Category Archives: Sex/Gender

Musings on Romance

Donal has some musings:

The basic strategy which many (most?) women employ right now, which is regularly known as AF/BB (see Rollo’s post for more), is one that requires two distinct elements to pull off: deceit and desperation. Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

Maybe I’m odd, but I honestly wouldn’t mind taking a wife who was wanting to make rational deal upfront. I’d be quite willing to go along with a young woman who proposed an honest, straightforward marriage deal: ‘you provide for me, protect me, and father my children, and I’ll bear you many children, keep your house, and provide regular sexual access.’

If she met my list and I had some positive feelings for her, I’d jump at the chance for such a rational young girl.

That’s not to say I’m willing to be the beta bux for a woman who’s already had her alpha fux, but that’s something quite different a family-oriented girl with a low time preference rationally planning her future. In fact, that kind of future-time orientation would be rather attractive in its own right.

My problem with being the beta bux is not that a woman would want “a meal-ticket” but rather that she is not offering a worthwhile value in trade by trying to sell damaged and/or decaying goods for full price through deceit.

If a young woman wanted to make a fair and honest trade on the marriage market for a meal-ticket, I’d be game.

But then again, I’ve always been rather emotionally-detached and bloodlessly rational, so I’m probably the odd one out here.

****

Which leads me to further musings on romance.

The slow, agonizing death of modern marriage did not start with gay marriage nor did it start with no-fault divorce. It didn’t even start with the creation of ‘marital rape‘ or mass contraception.

It started well before that: it started with the acceptance of romantic love as the basis of marriage and the conflation of romantic love and Christian love.

Romantic love is a feeling and feelings change, for this reason romance and romantic love are a horrible basis for marriage.

Christian love is not a feeling, it is a series of purposeful attitudes and actions adopted.

‘Love’ is not love.

If you accept that romantic ‘love’ should be the basis of marriage, you are the problem.

Victimization

Two recent controversies have shown a particular pathology of the left. The first is the fight over the Washington Redskins, and how the Redskins have lost their trademark for being disparaging. The second is the strong reaction of the left to Miss Nevada saying women should learn to defend themselves from rape.

First, the Redskins. Look at their logo:

Are those logos in any way disparaging or insulting?

No. The first shows a strong, proud man with a calm, dignified bearing, the second shows a a strong, proud warrior raring for action. Both are rather complimentary to Aboriginals.

I am part Norse, so the Vikings team has a mascot of my heritage.

Is this disparaging? No, because, as with the Redskins logo, he’s a strong, determined man. In fact, although I don’t follow NFL at all, my team(an extremely shallow allegiance) is the Vikings, simply because they are the Vikings, and they celebrate my heritage.

So the question is why do leftists think portraying Aboriginals as strong, proud men and celebrating their strength is disparaging?

****

Next we come to Miss Nevada. She stated a very sane and rational opinion:

But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.

The feminists freaked out.

Here’s one example that really shows the absurdity of this condemnation: a male feminist condemns a man who teaches women to protect themselves from rape as a misogynist, while at the also praising someone who raped children.

So why do leftists think that teaching women to be strong and to protect themselves is misogynistic?

****

The answer to both of these is the same, the words ‘disparaging’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, etc. are not used for their literal definition, they are used merely for their exo-semantic meaning of ‘bad’. They carry the same semantic meaning as a pack of monkeys pointing and hooting.

The words don’t mean much in themselves, but the reason for the pointing and hooting is what’s important.

The left needs women and minorities to remain victims.

If one points the Aboriginal back to his heritage, the proud brave, independent, strong, and free, the impoverished and beaten-down Aboriginal on the reservation may look at his life and ask, “Why are we so broken, so dependent, when our ancestors were so strong, so proud?”

If a young woman learns to protect herself and avoid drunkenness, she won’t have need of the rape hysteria of feminists. If she learns self-responsibility and takes control of her own life, she won’t need feminism and its war against personal responsibility at all.

This is what the leftists fear. They fear Aboriginals might decide to get off the reservation, that women will stop feeling victimized, that blacks will leave the welfare plantation, etc. Leftists need people to feel like victims so they will cry to others, ie. the government, for help.

The leftists strategy is and always has been to expand the state. Victims are dependent on the state, they need the state to protect them, to provide for them. If leftists run out fo victims, they no longer have the cover they need to continue expanding the state.

Leftists hate the Redskins because they need Aboriginals to feel victimized and to not be able to remember the proud warriors and leaders their ancestors were. They hate women protecting themselves, because a confident self-realized woman does not need the state to protect her and provide for her.

Without victims the state is unneeded; without those who make their livings in the victim- and welfare-industrial complexes would not have such cushy jobs.

Leftists need victims to continue their long march.

Christian Sickness

I’ve discussed the issue of purity and abstinence recently, but I’m doing it again as I’ve just come across this piece that perfectly illustrates modern evangelical sickness, read it. I’m beginning to think ‘purity’ is one of, if not the most, destructive teaching in the modern church.

In this article, a 30-something women discusses how great purity is and how hard her struggles with sexual desire are.

As a single girl in my thirties who was committed, by God’s grace, to saving sex for marriage,

Notice, ‘committed to saving sex for marriage.’ This is entirely the wrong commitment. The commitment should be to marriage.

Paul was very clear on this: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

For those women (and men) burning with passion, counseling abstinence is simply wrong; in fact, it might be borderline sinful. Instead, the church should council marriage.

“Purity culture” is destroying the church.

Or maybe the greater question is, Why do we even want to fight for sexual purity when our desires seem so natural and good—and often feel too powerful to control?

She shouldn’t. These desires feel good, natural, and powerful because they are good, natural, and powerful because God made them that way.

The problem is not the desire, the problem is looking for it in the wrong spot. People should not be waiting until their late-20s, or 30’s to get married and suffer under some perverse form of purity. They should be getting married young and having good, natural, enjoyable sex with their spouses while young.

God created sex, then told us to enjoy it only within the context of marriage between a man and a woman; so if He has us wait an excruciatingly long time for it, He is (mercifully) teaching us to meet our very deepest desires in Him alone.

Waiting is the problem, a Christian should not be waiting. They should be actively preparing and looking for marriage, men and women alike, each in their own way.

She gives some advice on combating lust, of which this is the most interesting:

9. Set hard-and-fast boundaries with men—for your sake and theirs. Hanging out alone with a man never helped me; it usually stirred up desires unnecessarily.

