Category Archives: Sex/Gender

Competing with Porn

No woman they could meet at the coffee shop or on the church camping trip could possibly compete with these perfectly toned, perfectly undemanding models.

That quote comes from a First Things article (H/T: CC) about men who game instead of work and get married. This claim that women are competing with porn comes up a lot from feminists, women, and conservative commentators. I know this particular commentor is male, but I’ve seen it many times before from females as well.

This claim always stuck me as odd. Why would real women, living beings of flesh and blood divinely molded to be beuatiful, think they’re competing with digital masturbation aids? Even odder, why do so many women think this is a difficult competition and that they are losing to a collection of moving pixels?

Let’s unpack it.

The first thing this claim presupposes is that the only method of competition for men women have is sex. Porn provides sexual release and little else; by making the claim women are competing and losing to porn, one is making the claim that women have nothing to offer but sex. Supposing (falsely) for a moment porn provided a far superior sexual experience to actual sex, there are still many areas a real woman could compete where a video and a fleshlight, or even a full-fledged futuristic sexdoll, couldn’t.

This gets back to what I’ve mentioned before. A real women can offer many things beyond sex that no porn could hope to match: kindness, sympathy, comfort, joyfulness, beauty, encouragement, submissiveness, softness, feeling like a man, a warm home, a good meal, a family, etc. These all require inner beauty, which feminism is actively trying to destroy. With feminine virtues being all but destroyed, sexiness is all that’s left. The tough, independent, argumentative, “intelligent”, high moxie, career-oriented failed-man-with-tits has nothing to offer a man but sexiness.

I can see feminists fearing competition from sexbots, but conservatives and Christians should know better, and teach their young women feminine virtues that will attract a man.

This claim presupposes is that porn is competitive with real sex with a real woman. While I’ve mentioned before the incentives against marriage and that masturbating into future sexbots may be superior to normal masturbation, no sex, or sex with unattractive fatties, all things being equal sex is better than masturbation by a very wide margin. There might be a couple addicts out there who prefer porn, but the vast majority of men would rather have sex.

Porn is an inferior substitute good for sex. If porn is competing with women over providing sexual release to men, something is definitely wrong. The most likely explanation is that there is no competition, because the man’s sexual needs aren’t being provided for in this because he can not obtain a wife or girlfriend (or in marriage, because his wife is not providing). Relatedly, he might have been burned in this area by women (or his wife) in the past and have given up on trying to obtain sex. The next most likely is obesity, men many might choose porn over sex with someone fat if fatties were all he could get or if his wife was fat. After that, it’s that the man is a perverted porn addict.

In neither of the first three cases are women competing with porn: they’re either not competing or they’re competing with their own poor habits. I think the last case is likely rare; I know of few men who would choose porn over even an average young girl for sex, 3DPD jokes aside.

Next, the claim of “perfectly-toned” girls, is missing the mark. From what I am given to understand (I can’t remember where I read it, possibly 28 Sherman), the porn business model has been moving away from toned, big-breasted, blonde bimbos for a while now. Porn is trending towards “amateur” girls-next-door and the personal cam-girl business model. Even the higher-end prostitution model is moving away from simple paid sex to the girlfriend experience.

Men’s fantasies are orienting less towards hot sex with unattainable bombshells and more towards intimacy with a normally pretty, seemingly attainable girl. The competition, if it exists, is not over just the penis, but over the heart as well. Which brings us back to the point made on the first assumption. Women can compete on a lot more than just being hot, and if not being “perfectly-toned” disqualifies them, then they are lacking feminine virtue that would make them marriageable in the first place.

Finally, while no women can be “perfectly undemanding”, their demands can be reasonable and in line with what they bring to the table. Porn demands nothing, but it also gives very little: temporary, unfulfilling sexual release. As partially listed above, there is a voluminous list of things a woman can bring to the table that porn simply can not do. With the amount extra they can provide a man, they can easily demand a reasonable amount. If they disincentivize themselves out of the marriage market by being too demanding (or more accurately, too demanding in the wrong areas) to such an extent that porn, with the primary virtue of being “undemanding”, can compete and win against them, they are, again, lacking the feminine virtues which would make them marriageable.

