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