If a man and a woman are hanging out and want each other so much they are considering sin, they should be getting to the altar post-haste. ‘Boundaries’ are a broken product of a broken church culture. If a Christian man and woman are worrying about violating their ‘boundaries’ they should be be getting married.

****

To Colleen,

You seem like a decent woman, but you have been mislead by a sick church culture, so please don’t take offense to my criticisms, instead help me to fix church culture. Council your other women readers avoid sticking to some misguided quest for a perverse form of ‘purity’, instead council them to commit to marriage, to try their hardest to find a decent Christian man and start a life.

Stop waiting and ‘being pure’, and embrace the holy desires God has given you. Find a decent Christian man, marry him, and have as much sex as you possibly can; council your readers to do the same.

The false teachings you have received on this issue have obviously hurt you according to your own words, so please help prevent other young women from falling into the same trap.

Repost: Patriarchy: Restraining Males

In light of the Isla Vista massacre, I bring an old post of mine to your attention:

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.

****

Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.

****

In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.

****

So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

****

The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.

****

Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.

****

Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.

****

Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.

****

The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.

****

Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.

****

The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.

Sexual Principles

Here’s part of a letter to an advice columnist from a mother concerning her daughter:

Boy, did I get an eyeful! It appears my 16-year-old daughter and her 17-year-old boyfriend have been contemplating sex and have already gone to the heavy petting/foreplay stage. There must have been more than 1,000 e-mails of detailed touching and adult sexual language.

Both kids have had “the talk” with their parents, and we all thought abstinence was not an issue. I have had numerous talks with my daughter about sex, relationships and consequences.

Both kids want to go to college and have goals in life. They do feel they are “soul mates” — but what teenage couple don’t think that? The boyfriend is the nicest, most respectful boy you would want your daughter to date. Teenage hormones got the best of both of them. If any of the other parents find out, their relationship is over.

To make a long story short, I told them I read every single e-mail. When my daughter saw tears come to my eyes, she knew they had crossed the line, as I am a very open and understanding parent. They have been warned, talked to about consequences again, and strict rules have been put in place such as no “alone time” together.

Am I silly to think I can keep them in check, and should I keep their secret?

Here’s part of Amy’s, the advice columnist, response:

If you seriously believe this couple will abstain from sex because you say so, then you might want to get started decorating the baby’s nursery.

Keeping these two apart is completely unrealistic. In addition to your wise counsel about consequences, they should also be told that if they have sex, they must use contraception. You should urge your daughter to explore her options with her doctor, and/or the couple should visit a Planned Parenthood clinic together for realistic counseling and birth control

This letter here is the perfect macrocosm of what is screwed up in our sexual/marital marketplace.

It’s likely that the daughter, boyfriend, and their parents are probably all religious given their emphasis on abstinence, but their first principles are borderline satanic.

First, we’ll get “soul mates” out of the way. There are no soul mates, there is no ‘the one’, there is only “my one and only“. The concept of soul mates is a destroyer of marriage. Given the scare quotes its likely the mother has some reservations about reality of soul mates, but hasn’t imparted this wisdom properly to her daughter.

Next, Amy is correct in her first assertion, encouraging these teenagers to abstain from sex is stupid, but her advice beyond this is non-Christian and will lead to heartache for all. Her advice is the typical hedonism that infects society as a whole and is leading to our decline.

Now, all of this was just a preface, to examine the real point. Burdened, the letter writer, who’s one line shows how deep the rot has gone.

“If any of the other parents find out, their relationship is over.”

There are two biological adults strongly attracted to each other. They have been blessed with strong mutual attraction at a young age, and their families’ response would be to destroy their relationship because of some desire for them to be “abstinent”?

That’s insanity. That’s cruel. That’s borderline satanic.

Here is Paul on the issue:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

The proper response, the Christian response, is to get these two young adults married and starting a family.

The modern drive for ‘abstinence’ uber alles is unholy. Some precious few are given the gift of singleness, they should abstain, but most are not given this gift and calling.

God blessed most with a sexual drive and a holy desire to become one flesh with another. To demand abstinence until some point in their 20’s or 30’s from those not given to singleness is cruel, destructive, unrealistic, unbiblical, and satanic. The focus on abstinence hands the devil a strong hold over young adults in which to subvert their holy desires into unholy ones.

One of the major problems with the modern church is the unbiblical emphasis on abstinence. Abstinence should never be an issue in the church. If two Christian young adults want sex with each other, their parents should rejoice and bring them before the altar post-haste.

Is it any wonder the unchurched are repulsed by such a hideous doctrine as abstinence?

I actually wrote into Amy, hopefully she’ll publish my letter. I would not wish to see these parent’s inflict this hideous cruelty on their offspring.

****

You might, in your modernity-addled mind, object that 16-17 year-olds aren’t adults, but you’d be wrong in any sense but the technially legal. These are adults, and would have been considered so by almost any society prior to the mid-19th century. A person that has hit puberty is an adult; our infantilization of them through non-existent ‘adolescence’ is destructive. Don’t let this kind of modern insanity poison your mind.

Female Fornication Fallacy

I have been counseling young women not to follow that strategy. One of the big problems I’m running into though, is this.  Men say they are only engaging in the hook-up culture because they are responding to what women want and that if women want traditional marriage, then they shouldn’t engage in premarital/hook-up sex, which would force men back into the commitment-for-sex role.  Fair enough, but then girls are telling us that if they don’t put out, if they don’t work a slutty vibe, they can’t get men (even most Christian men) interested in them because they are competing with girls who do. That means it doesn’t work very well (socially, not morally) for just some women to avoid premarital/hook-up sex; it has to be almost all of us who avoid it.  But when secular women start trying to tell women to close their legs and stop giving away the milk for free, they are accused of trying to run a sex cartel.  And maybe they are accused of that because they slept around first, but how surprising is that really, given the fact that the alpha mares in the female herd strongly encourage young women to do so, and women only learn (and accept) the folly of this strategy when they’ve gotten older?

There are no easy solutions here.

SSM, and a few other manosphere-related women keep perpetuating the same false argument. Please stop.

While there is no easy solution for society, there is an easy solution for individual young women.

Young women should go for young men who are willing to wait until marriage.

“Most” might not be willing to wait, I’ll even accept that “most” ‘Christian’ men might not be willing to wait but there are many young Christian men who are planning to wait until marriage.

If a woman is serious about it, she can find one. It may mean choosing a young man who’s not as hot as the one’s demanding immediate sex, who’s a bit nerdy or socially awkward, but them’s the breaks.