All this too say, porn is degenerate and a blight on modern society, but the thought that real women are in competition with it bears little resemblence to reality. If women are losing to porn, it is not porn that is beating them, but themselves. The only way the vast majority of real woman can possibly lose to porn to the vast majority of men (ie. those who are not the small portion who are porn addicts), is because they have abandoned the feminine virtues that would make men desire them more than hollow masturbation and pictures on a screen.

Porn is a vastly inferior substitute good for sex. Women have a strong advantage in attracting men unless they price themselves out of the market or abandon the virtues that would make them marriageable in the first place.

Mutual Submission

I tweeted at Rachel Held Evans (a liberal Christian) who was going against patriarchy and complementarianism.

In one of the side threads, the topic of mutual submission came up.

So I am going to quickly comment on it

Mutual submission comes up in Ephesians 5, preceding the part dealing with marital roles:

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

(Ephesians 5:18-33 ESV)

Some translations, such as the liberal NIV, make it the mutual submission clause part of the marital roles section. (The KJV includes it in the previous sentence of verse 20). I don’t know Greek, but commenters believe it to be properly linked to the preceding verses.

But even if we go apart from the Greek, it is clear from the immediate context that that submit to one another is an exposition to the church, not the husband. The use of “wives,” shows a clear transition from one thought to another. As well, the duty of wives to submit is explicitly instructed, the duty of husbands is stated to be love.

As well, the exact same commandment, of wives submit to your husbands is also found in Colossians and 1 Peter, there is no mutual submission commandment near either of those.

Traditional teachings have always been wives submitting to husbands, not mutual submission. It is only since feminists of the radical left took over the culture that any one even thought mutual submission might be a theology of marriage. There is no way one can argue that generally anti-church, anti-family, anti-God, anti-child, atheistic, communist feminists are better at interpreting the Bible than 2000 years of Christian saints, scholars, and priests.

Throughout the Bible and church teachings, wifely submission (and the corresponding duty of husbands to love) is taught. You can not overturn these clear teachings through the selective interpretation of a single verse taken out of its immediate context. Mutual submission is an errant teaching that can only be gained through malicious interpretation of scripture. It is the rejection of Christian marriage for feminism.

Sperm is Cheap

In my last post, I wrote that women are too valuable to waste on military activity. Achtung Liebe disagreed, linking me to Roosh and Rollo.

Women are, civilizationally and socially, more valuable than men. One of the two problems with the Roosh piece (and the main problem with the Rollo quote) is that he mixes the personal and the impersonal. While in general a woman is more valuable than a man, that does not apply in every case. The value of particular individuals depends on the particular individuals. Thinking that this means that you are worth less than all women, is just as silly as the person who gets personally offended when told whites in generally have higher IQ and then tries to disprove you by pointing to (insert high achieving black here). saying women are more valuable does not imply that the childless, post-menopausal cat lady is more valuable than a father of eight. Applying systems-level thought inappropriately to the individual level is just stupid.

If the thought that women are more valuable than men makes you feel hopeless or forms pussy pedestalization in you, that is more an indictment of your psychological state than of my assertion.

The second thing Roosh gets wrong is his universalism. The darwinian struggle is largely relative. Sure, there are 7 billion people, but there are only 200 million white Americans or 7 million Swedes or 15 million Southern Baptists. If you start parsing down to smaller thedes the numbers get smaller. If you want your thede(s) to survive and thrive you need to have the numbers to hold your own in the struggle. So yes, reproduction is still important, unless you’re a rootless cosmopolitan lacking any thedish loyalties.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable. A woman can reliably birth about one healthy child a year over a lifetime window of about 20 years. So at maximum output with no problems, she can’t make much more than 20 children.* A man can produce a healthy child a day over a 40 year window without much difficulty.

From a darwinian standpoint, men can risked, but women can not be. This is why we send men to war, to exploration, to business, to dangerous jobs, etc. Many will die, but the most fit will survive to create the new generation.

But this is also where masculine achievement comes from: great risks entail great rewards. This is why war heroes, leaders, explorers, great businessnessmen, inventors, culture creators, etc. are almost entirely men. Men risk death, dismemberment, poverty, wasted time, etc. to achieve. Those who fail suffer and/or die, those who succeed reap rewards and glory.

