that has no doubt happened, and some people have played Russian roulette without inconvenience. I said if. Casual sex requires repetitive gamble to be practically beneficial. Casual sex is worth so little that even without delivery costs (the gamble created by the Establishment), the costs of acquisition are relatively high for nearly all men. The risk to the beta is that she’ll say no to sex, and he loses his investment on hope in her narcissism, consumerism. The risk to the superlative alpha is that he himself will say yes, but he is no alpha under the law in practice. Donald Sterling is beta under the law (and his mind apparently). His must have been in biochemical love to keep paying a gazillion times market value, but you’d think a billionaire has the law in his pocket. Leykis 101 is all about minimizing the costs of sex to no more than $40 on acquisition/pursuit and $0 on delivery (her place, fake name, condom and hot sauce).]

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s