If young women would rather fornicate and hope for a relationship born in sin than choose a less attractive young man willing to wait, that’s their choice, but they should stop complaining about there being no option but spreading their legs.

If a young woman has high standards for hotness, then she should accept that she might be single forever. The higher her standards the more likely she is to be single and the more likely she is to waste her prime attractive years.

The complaints of women on this issue ring hollow.

Young women have far more options than the vast majority of men could possibly dream of. Stop trying for perfect and then complaining you can’t get perfect without fornicating. Instead, either: 1) Accept being a fornicating sinner and the consequences of such, 2) accept that your high standards will leave you single, or 3) go for a less attractive man who is willing to wait.

That’s the simple reality of the situation created by women’s own demands.

The worn complaint of “I can’t find a man without fornicating” is both tiresome and false, please stop perpetuating it.

Either that or express it in its proper form: “I can’t find a hot man without fornicating, so I’d rather sin with a hot man than be chaste and/or marry a moral, but less hot, man.”

That’s an opinion I can respect. It’s immoral, but at least it’s true.

Those perpetuating the “I can’t find a man without fornicating” argument are excusing sin and leading other young women to sin. (Not to mention that it’s making it harder for us awkward men waiting for marriage).

Anyway, for women not looking to justify fornication to themselves, here’s a link to some advice I’ve given in the past for building your own attractive man from less attractive materials.

EDIT (2014/03/24):: After thinking about this, I believe I went farther than is prudent here and was inaccurate to the point of error, and have withdrawn the redacted lines. I expressed what I was trying to say more accurately but less readably below. 

****

EDIT (2014/03/23): SSM, and potentially others, have misunderstood what I said, so maybe my writing was insufficiently clear. Therefore, here is my response in the comments to SSM clarifying what exactly I am criticizing.

SSM,

I do not believe I have misrepresented you; instead I think you misunderstand my position.

I have not said you have counciled fornication because, as far as I know, you have not.

I did not read the comments on the Picky, Picky piece at Donal’s, so I don’t know what you said there. (If you have particularly called out the pernicious myth I outline in my post and below I apologize for misrepresentation).

My problem is with this:

Fair enough, but then girls are telling us that if they don’t put out, if they don’t work a slutty vibe, they can’t get men (even most Christian men) interested in them because they are competing with girls who do. That means it doesn’t work very well (socially, not morally) for just some women to avoid premarital/hook-up sex; it has to be almost all of us who avoid it.

The repeated stating of “women can’t get men without fornicating” is incorrect. It may be true that women can’t get some men [typically the hots ones] without putting out, but it is not true that women can’t get men without fornicating.

There is a difference between “men” and “some men” or “particular men” or “attractive men”.

I highly doubt any but the obese (who should improve themselves) or the deformedly ugly (who I have much empathy for) can not get men.

In fact, whenever I have heard women saying I can’t find a man, or there are no good men, they have always had both many men and good men available to them. In some cases, I was a good man who had asked them out previous to them saying this.

Instead of perpetuating the myth that women can’t get men without fornicating, you, and others in the sphere who perpetuate this myth, should instead tell the women complaining to look towards the good men around them who they have been ignoring (ie. the awkward or unattractive men) or to shut up and accept that their high standards may leave them single.

Because every time I (and likely most good Christian men) hear a Christian woman say there are no good men, or I can’t find a man, or I can only get a man through fornicating, I (we) become that much more bitter towards your whole sex.

You have no idea just how discouraging, how dispiriting, how emasculating, how embittering this “I can’t find a man (without fornicating)” is to Christian men.

If you want any good men to still be looking in the church, this shit has got to stop. Because every time I hear it, I am pushed that much closer to saying “fuck marriage” and that will be one less bachelor available for Christian women.

Inner Beauty

A while back I mentioned inner beauty, saying I accept the concept itself but reject the abuses it has taken. I decided to write a bit more on this topic after reading this post on why men marry some women. (If you’re a young woman looking to marry, I would strongly suggest reading that link).

The concept of “inner beauty” typically gets short shrift in these parts, and deservedly so. Inner beauty is usually used as an appeal by either unpleasant fat people or unpleasant aging women for why people should love them despite their unpleasantness, obesity, and age. Sadly, Jim Carrey was right about how inner beauty is often used:

Despite the abuses of inner beauty, inner beauty is actually very important. As the earlier linked article pointed out:

1. Men are attracted by the physical, but marry character

a. Newly engaged men said that what attracted them to their fiancées was how classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat their future wives were.
i. While 68% gave a physical description of their fiancée, only 20% said that what attracted them was how gorgeous and sexy their fiancée was. Over 60% described their personalities, even if the women in question were very beautiful.
b. Therefore, be positive!

2. All wives are trophy wives—men marry women whom they admire and like to show off (but not for their physical appearance)

3. Dressing appropriately sends the message, “I am wife material.” Men marry women they perceive as “situational virgins” who move easily in their world.

a. Editor’s note: In other words, don’t dress like a ho. Men see a sexy outfit as an invitation to have sex.
b. Most men decide within 10 minutes of meeting a woman if she’s appropriate for marriage, or just for a casual affair.
c. Over 80% of men said or bragged that their fiancée was the kind of woman they were proud to introduce to friends and family
d. Over 70% of men said that they knew that their future bride was a “nice girl” the minute they met
e. Only 7 out of 2,000 men interviewed said that their fiancée was dressed in a very sexy outfit when they met.

For finding a husband, women’s looks are secondary, their inner qualities are what matter more. (For finding hook-ups, the opposite is true). This doesn’t mean women should ignore her looks, secondary is still important, but instead a woman looking for marriage should focus on developing the internal qualities a man would want in a wife.

****

Look at the list above of attractive features from 1above: “classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat”

All but ‘classy’ can be described as simply as ‘actively happy’.

Classy is simply a polite way of saying “not an embarrassing slut”. If you look at points 2 & 3 this simply reinforces that point. Men don’t want someone slutty for marriage, they want a nice girl.

If a woman simply develops herself into a happy, energetic person and refrains from making a slut of herself, she will be attractive.

This is true inner beauty and it shows outwardly.

****

Your outer self reflects your inner self.

Your internal attitude will reflect how others perceive you.

The manosphere talks of frame and irrational self-confidence a lot, because they know that how they think about themselves, their inner personality, comes through in the way they look, in the way they stand, and in the way they talk. Having a strong, confident frame attracts women. The men of the manosphere knows that a person’s inner self reflects their outer self.

This is a man’s inner attractiveness.