Men’s expandability is their civilizational strength. It’s in taking on risk that men achieve. By throwing expendable men at problems, the great ones can do great things for civilization and the less great can form bands to achieve great things.

****

* There are some recorded women with much higher numbers than this, but they mostly depend on an exceedingly rare number of multiple child births, but even those extremes pale in comparison to the male extremes.

The Wages of Aspiration

Trawling the advice columnists again, I found this gem, which I’ll quote in full:

Dear Amy: My sister lives across the country. She has been married for 33 years. They’ve raised two daughters who are now adults, but she’s been living the most boring life ever!

I don’t know how she could be happy doing nothing but cooking and cleaning for all these years. And then she has the nerve to criticize me for not having enough time in my day, when she has no clue what it’s like to work full time.

Well, OK, she did work full time once — years ago before her daughters were born. She also had a little job when her kids were in school, but it wasn’t a “real job,” just a little part-time lunch-lady position.

I can’t understand why she doesn’t want to work more and help her poor husband with their finances. Then they could travel and see the world! They hardly ever go anywhere. I want so much more for her!

She has never had to live through things like illness, job loss or divorce, as I have. She has been supportive sometimes, but not all the time. I guess I’m a bit jealous because she has so much free time.

I’ve asked her to write me a list of what she does all day. I’ve sent her lists of what I manage to accomplish in the three hours I have in my home, but she has declined to provide her list.

It’s so sad that she has never had any aspirations!

It makes me so sad to feel like she’s wasted her life; she’s only in her 50s! I told her all this in an e-mail, but now she’s mad at me for just being honest. She expects an apology, but I’m hurt now, too. How do we get past this? Do you have any advice on getting her to see my view? — Frustrated Sister in PA

Amy rightfully smacks her down.

The ressentiment here is hidden worse than a toddler’s lies. This women is alone, hurting, and busy-working herself to death, and you can tell she hates it, however much she protests otherwise. She has so little going on in her life, she spends the”three hours I have in my home” on hectoring her contented sister who lives on the other side of the country. She’s looking for validation for her misery, but her sister refuses to provide it by buying into her lies, so instead she tries to destroy her sister’s life because she wants “so much more for her!”

She has refused to tend her own garden, she has leaned in, and now she seethes with resentment towards her sister who is “wasting her life” on creating a loving family. Instead of a family, she chose divorce and a job, and you can feel the pain and betrayal she experienced with her job loss. You can also feel it from her mention of illness; I do not think many people were there to care for her.

Notice how in her miserable ressentiment, she frames her choices as compared to her sisters. “Aspirations!” “So much more!” “Boring”

Having a quiet, happy family life is not an aspiration, but working for a job which would abandon you any time the profit margins were right is? Working your ass off, so you only have 3 hours of free time a day, so that you can go on a vacation once a year is more? Having a contented home life is less? Having a happy family is boring, but working in a cubicle for 13 hours a day is not?

What kind of mutilated soul thinks that way?

This women is in her 50’s, or thereabouts. Retirement looms in a decade. What will her life be when she doesn’t even have her job to distract her from her loneliness? How much of this rage towards her sister is because she knows that horror awaits her soon and she needs to justify the dear she feels to herself?

Dear young lady who may read this, reread that letter and decide carefully which of these sisters you want to be.

Normalization

You’ve probably seen that Salon has put out a pro-pedophile article. You might have seen #cuckservative Charles CW Cooke defending Salon at NRO. (Interesting, that the #cuckservatives are less condemning of leftists mainstreaming pedophiles, than of viral, cultist Trumpkins). Two years makes for a lot of change on this issue at NRO, although, at least Goldberg is not (yet) cucked enough to jump on this particular bandwagon, although he is cucked enough to think “Salon made a mistake running that piece” rather than knowing that this is intentional. It is “not, to [his] mind, commendable” to promote pedophilia, but normalizing pedophilia is not enough to fight a war to break-up conservatism, unlike backing Trump.

Anyway, #cuckservatives and Trump are not the purpose of this post, so I’ll hold off. You may remember I wrote on pedophilia a couple of times about a year ago when the NYT and TIL wrote their normalization articles. As I said there, I’m not unsympathetic to those struggling with pedophilic tendencies, sometimes people just get dealt a shit hand in life and no temptation exists that is not common to man, including this one, which about 20% of men are afflicted with to some degree.

