Posts Tagged ‘Hypergamy’

This comment to Dalrock’s article discussing the behaviors of the typical Christian woman explains much as to why women behave as they do regardless of their religious beliefs.  The comment introduces why and when our “traditional” value occurred and touches on some interesting theories as to where our society may be going.  In the future I would like to delve deeper into some of the many topics that were touched upon.  However this comment discusses a theory that Evolutionary Biology seems to explain about cuckolding and how it was dealt with in the past.  An interesting note should be made as to how birth control, which is primarily controlled by women, will affect our future generations.

Dear Dalrock,
I have recently discovered your blog and was quite fascinated by it. I fully agree with you on most points. Moreover, I often engage in debates on feminism with my friends, always trying to point out its harmful effects to society. I basically was arguing many of your points without knowing it. I am still quite surprised about widespread obliviousness to this situation even among smart educated people.

I couldn’t find a way to contact you directly other than posting a comment. This short essay is not directed at the topic at hand, rather it is an expression of the opinion on big picture origins of feminism. Some of it was taken from a number of popular science books, and some of it is my own speculation. May be it was already covered in earlier posts, or in other blogs, I didn’t happen to run across it yet. I would like to engage in a debate and/or be proven wrong, so please don’t hesitate to comment. I hope everyone finds it interesting.

To begin with, I and pretty much all scientific community agree with you on human female evolutionary needs:
“1. Sex from the most attractive, powerful, highest status man they can get.
2. Maximum investment and commitment from a man (love, courtship, romance, his lifetime commitment to her).
3. Children.”

In fact, evolutionary biologists logically explain these desires. Firstly, the male attractiveness strongly implies good genes therefore the offspring has much better chance of surviving. A lot of research has been done on that, e.g. it was recently shown that “Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: an assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814000749. Secondly, due to large size of the human brain babies have to be born quite helpless, and a woman could not raise the children on her own for at least few first years. That’s why such unique features as constant availability for sex and concealed ovulation had evolved, so as to keep a man loyal and committed. And finally, I don’t think I need to comment on how evolutionary biologists explain a desire to have children.

This means that a woman that followed up on those desires had higher chance of leaving more descendants in the primitive hunter gatherer environment. This is a very important caveat because in all the blogs and modern literature we use such terms as “traditional”, “old-fashioned”, “for thousands of years”, or “for generations”. All these terms typically imply the environment humans lived after the onset of the agriculture: from few thousand years to about couple of hundred years ago. This period is blink of an eye with very limited impact on humans as a species. The vast majority of time was spent in so called primitive hunter gatherer setting. Our behaviors and instincts have evolved to adapt to that environment, which in fact has very little similarity to what we would call traditional.

How family arrangement and human sexuality worked in primitive societies is hard to figure out for certain. However, such methods as observation of modern primitive societies, records of observations in the past, archeological evidence, details of human anatomy, observations of our close relatives – apes, and other species give some clues for our current understanding (Matt Ridley in “Red Queen” and Jared Diamond in ”The day before yesterday” elaborate on that). The answer turns out to be that throughout most of their history humans lived in predominantly monogamous families (at least serially monogamous) with a widespread cuckoldry. This implied that in a given tribe/village there was one or few dominant men who were in fact biological fathers of about 10-20% of all children. These alphas typically had their own wives and children, while the adulteresses were conning hapless betas into providing for the kids, whose true father was unknown even to the mother herself. Yes, women always wanted to “have their cake and eat it too”. Women went for their #1 desire, despite the fact that in all societies, it was a very risky activity. Adulterers were almost universally severely punished if caught. But there is not much the majority of man could do under such conditions, hence women were moderately successful in pursuing all three of their desires.