But this internal frame doesn’t just apply to men, it also applies to women. A woman’s internal attitude will greatly effect her external appearance.

A women’s positive attitude is extremely important. A genuine smile and positive outlook on life can easily and greatly increase a women’s attractiveness.

Here is something most men know, but many women seem not to understand. The vast majority of women under the age of 25 who keep themselves healthy, have a positive attitude, and smile a lot are attractive to most men.

To be unattractive usually requires effort on a women’s part.

****

To be unattractive most young women have to actively make themselves unattractive by either having a bad attitude, gaining weight, mutilating themselves through piercings or tattoos, or actively hampering their looks through too much make-up or a bad (ie: short) haircut.

Obesity is the most common reasons for young women being unattractive, but, even that is simply an outward expression of an inward attitude. I’ve written more about this before, but to summarize, obesity a symptom of two of the seven cardinal sins. An unwillingness to take the most basic care of your body shows outwardly a deep inward self-loathing.

Tattoos and piercings show internal attitudes as well. Tattoos demonstrate poor decision-making, trashy attitudes, and sexual easiness. Piercings demonstrate much the same. While these might attract men looking for easy sex, they are counterproductive in sending the message “I am wife material”.

A bad haircut (ie: short hair) displays a lack of femininity and a lack of desire to be feminine. This displays an unattractive internal reality.

Poor make-up is less permanent and less destructive, but caking it on like a whore, makes you look like a whore, which is the opposite of classy wife material. This may be showing an internal problem or it may simply just be showing cluelessness.

While these external markers may all show inner ugliness, inner ugliness will show through more directly as well. Inner ugliness will display itself in frowning, bad attitudes, argumentativeness, nagging, and the like, all of which is horribly physically unattractive.

If a woman simply keeps in shape, is happy, and doesn’t ruin herself, she will be able to attract a man.

****

There are a few exceptions to the rule, some people are are just born physically ugly and no amount of inner beauty or self-care will change that, but that is rare.

Look at this 1-10 pictoral scale, how many women (excluding the obese) like those in the 1-4 categories does a man actually see in real life?

For myself, I can only think of one example of a girl (from church) under 30 from my entirety of my regular social circles (school, friends, social activities, etc.) who would fall among the 1-4 range for a reason other than obesity. It is very rare in the course of my regular life in public areas (bussing, shopping, at church, walking around, etc) that I will see a <30 woman who would physically be a 1-4 for reasons other than obesity (or, occassionally, a hideous make-up job, bad haircut, or piercings/tattoos).

The young, in-shape women who is actually unattractive is a very rare thing.

For a woman, being a 5 or higher means the majority of men are naturally attracted to you.

So, if you are a women looking to find a husband, develop your inner beauty. Be happy, be positive, be energetic, and don’t get fat or be a slut.

****

To bring this to a more abstract, ideological level, this is one of the problems with feminism; feminism actively tries to destroy inner beauty.

They encourage fat acceptance, sluttiness, and bad attitude.

I’ve already written about fat acceptance here, re-read that.

As for sluttiness, Tracy’s new piece shows you exactly what they are encouraging there. Hardly the time of women that would be a classy, nice girl to show off to family. Radish Mag has a nice long piece on this as well.

As for bad attitudes, feminists are actively campaigning against being happy and smiling. They believe smiling is tyranny and have started a campaign called “Don’t tell me to smile”. They revel in their “bitch faces“. The possible examples are endless, but its obvious the feminists are opposed to being “positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat” or anyone encouraging the same.

So, to any women looking to get married, avoid any feminist advice, for men are looking for exactly the opposite.

****

For just one example of how feminists destroy inner beauty, we’ll take RoK’s ugliest feminist, Lindy West (trigger warning: Lindy West):

She’s obviously very unattractive, but if you look closer you can tell she has good skin and no major deformities. If we see a picture of her smiling (even if it a kinda fake smile) and hiding her fat , she jumps physically from a 2-3 to a 4:

If she lost weight and put on a positive attitude she could probably easy jump form the ugly range to the attractive range. Even so, just physically speaking she’s not the physically ugliest person I’ve seen, but her ugliness is not from her physicality, it flows from her inner self. Because she follows feminist dogma she will keep herself fat, she will continue to display a bitchy face, and her inner ugliness will continue to glower through.

As the top commenter on the RoK article stated:

These women are rotten to the core. That’s why Roosh picked them. They’re miserable, cynical, pessimistic, angry, and offer nothing of substance. They’re physical appearance was just icing on the cake. They’re ugly through and through.

It’s her inner ugliness that truly makes her repulsive.

When I wrote of Tracy Flory-Clark a lot of men expressed repulsion to her. She’s kind of plain but not physically ugly:

With a more genuine smile and eyes that didn’t have the thousand-cock stare, she could probably be fairly attractive. It’s not her outer self that’s repulsive, it’s her inner self which manifests outwardly that makes her repulsive to men.

These feminists are not ugly because of what’s outside, they have an ugly inner core.

****

So, women, unless you want to be in line with the ugliest feminist in America, develop your inner beauty. It matters a lot.

Not to mention you’ll feel better about yourself as a happy, healthy, joyful, energetic person rather than a bitter, angry, hateful one.

The Slut Event Horizon

Discussing my last post on Twitter, some objected to the following:

Only sluts will succumb to them [PUA’s], and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

When posting this I thought it was almost tautological. If a women is sleeping with a man within the PUA’s 3-date rule she’s most definitely a slut. If a women is in the PUA’s natural habitat, the club, looking for love, it’s almost guaranteed she’s a slut. As I’ve already noted, when the PUA moves outside the club into daygame, his success rates are very low (even accounting for only selecting girls in the top 11-23% of women), so the gaygamer is only getting the sluttiest girls.

The question then became, what of good girls that go bad due to incentives. These aren’t natural sluts, but only sluts of circumstance. Aren’t the PUA’s ruining them?

To which the answer is, maybe in a few exceptional rare cases yes, but the PUA is using a number of selection filters, the two most important fo which for this discussion are the club, alcohol, and the 3-date rule.

A woman having sex within 3 dates is already ruined. A women in the club or getting blitzed around strange horny men is either already ruined or will be ruined in very short order whether there’s a PUA present or not.

To describe the ruining of girls, I coined the term slut event horizon. If you aren’t familiar with TV Tropes (or astrophysics), an event horizon is the point of no return, past which something/someone is irredeemable.*

So, in this case, past a certain point of sexual activity a certain women is most slut, no question.