So, am I a hypocrite? What’s the difference between what I wrote and what Salon wrote? Although, Cooke doesn’t get it, Goldberg almost seems to get it, so I’ll explain.

The difference is normalization. As Goldberg said, pedophilia is currently taboo, and for good reason, sex with children is an unnatural and wrong act. Breaking down that taboo, normalization, is dangerous.

Taboos (or their violation) can really only be discussed without blanket condemnation privately with trusted people, through humour, or through disinterested analytical conversation with the occasional caveat of ‘I’m against this, but to play devil’s advocate…’. As an example, racism is the greatest taboo in today’s religiously egalitarian society, and nigger is the ultimate profane word. Hence, racism can only be discussed in polite company if one is lamenting how horrible it is and nigger can only be used in trusted conversation or by comedians (although, even that is often not safe anymore) by anyone other than blacks themselves.

Pedophilia is currently taboo, as homosexuality was only a few decades ago. (Side note: although, the media will ignore or paper over it, the original platform of the gay rights movement included the end of age of consent. The homosexual movement’s acceptance of NAMBLA continued until they were purged in the 8090’s). You can’t discuss it outside dark humour or academia without expressing disgust.

Any public discussion of pedophilia needs to be unabashedly denounce it as evil. It can be sympathetic, but it can not be accepting, it must condemnatory. If someone is struggling with pedophilia, the proper place to talk about without condemnation is privately with a close friend, priest, psychiatrist, or an anonymous support board on the internet. Any public discussion of the issue should make it clear that talking about this publicly is not allowed. It is taboo.

Just as you currently can make racist jokes with your drunk uncle, but can’t say them to your coworker; you can tell your friend that you struggle with pedophilia, but you can’t tell the public that children make you hard.

What Cooke fails to get is that the Salon article is not reinforcing the taboo, it is destroying it. It is actively giving a clinical pedophile a stage to say “be understanding and supportive… Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.” But he is a monster. As I wrote, someone who wants to have sex with kids is broken on a fundamental level. Treating pedophilia as a handicap rather than innate evil proclivity, is removing the stigma from it, it is breaking down the taboo.

Once the taboo is gone, acceptable public discourse will move from “he’s not evil, just troubled, be understanding” to “he’s not evil, he was born that way, be accepting” to “he was born that way, don’t judge him for his sexual orientation” to “it’s only natural to act on your sexual orientation” to “pedophobe”. And unlike Goldberg’s assertion this is a mistake, Salon know exactly what it is doing. This is planned.

You can publicly discuss pedophilia and those suffering that temptation sympathetically, even compassionately, without normalizing it, by making sure a public statement is condemnatory of that evil. Non-judgmentalism is for private conversations.

The left is enacting the Gramscian long march with the ultimate goal of destroying the family, which is the strongest bulwark against the state, so that the managerial state can replace it. Salon and all these other sites are either knowingly or unknowingly in on this. They are not making a mistake, they are purposefully enacting their ideology. Legalizing pedophilia will be another blow against the family and for the state, and this is what they want.

If we don’t crush this now, in a few decades, you will be denounced as a pedophobe for objecting to a 40-year-old man fucking your 9-year-old daughter or sodomizing you 6-year-old son. Then the leftists will start in on normalizing the final sexual taboo: rape.

****

Post-Script: Contra Cooke’s proclamation that “the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.”, Todd Nickerson has not shown he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Someone honestly trying to avoid acting on his pedophilic proclivities would not be making “little girl friends” then bragging about it on the internet. Someone honestly trying to help themselves, would be actively avoiding being alone with unrelated little girls.

Sexual Liberation

Behold sexual liberation in all it’s glory:

The tables are filled with young women and men who’ve been chasing money and deals on Wall Street all day, and now they’re out looking for hookups. Everyone is drinking, peering into their screens and swiping on the faces of strangers they may have sex with later that evening. Or not. “Ew, this guy has Dad bod,” a young woman says of a potential match, swiping left. Her friends smirk, not looking up.

Alienation so deep, they’re even alienated from their own hedonistic activities.

“Tinder sucks,” they say. But they don’t stop swiping.

Addiction.

“Brittany, Morgan, Amber,” Marty says, counting on his fingers. “Oh, and the Russian—Ukrainian?”

“Ukrainian,” Alex confirms. “She works at—” He says the name of a high-end art auction house. Asked what these women are like, he shrugs. “I could offer a résumé, but that’s about it … Works at J. Crew; senior at Parsons; junior at Pace; works in finance … ”

“We don’t know what the girls are like,” Marty says.

“And they don’t know us,” says Alex.

Mutual masturbation.

“It’s rare for a woman of our generation to meet a man who treats her like a priority instead of an option,” wrote Erica Gordon on the Gen Y Web site Elite Daily, in 2014.

Why would anyone pay top price for meat that is cheap and readily available?

Short-term mating strategies” seem to work for plenty of women too; some don’t want to be in committed relationships, either, particularly those in their 20s who are focusing on their education and launching careers.

The boilerplate feminist defence in an article where women do little but lament the hook-up culture.

“Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”

Women have the power to decide what enters their vagina. If they wanted to be relationship material they’d be relationship material, and find relationships.

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

They give a wary laugh.

Can it be called self-deception, when you know you’re deceiving yourself?

They tell me how, at their school, an adjunct instructor in philosophy, Kerry Cronin, teaches a freshman class in which an optional assignment is going out on an actual date. “And meet them sober and not when you’re both, like, blackout drunk,” says Jane. “Like, get to know someone before you start something with them. And I know that’s scary.”

Autistic alienation.

“And it reaches a point,” says Jane, “where, if you receive a text message” from a guy, “you forward the message to, like, seven different people: ‘What do I say back? Oh my God, he just texted me!’ It becomes a surprise. ‘He texted me!’ Which is really sad.”

“It is sad,” Amanda says. “That one A.M. text becomes ‘Oh my God, he texted me!’ No, he texted you at one A.M.—it’s meaningless.”

They laugh ruefully.

How fulfilling. How starved for affection can they be?

“It’s not, she says, that women don’t want to have sex. “Who doesn’t want to have sex? But it feels bad when they’re like, ‘See ya.’ ”

“It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all,” Fallon says.

“It’s a contest to see who cares less, and guys win a lot at caring less,” Amanda says.

“It’s body first, personality second,” says Stephanie.

Why would a man care about the personality of his sex toy?

If you object to calling a girl a sex toy, why don’t you object to the girl treating herself like one?

“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images,” says Fallon.

That’s how society got in this mess in the first place.

“But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism,” says Amanda.

See here.

“I hooked up with three girls, thanks to the Internet, off of Tinder, in the course of four nights, and I spent a total of $80 on all three girls,” Nick relays proudly. He goes on to describe each date, one of which he says began with the young woman asking him on Tinder to “ ‘come over and smoke [weed] and watch a movie.’ I know what that means,” he says, grinning.

$80. Hookers make more and probably receive more affection.

They all say they don’t want to be in relationships. “I don’t want one,” says Nick. “I don’t want to have to deal with all that—stuff.”

“You can’t be selfish in a relationship,” Brian says. “It feels good just to do what I want.”

I ask them if it ever feels like they lack a deeper connection with someone.

There’s a small silence. After a moment, John says, “I think at some points it does.”

“But that’s assuming that that’s something that I want, which I don’t,” Nick says, a trifle annoyed. “Does that mean that my life is lacking something? I’m perfectly happy. I have a good time. I go to work—I’m busy. And when I’m not, I go out with my friends.”

Alienation.

He’s a womanizer, an especially callous one, as well as kind of a loser. The word has been around for at least a decade with different meanings; it’s only in about the last year that it has become so frequently used by women and girls to refer to their hookups.

“What percentage of boys now do you think are fuckboys?,” I asked some young women from New Albany, Indiana.

“One hundred percent,” said Meredith, 20, a sophomore at Bellarmine University in Louisville.

“No, like 90 percent,” said Ashley (the same as mentioned earlier). “I’m hoping to find the 10 percent somewhere. But every boy I’ve ever met is a fuckboy.”

How blindcan they be?