A women having sex within 3-dates is already past the slut event horizon. A women at the club or frat party getting wasted is almost assuredly past the slut event horizon, and in the rare case she isn’t she is willingly putting herself so close to going over the edge that for any practical purpose you should treat her as such (ie. a slut is not a wife).

The PUA’s natural fodder is the woman already past the event horizon, or, rarely, so near the edge of the event horizon that to say the PUA ruined her is to blame the straw for breaking the camel’s back rather than the 400-lb obese man.

****

Here’s a chart on lifetime number of sexual partners:

About a third of women have had 0-1 partners, we can safely say these are good girls. About a quarter had 7+ partners, we can safely say these are sluts, they’ve passed the slut event horizon. Less than a tenth of women had 2 partners, we’ll call these the oops women, the ones who have probably not passed the event horizon, but made a mistake or had a boyfriend before marriage. About a third of women had 3-6 partners, we’ll call these marginal girls, they may or may not be past the slut event horizon.

69% of women are virgins at 18, that number drops to 15% by age 21. So, over half of all women lose their virginity from 18-21 years of age.

Something major happens between 18-21.

Some can be chocked up to marriage, a bit under 20% of people marry by age 21. Given that women generally marry about 2 years younger, we could estimate that about a quarter to a third of women are married by age 21. But some of those would not have been virgins at 18.**

But even given that some women are marrying, that is a lot unmarried women losing their virginity in their college-age years. Many of these are among the marginal women.

As well, over half of women aged 17-40 have had one night stands. We’ll assume nearly all n>7 women had a one night stand, which means about that a good portion (about two thirds) of the marginal women and a few of the oops women have had a one night stand, as well.

(I’m not going to get into trying to figure out how many ONS’s are caused by PUA’s, but remember, PUA’s are a very small minority of men, I would be surprised if they made up even a large minority of ONS’s).

****

When men speak of a women being ruined by PUAs, they are talking of the oops and the marginal women. The ones with a premarital sex partner or three, possibly a one night stand.

A marginal women having a one night stand, has not been ruined by the PUA, she’s either had a number of ONS’s, making the choice to repeatedly ruin herself, has had other sexual activity besides an ONS and stopped when the ONS showed her how far she sunk, or she had a one night stand and decided to continue on, choosing sluthood and ruining herself (depending on where the ONS falls).

The only group that could be said to be ‘ruined’ by the PUA would be the oops woman whose oops was a one-night stand or short-term fling. Oops women make up less than a tenth of women, and I’m betting the large majority of oops women lost their virginity to a boyfriend rather than a PUA.

So, in all, maybe, about 3% of women could be honestly considered ruined by a PUA rather than by their own choices. Not good, but hardly a major problem that must be solved right now.

On top of this, almost a third of women have sex before they are even old enough to legally be fodder for a PUA; 85% of women have had sex before they are even of age to legally allowed to be in the PUA’s natural habitat, the club. To say the PUA’s are responsible for sluttiness is asinine.

Blaming the PUA’s is, at best, scapegoating. Focusing on PUA’s will be destroy any attempt to establish a proper reactionary view of sex and the sexual marketplace before it even begins.

****

A woman does not just see a PUA then become a slut. Taking it from a PUA may be her final fall over the slut event horizon, but PUAs do not have some sort of magic power to turn women into sluts. Rather sluts come from circumstances.

There are two types of slut, the natural slut and the circumstantial slut (similar as the to the two types of slave). Keep in mind this is not an dichotomy, but a sliding scale.

The natural slut is an r-selected woman who is naturally inclined, whether by genetics or childhood environment (ie: sexual abuse or father absence), to be a slut. She will slut it up unless there are very strict societal controls over women’s sexuality, and even then she might become a harlot outside of proper society. You can not ruin this women, she is pre-ruined; she is beyond the slut event horizon. She is bad marriage risk no matter what and nothing but the overwhelming grace of God could ever make her wife material. Most of the n>7 sluts are of probably some degree of this type.

The circumstantial slut is a woman who may be slutty if the circumstances or incentives are right. Some of the sluts and almost all of the marginals and oops are of this type. Many of the good girls could become this is the circumstances were wrong.

The reason the circumstantial slut becomes a slut is because she is in the wrong sexual culture providing the wrong incentives.

In the reactionary society holding the positions on sex I outlined in my last post, these girls would never become sluts because circumstances would never be such that they would want. They would all be wife material.

She does not just fall over the slut event horizon she moves to the verge of the event horizon through small slutty behaviours and eventually one of those behaviours throws her over the edge.

Those small slutty behaviours are mostly not ONS’s, ONS’s are often the final leap over the horizon. Rather they are trained in a women through long- and short-term sexual relationships.

She loses her virginity to her boyfriend, her friend-with-benefits, or the man she wants to be her boyfriend because she sex outside of marriage is a societally accepted. She does this a few times with a few different boyfriends and maybe with that man she just met who’s really hot and at some point she, more or less accidentally, crosses the slut event horizon.

She may not start out intending to be a slut, but once she starts moving along that path it is very easy to go over it without noticing. There is no clear social line of sluttiness.

At what number does it become sluttiness? Most men and women would overlook a mistake or two. What about three? four?

If it’s not slutty in a long-term relationship, then it shouldn’t be with a short-term one? Three dates is a short-term relationship, right?

Is an ONS an automatic cross over the horizon, or can one ONS count as a mistake? two? What’s the difference between three dates and one?

There is no clear threshold of where the horizon is. Hence why some women are good girls, some are sluts, but the plurality are marginal and oops.

They’re trying to stop before the slut event horizon, but many are still turning into sluts because it is not clear where the slut event horizon sits.

This is why I say PUA’s are less destructive than LTR’s and STR’s. What a PUA does is clearly degenerate and an ONS with a PUA is clearly over the slut event horizon. Only those women already over the horizon or so close to it it doesn’t matter for any practical purpose will be a PUA’s +1, and the circumstantial sluts who do so will have been lead down this path by slippery slopes and an unclear slut event horizon.

Meanwhile, as soon as you accept the validity of STR’s and LTR’s there is no clear line of sluttiness and degeneracy. The slut event horizon is not something seen until it has already been passed. These relationships are simply training grounds for sluttery and ruin far more women than PUA’s ever have or will.

If you want to preserve women, if you don’t want women being hurt by a brutal sexual marketplace, if you want women to be wives rather than sluts, you must make the culture so it is not so easy to slide over the slut event horizon.

You have to culturally keep sex in marriage and marriage alone. Some natural sluts will still slut it up and there will still be oops women, but if you make clear that sex outside of marraige is the slut event horizon, you will have less sluts, more wives, more marriage, happier women, and more productive men.