‘He drove me home in the morning.’ That’s a big deal,” said Rebecca, 21, a senior at the University of Delaware.

Heh.

Bring all of this up to young men, however, and they scoff. Women are just as responsible for “the shit show that dating has become,” according to one. “Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”

Someone brings the truth.

Rebecca, the blonde with the canny eyes, also mentioned above, hooked up with someone, too. “It was O.K.” She shrugs. “Right after it was done, it was kind of like, mmmp … mmmp.” She gives a little grunt of disappointment.

Sounds fun.

“I’m on it nonstop, like nonstop, like 20 hours a day,” says Courtney, the one who looks like a 70s movie star.

“It’s, like, fun to get the messages,” Danielle says. “If someone ‘likes’ you, they think you’re attractive.”

“It’s a confidence booster,” says Jessica, 21, the one who looks like a Swedish tennis player.

Self-esteem addiction.

“A lot of guys are lacking in that department,” says Courtney with a sigh. “What’s a real orgasm like? I wouldn’t know.”

They all laugh knowingly.

“I know how to give one to myself,” says Courtney.

“Yeah, but men don’t know what to do,” says Jessica, texting.

“Without [a vibrator] I can’t have one,” Courtney says. “It’s never happened” with a guy. “It’s a huge problem.”

“It is a problem,” Jessica concurs.

Sound like they’re enjoying it, no?

“I think men have a skewed view of the reality of sex through porn,” Jessica says, looking up from her phone. “Because sometimes I think porn sex is not always great—like pounding someone.” She makes a pounding motion with her hand, looking indignant.

“Yeah, it looks like it hurts,” Danielle says.

“Like porn sex,” says Jessica, “those women—that’s not, like, enjoyable, like having their hair pulled or being choked or slammed. I mean, whatever you’re into, but men just think”—bro voice—“ ‘I’m gonna fuck her,’ and sometimes that’s not great.”

“Yeah,” Danielle agrees. “Like last night I was having sex with this guy, and I’m a very submissive person—like, not aggressive at all—and this boy that came over last night, he was hurting me.”

They were quiet a moment.

And yet they all go along with it enthusiastically.

This article by itself is justification for patriarchy. These young women are addicted to attention. They are not enjoying themselves, they are neither respected nor loved, they are starved for affection, and they are willingly making themselves sex toys for men who don’t care in the least about them and enjoy hurting them. It is destroying their emotional core, but they can’t quit their addiction.

They need a stern father to drag them back home and force them to respect themselves.

The men are aimless and alienated. They need responsibility. Instead, they get untold free poon. Why do they need to care, when they can drown themselves in hedonism? They need the women’s fathers to to be cut off from empty masturbation with their breathing sex toys and be forced to contribute and care before hedonism can take them, so they can grow into men.

This is not healthy.

Nobody Cares About You

I’ve written on this before, but here’s a little reminder, what you as a man think, feel, and desire don’t matter. Society doesn’t give a shit about you and expects you to take its shit happily.

A recent letter to an advice columnist (h/t: RPR) is from a slut who got alpha widowed hard. After getting alpha widowed she swore off sex outside of marriage. She meets a nice beta, who she lies to about her past through omission. On their wedding night, I’ll repeat: their wedding night, she calls out the name of the alpha who widowed her. Understandably, and thankfully for himself, Rick acted like a man and dropped her hard, setting up a divorce lawyer, calling her parents, abandoning her at the hotel to go to Europe alone, and cutting off contact (if you’re Rick and happen to stumble across this, good for you BTW, allow me to be the one voice of encouragement). So, the the lying slut wrote a woe-is-me letter about how to salvage her relationship as her lies caught up to her.

The story itself is not overly important. The ending was as happy an ending as could have occurred given the situation the lying slut created. The man can annul before the marriage is consummated and he probably won’t be divorced raped given that the marriage didn’t even last the night.

The practical take away there is to make sure you understand your wife-to-be’s sexual history. Do not assume she’s a virgin because she tells you she’s waiting until marriage, get her to explicitly say she is one. If she’s not a virgin, get her number, and weigh the odds. She may lie, but at least then she’s the one deceiving you rather than you deceiving yourself.

The other practical take away is to make sure that one of her previous relations was not “intense” or anything else similar. That’s in indicator of an alpha widow. You do not want to marry a woman who’s relationship with another guy was more intense than your own.