The only reactionary attitude for sex is to confine it to marriage alone.

Anything else is degeneracy.

****

* I should note that I don’t believe in the concept of absolute irredeemability. Every person no matter how fallen can be redeemed by Christ’s blood and have a regenerated new self. So, no matter how much you have sinned, God will forgive you if you repent. Do so.

In this case, irredeemability is used to simply show someone who has allowed themselves to act in a way that would permanently mark them a material and objective slut.

** Good news for men looking for a virgin wife. About a fifth to a quarter of unmarried 21-year-olds are virgins once you take out the quarter to a third of women married at 21. 20-25% is better odds than 15%.

On Reaction and PUAs

This post on the nature of women has made the Twitter rounds and some, such as Anissimov, are calling for a war on the manosphere and/or the PUAs. (I’m not sure how many see the distinction between the two).

Before I begin, I read the story emashee posted a week or two back, and felt no pity for the subject of the post. I still feel no pity. She’s a moral agent who has made her moral choices. She’s choosing to live the life of a whore and receiving a whore’s wages.

That being said, she does seem somewhat on the verge of repentance, so I did pray she finds Jesus. She can’t change her own nature, but God can.

The only person I feel any pity for in that story is the man who’s the intended target of her story. You just know she is going to shred his heart and soul in the future, and he’s walking into it blindly (the letter is unsent). If something does come of it, the decent man will likely find a cold bed or hot divorce in the future. Dealing with girls like that is like sticking your member in a meat grinder.

As the Bible warned many a times, the path of the adulteress leads to death.

****

Now, onto my main point. I must reject the war between reactionaries and PUAs some are trying to brew.

PUA’s are not the problem; they never were the problem. They didn’t create modern society and they are not the ones maintaining it. They are simply immoral men taking what they can from the decaying ruins. They’ve been handed a bag of complete shit and been told to enjoy eating it. How can you blame them for not wanting to?

If I wasn’t a Christian, you can bet I’d be out there taking what I could myself.

In addition, Dalrock has already established shaming PUA’s won’t work.

Finally, PUAs are not hurting anyone innocent. Only sluts will succumb to them, and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

There is no social cost to PUAs, casual sex was a norm before PUAs. Mystery didn’t build the clubs he practiced game in and the club sluts were already looking for sex before he first sarged. It’s not like club sluts would magically have become wives if Mystery had decided to play video games instead.

Does anyone honestly think that PUA’s were at fault for the woman’s problem in emashee’s post?

Day game might be worrisome, as it extends the reach of the PUAs beyond club sluts and might intrude on women who may be marriageble. But given that a day game conversion rate of 2.7% and a number close rate of 25% are considered great, it’s pretty clear that only the sluttiest sluts will be taken in that way. So little chance of a decent women being ruined there.

PUA’s are not ruining marriageable women; they are using sluts.

Sluts are sluts, wives are wives, and the two should not be confused. Those complaining about PUA’s ruining women miss this point and doing so leads to Sheol.

Don’t mistake me, I’m not lionizing PUAs. PUAs are degenerate scumbags.

But, except for some of the deluded “left her better than when I found her” types, they’ll usually cop to that. Acknowledging their own guilt makes them closer to repentance than the sluts and progressives who stand sanctimonious.

Putting the blame for modern sexual relations on PUA’s misses the reactionary point and allows other, more insiduous forms of degeneracy to destroy society.

****

PUA’s are not the enemy. So who is?

The enemy is the adviser counseling young men to be nice guys and wait to marry used-up sluts.
The enemy is the father who pays for his daughter to live on campus.
The enemy is the mother who protects her son from struggle.
The enemy is the preacher that teaches God will bring that perfect soul mate if you just wait.
The enemy is the college becomes a place of partying signalling rather than strict academics.
The enemy is the journalist who glorifies premarital sex.
The enemy is the aunt encouraging her daughter to date around and delay marriage.
The enemy is the person who expresses disgust at the thought of a 16-year-old marrying.
The enemy is the person who calls a 15-year-old a child.
The enemy is the public school that infantilizes young people.
The enemy is the person who encourages long-term relationships.
The enemy is the person who encourages marriage based on romantic love.
The enemy is the person who encourages delaying child-birth.
The enemy is the organization encouraging ‘family planning’.

In case you don’t realize it yet, the enemy is you.

The enemy is the culture which has been completely taken over by the long march.

It is the culture that has separated sex, romance, procreation, and marriage from each other.

It is the culture that infantilizes young men and women and encourages them to avoid responsibility.

It is the culture that has destroyed the family.

You are a product of that culture. You are that culture.

****

This is the question to those other reactionaries condemning PUA’s, have you had sex outside of marriage?

If so, you are just as strong a degenerative influence on the marriage market as the PUA’s. In fact, you are probably are more degenerative influence than the PUA’s.

The PUAs are obvious degenerates. Nobody thinks the PUA’s are doing good, not even the PUA’s themselves.

On the other hand, there are many subtle forms of degeneracy that are widely accepted and hardly noticed. By being so they are far more potent forces of degeneracy.

A healthy society rests on the family unit.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

A healthy society rests on a man leaving his parent’s household, taking a wife for himself, and raising children.

But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. (Malachi 2:14-15, ESV)

Any healthy society will be structured so as to encourage responsibility and independence in young men, so they can take wives, build a life together, and create the next generation of responsible adults.

Anything that takes away from this prime societal focus is degenerative. Small deviance will build on small deviance and eventually corrupt and destroy the civilization.

I am sure many reactionaries intellectually hold to and practice deviancies which destroying our society. We should eradicate these before we start hypocritically pointing out the degeneracies of the PUA’s.

****

So, what should a reactionary, non-degenerative view of sexual relations entail?

We must first understand that sex belongs in marriage and nowhere else. Romance belongs only in the path to marriage and marriage itself and nowhere else. Children belong in the married family and nowhere else. Marriage is for life and nigh unbreakable.

Without rock-solid marriage as a societal foundation, paternity is always in question and sexual access comes without investment. Men who don’t know the paternity of their children and have easy sexual access have no incentive to invest in the future of society, leading to the degeneration of society.

Any minor deviance from combining these four is entryism  and will lead to more minor deviance, inevitably leading to our current disordered sexual marketplace.

If you accept or practice anything else, you are a degenerate and just as bad an influence as the PUA’s, maybe even more so, because you’re reinforcing existing accepted degeneracy rather than being an unaccepted outsider.

Although romance is confined to marriage and the path thereto, marriage should not be based around romance. Eros is poor foundation for marriage. Marriage is a social obligation to your spouse and to your community to provide for each other and for your children, the future of the society.

An LTR is not marriage as it rejects the social obligations marriage entails.  Nothing is marriage but marriage.

Next, we must accept the biological fact that people physically become adults at puberty. God and/or evolution designed humans that way. If marriage is delayed more than a few years beyond puberty, young adults will generally engage in sex and romance outside of marriage. Only those with the lowest time preference (or the most sexually unattractive) will delay, and a society can not function if it depends on everybody to have low time preferences.

Anything but young marriage* will inevitably lead to our current sexual marketplace.

By young I mean actively considering in their early teens and anybody not married by their early-20s is considered an old maid or eccentric bachelor.

If you discourage teen marriage, if you think the 14-year-old a child, if you show disgust towards marriage between 15-year-olds, etc. you are encouraging degeneracy.

Once married, marriage should be nigh unbreakable: divorce should only be granted for adultery and, maybe, persistent physical violence and it should always be at-fault.

Anything else, encourages divorce, encourages the dissolution of the family, and discourages marriage, along with all the negative effects those entail. To accept anything else is to accept degeneracy.

Artificial birth control should be disallowed for the unmarried and strongly discouraged by society for the married. ‘Family planning’ should be shunned. Married couples should be encouraged to give birth to many children.

Anything else seperates sex and romance from procreation, which will inevitably lead to the speration of sex and romance from marriage. This will lead to the current sexual marketplce. It is degeneracy.

This is what society must enforce for a stable family, the building block of civilization. Anything else will lead to the decline of the family, and thereby the decline of the nation and its civilization.

****

The PUA’s are degenerates. In any functional society, they would be hunted down, exiled, whipped, and/or hanged. Cold, casual sex is harmful to the participants, to the family, and to society at large.

Engaging in short-term and long-term sexual relationships apart from marriage is also harmful. The hook-up engenders sex and separates it from marriage, romance, and procreation; relationships separates both romance and sex from both procreation and marriage, which is just as harmful.

The sexual STR is nothing more than an extended hook-up.

The LTR creates relationships not based on mutual commitment before society as a replacement good for marriage. Discouraging both marriage and stable family formation. They replace the societal commitment of marriage for the selfish pursuits of individuals. Without unbreakable commitment before the community, the relationship unit is not a stable way to raise children and it reduces the surety of paternity, which is necessary to encourage men to invest in their children.

These are particularly more insidious than hook-ups, because no one except a few damaged individuals think hook-ups are a good and beneficial way to live their life. But many people think the serial monogamy of STR’s or LTR’s are positive and acceptable. It’s a form of degeneracy we don’t see.

But most harmful of all is divorce. It destroys that marriage which is already built, ruins families, hurts children, and strongly discourages marriage.

All are destructive to society and engender the decline to our current broken sexual marketplace. We should be encouraging a return to traditional sexual mores.

But we should not be making a fight between reaction and the PUAs and should not be taking a harsh purging line for sexual degeneracy (at this point; come the restoration, we can decide what to do with degenerates).

As it stands, the PUA’s are potential allies. They see some of the truth and are effective at spreading it. The PUA sections of the manosphere function as an excellent dark enlightenment gateway. I came to Moldbug and neoreaction through the mansophere and I’m sure many others first taste of the red pill was through the PUA’s.

On a more pragmatically harsh note, the PUA’s strip the modern sexual market place down to its roughest and dirtiest and display it openly for all to see. A few years of reading of the PUA’s pillagings will likely turn many naive young men towards a more patriarchal society. A couple decades in the brutal hands of the PUA’s and I’m sure many women will be more willing to support a return to the loving, protective embrace of patriarchy.

Railing against the degeneracy of PUA’s, while accepting other sexual relationships apart from marriage is hypocritical and counter-productive. PUA’s are not the problem, they are not harming the innocent, and they are performing some minor pragmatic positives. They are the symptom of a larger problem.

We should focus on the root problems rather than the symptoms.

We should intellectually bind sex, romance, procreation, and marriage into each other and fight the infantilization of young men and women.

****

* The combination of later marriage, strict society-enforced sexual mores on women, harsh anti-divorce laws, and socially acceptable prostitution may also potentially function, but would not be optimal. 

Why Traditional Sex Roles Benefit Women

I am what many call a “sexist”, and the misogynist label has been sent my way a few times before. The sexism accusations usually come when I say something anti-feminist or acknowledge an unpleasant reality (in RL they also sometimes come when I make an off-colour joke).

But I do not hate women, rather I have a generally benevolent, if cynical, attitude towards them, just as I do to society as a whole. While I don’t particularly care about most women (or most men for that matter), I do generally like to see people get the best in life rather than the worst (other than the occasional bout of schaedenfreude or natural justice for the deserving).

And that is why I’m a sexist, because I wish women the best and they have been conned. The forces of disorder have have so manipulated the dominant narrative that many women (and men) now engage in fundamentally self-destructive behaviour.

So, for the purposes of helping women, I am going to clearly lay out the long con that has been played against you by society, the forces of disorder, ideologues, and the well-meaning but unknowing. This post is going to tie a lot of what I’ve written previously together, so links will be many.

****

Dear woman, you are taught to be independent, to avoid “ruining your life” with early marriage or having children young, to go to university and have your own career, and to avoid home-making. You are taught to be economically self-sufficient, to not be “controlled by your man”

In other words, you are taught to make your own life miserable. The jackals are trying to destroy your happiness, your sense of belonging, and your future family so they can economically exploit you. This may seem outrageous to you, but before being outraged, please finish reading, and consider the information I present. I don’t expect to change your mind now, but if I plant a seed of an idea, maybe you will germinate before you wind up miserable, exploited, alone, and beyond the point of no return.

Before I begin, know this: women nowadays are profoundly unhappy. Their happiness has been steadily declining for the last 4 decades. A quarter of all women use some sort mental health medication, and a quarter of women age 45 or older uses antidepressants. Women use antidepressents 2.5 times more than men and antidepressant use is rising rapidly. Nearly a quarter of women will get a depressive illness in their lifetime.

Women, particularly older women, are literally drugging themselves to escape the horrors of their life.

If you’re young, the choices you make now will determine if you’re part of that 1 in 4 women who needs drugs in middle age simply to get through the day.

So listen to me, and it may help you may avoid this.