Beyond that fairly obvious advice, the part that matters is the response from Carolyn Hax, syndicated advice columnist published in 200+ papers. So know that she’s not some lone voice, she’s the mainstream of how modern relationship’s are supposed to work. Here’s what she wrote:

Your honeymoon and marriage are in tatters because Tom reacted with absolutely stunning hostility to a quirk of the human brain.

Lying to your husband(-to-be) and calling out another man’s name on the wedding night are “a quirk” and reacting poorly to it is stunning. But she gets worse from here.

But. For this to obliterate all of his supposed love and trust, plus any inner mandate to be kind? His commitment to you — as a human being, vs. as a bride or presumed virgin — can’t have been deep.

What love and trust? She lied to him for their whole relationship and used him. Where was her kindness as she was deceiving him and abusing his trust? Where was her kindness as she called another man’s name on their wedding night(!)?

She could hardly have shivved his soul and humiliated him worse had she spent months planning it. But when you think about it, she did spend months planning it, she just hoped he’d never find out.

Here’s the kicker:

He didn’t just get sad or angry, or yell, or cancel the honeymoon — he went for your emotional jugular and hasn’t let go. He called your parents to shame you. Making mistakes, that’s life. Living in fear of his reaction to your next mistake, that’s Hell.

This glimpse of his true character is a gift. Accept it and annul the marriage.

Out of all this the man is evil. The man is deceived, used, and betrayed on his wedding night by the woman who (deceitfully) professed to love him and reacts by annulling the non-consummated marriage and Hax calls him the evil one.

She doesn’t call out out the slut on her absolutely despicable behaviour other than to mention it was a mistake, not evil, just a mistake, which she immediately apologized for, but she’s fast to condemn the man as evil for reacting naturally and logically to this betrayal.

The commenters agree, but go even farther (at least until the red piller’s brigaded the comments). Here’s a collection of how much normal people hate men and sympathize with lying whores:

you got rid of someone who was going to do this to you somewhere down the line anyway. So much better to know he was a mean, abuser now than two years form now when you are more committed with maybe a mortgage and maybe kids.

What an arrogant *** this (hopefully soon to be ex husband) is. I guess he has never made a mistake in his life.

Run! Run as fast as you can AWAY from this probable abuser!

Yeah Tom’s a whiny little baby that doesn’t deserve a single look back from the LW. The immaturity of his reaction is only reinforced by his calling mommy and daddy to set up a divorce attorney for him. Set up your own stupid attorney! What a tool.

Your life, and the lives of any children you may have had with this person, would have been sheer Hell. Down the road, he would have found many other things about which to throw tantrums. You are very lucky to bid rid of him. If he changes his mind and wants to renew things, run as fast as you can.

yer better off without such an immature reactionary… imagine what kind of hell you’re going to have to put up with if something big happens… move on with your life… without mr. immature…

Get the marriage annulled, report hubby to the police for stealing your passport, next time be honest with your beau about how you don’t want a premarital sexual relationship now but have had one in the past, and learn to use the term “darling” when you’re in the throws of passion.

The commenters called him a (potential) abuser, an arrogant ass, immature,  and even said she should call the cops on him for “stealing” (ie. taking his own luggage, which happened to have) her passport. Barely any of the (pre-RP brigade) comments had even the tiniest amount of sympathy for the man or the slightest hint of criticism for the duplicitous slut.

This may be outrage porn, but I’m going to continue ramming modernity and progressivism down your throat until you vomit it out, because this is important for you as a man to understand.

In our society you don’t matter, your preferences don’t matter, your emotions don’t matter, your well-being doesn’t matter. Healthy marriage and healthy family doesn’t matter. Everybody believes you should be forced to eat shit so that the present dildocracy can roll on and if you object or protest to the shit-eating, you will be painted as the devil incarnate.

Don’t eat their shit. Don’t believe that are obligated to eat their shit. Don’t believe that it is moral to eat their shit.

If you can, find a good girl to marry and raise a prosperous, productive family with. If you can’t find a good girl, don’t marry a slut, or it might be you being pilloried for objecting to your wife calling out someone else’s name on your wedding night.