****

Now, like most women, you probably want to get married and have children, if not right now, then at some point in the future. I know there are a few outlier women who never want to get married and never want to have children. If you are one of those women, ignore this, none of this will matter to you at all. But if you’re not one of these women, here is a warning for you. This is the trap that has been set for you all your life.

We will start with university. University, at least the liberal arts program you are probably considering, has turned into little more than a resource extracting scam. If you go to college, there is a one-third chance you will drop out with nothing to show for it. If you do graduate you will owe $23k in debt or so (on average), which may not seem like much, but if you are in the one-half of college graduates who are under- or unemployed (ie. you won’t be using your degree), it will hurt. One-half of young people have a job (or no job) that doesn’t require their degree. Choose your degree wisely; avoid liberal arts programs.

As for going to college to become a better person, there is a high chance you will learn almost nothing.

College is a trap to suck money from you. There is only a 1 in 3 chance you will get a degree and a job that requires your degree. You will be stuck with thousands of dollars of student debt either way.

If you find a job, you will be unhappy, maybe not now but eventually. 70% of people are disengaged from their jobs, 40% of people actively dislike their jobs. 67% of mothers wish they didn’t have to work full-time; among married mothers this increases to 77%. The profile of an unhappy worker is a single, 42-year-old professional woman.

Anecdotal accounts of women leaving the workplace to spend time with your children, or wishing they could and being unable to, are legion. 43% of women leave their jobs when they have children. Leaving your child at child care is often painful for many women. Feeling guilty or missing your children while at work is common (don’t worry you’ll adjust, it won’t always be that bad). 2/3’s of parents regret spending too much time at work instead of with their children. Most working women have difficulties with work-life balance.

To many women working is a hindrance to happiness and family life, but surely the extra money is good for the children?

But there is little extra money.

Taxes will take a good 30% of your income. If you’re married, daycare will take about 10% of your household income, which means it will take up about 20% of what you earn (assuming you and your husband earn the same; if he earns more, it will take up a larger share of your earnings). If you’re a single mother it will take up 30-40% of your income.

So half of what you will earn is accounted before you even earn it.

If you’re like most people (which you are), you’ll spend part of that income on a larger home. In fact, 30% of your “extra” income will go to a bigger house (which you’ll barely see, working full-time).

So, for busting your hump, about 20% (probably less) of what you earn will actually go to disposable income or improving your quality of life. That’s not the extra expenses of working: transportation, work clothes, lunches, coffee, etc. That $20 you earn will is more like $4 in the end.

But maybe missing your children and having only $4/hour in disposable income will be worth it because you will be doing exciting things at work?

Don’t count on it. Here’s a chart of the most common jobs women work:

All these jobs, with the exception of accountants and, possibly, managers (depending on what type of manager), can be divided into 6 categories: secretarial, food services, retail, nursing/personal care, housekeeping, and child-raising.

What do you notice about these six categories? With the exception of retail work, they are all things a housewife would be doing anyway.

So, instead of taking care of your family’s schedule, you will take care of your boss’s. Instead of feeding your family, you will feed other families. Instead of caring for your children and your parents, you’ll care of other people’s parents and children. Instead of cleaning your own house, you’ll clean someone else’s. Instead of raising your own child, you’ll raise someone else’s. Or you may be working in retail, which everyone hates.

It is highly likely that at your job you will be doing exactly what you would have done staying home, except you’ll be serving strangers rather than the husband and children you love.

So, in all likelihood you will be working a job you don’t care about or even actively hate, wishing you could work less. You will be missing your children as they are raised by other people so that you can care for other people’s families, all so that you can make a couple bucks an hour in disposable income to spend on consumerist crap and pills to make the depression go away. In addition, you will go into large amounts of debt for this privilege.

Does that sound like a good deal to you, dear woman?

Does that sound like the good life to you?

****

It probably doesn’t. So, what can you do about it?

First, you have to get a husband. If you do not have a husband you will be forced to work that miserable job or starve (or go on welfare). Remember above, single mothers spend 30-40% of their income on child care. Add on 30% of your income for housing and 30% for taxes, and you will have only 10% of income left for everything else (although, your tax burden will likely be lower than average and government handouts will stretch that 10% a bit further). Even so, you will not have the option to avoid working like a dog at a job you hate.

You’re best chance to get a husband is now. The younger you are, the larger your pool of men to choose from and the more willing they will be to sacrifice to get and keep you. Read this post from OKCupid and truly understand that graph. After age 26 your choices in the marriage pool will start to decline rapidly. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to be stuck with an undesirable man and the less likely you will be to find a man who wants you to stay home with your children.

Marry young.

Second, if you want children you have to be able to have children. Study this graph carefully:

If you wait until your 30s you have about a 1/10 chance of being infertile and it rises rapidly after that. I will repeat: if you do not start having children in your 20s there is a 8-15% chance you will never have children. If you wait until your 40s to have children you are as likely to be infertile as you are to conceive.

If you want children, especially if you want more than one, and you don’t want to run the risk of never having children, make sure to start in your 20s. This means marrying in your early-mid 20s.

Marry young.

(As alternative to marrying young, you could sleep around and party, but there’s a strong chance you’ll regret it anyways and there’s always the chance you’ll wait too long and end up miserable and lonely.)

Third is keeping your husband. If you lose your husband, you will lose your chance to stay at home, you will be forced into working, not to mention the unhappiness, poverty, and damage to children that usually accompanies divorce. I have previously analyzed which factors in a woman lead to divorce. I will share them here as things to avoid.

To keep a husband: don’t have sexual partners before marriage, wait until your 20s to marry (but after age 20 the effects of age are minimal), don’t get pregnant until you and your partner are married, get a degree (although, this is probably just a proxy for being intelligent and diligent enough to get a degree), be devout if you are religious, and make less than your future husband.

So, if you want to raise a family and avoid the trap of working a job you dislike, while serving other peoples families and missing your own family, all for almost no actual benefit, marry young, marry a man who wants traditional sex roles, don’t have premarital sex, and go to church.

Make the right choices now, so you don’t have to pop Zoloft throughout your later years out of regret for making the wrong choices.

You, along with many other men and women, have been swindled. Don’t let yourself be swindled further. Don’t engage in feminist self-annihilation.

If the information and advice I have presented here have caused you to consider marrying early, I have a little bit of advice here on how to find and/or make a good husband.

****

This one’s been sitting half done for months now. In celebration of Traditional Sex Roles Week, I’ve decided to finish it. Women, it’s in your own interest to get #BackToTheKitchen.