That is until the onset of agriculture. More people were now able to crowd together so laws and norms enforcement institutions had to be created. This part is somewhat related to the current topic in this post, it may sound a bit blasphemous for some readers, and I apologize for it in advance. After the onset of agriculture a bunch of men got together and developed a set of rules so that strangers could live next to each other without conflict, it is often overlooked that the important part of these laws was aimed at curbing the adultery (just read Ten Commandments).
Provided much more resources (available manpower) the institutions were quite efficient at enforcing the rules and achieving their goals. These developments created what we call now “traditional” family arrangement. This typically involved patriarchic structure, where women’s chastity was highly valued. A monetary transaction typically took place between patriarchs, whenever a daughter changed household in an arranged marriage. The virginity of the daughter in such situation was of paramount importance. It was often argued, and rightly so, that men ended up on a winning side of this arrangement. I like to think about it as “Revenge of the nerds 1.0” – ordinary men stuck it to women hard for all those hundreds of thousands years of cuckoldry.

A side note: another interesting side effect of agriculture is the appearance of harems. In a primitive society rarely could a man afford to take care of even two wives. But with agriculture and division of labor, some men accumulated insane amount of resources. Obviously, they created themselves a heavily guarded breeding machines comprised of up to thousands of fertile women. This summarizes human male’s evolutionary needs pretty well.

The “traditional” arrangement with some variations lasted for several thousands of years. Women were not completely powerless during this time on both individual level and as a whole. There are multiple examples of societies where many women appear everywhere in societal hierarchy having successful careers. We all know examples of powerful queens in European nations. It’s hard to say, however, whether those women could or ever considered instituting feminism reforms. Some feministic propositions, or rather pieces of work that pointed fingers at the unfairness of women’s situation appeared here and there in western literature long before the onset of feminism. You could check out “Madame Bovary” or “Anna Karenina” for example, and you will find some resemblance to “Eat Pray Love”, safe for eventual outcome.

I speculate that there is one good reason why feminism never took hold or became popular before recent times. One big difference is that throughout all human history except may be last 50-60 years women lacked a remarkable technological invention: reliable and painless method for birth control. Indeed, the one thing women could never do, even now, albeit to a lesser extent, is to raise a child on their own. Children of single mothers are and have always been at a great disadvantage from the start, more so in the past than recently. Yes a woman could engage in her #1 desire and hook up with the alpha, but if she gets knocked up her life was ruined. That’s why they needed men, and needed “traditional” arrangement to help raise the children. And about 50 years ago it all changed, now women had means not to get knocked up. Obviously a set of propositions that appeal to basic subconscious instincts was bound to become widespread and popular. There are certainly other important developments such as democracy and freedom of speech that had an impact. But I’m strongly convinced that the “carousel” and “hookup culture” wouldn’t be possible without a means of birth control.

Now we find ourselves in a truly unprecedented situation: women bunch together and successfully pressure to legitimize their sexual promiscuity. Adultery is no longer a crime in civilized world, for the first time in history. And nobody knows how it will affect subsequent generations. One consequence is already experienced by both men and women, your blog devotes a lot of attention it: Achieving desire #1 by means of utilizing birth control, fundamentally contradicts achieving desires #2 and #3. It’s obvious that’s it hard to get kids with birth control, but the absence romance in hookup culture is trickier, such that most feminists still don’t get it. In this blog you explained it remarkably well, I learned a lot reading it.

This is probably a simplistic view. I would like to learn more and be contradicted. Please ask questions, I omitted many interesting details for the sake of brevity and clarity.

There are many more important issues brought up not only in the original article but in the comment section that I am working on addressing.

You can fight a lot of enemies and survive, but if you fight your biology you will always lose.  (Lord of War 2005)

Destruction

This is a true philosophical statement, ironically made by arms dealer Yuri Orlov.  In Sometimes You Just Have to Look, I noted that men and women will act according to their instincts and it is these instincts that guide both genders to behaving how we do.  That essay was in response to women being upset that their husbands and boyfriends sometimes look at other attractive women.  The sites owners (a marriage counselor) make it a point to counsel men that this behavior is absolutely unacceptable.  What he is really doing is telling men that our natural urges and instincts are shameful, thus adding to the socialization of men to be more feminine.  This creates in us a dissonance between the natural and the social.  This marriage counselor goal is to bring equality to marriages by telling men to act more like women.  That will not work in the long term.

Fighting to uphold positive masculine values is difficult enough in this modern anti-male environment.  If it was only the female feminists we fought against, the war that is waged everyday could actually be winnable while maintaining some semblance of civilization after the fall and the dust clears, but because the indoctrination of the Feminine Imperative has infected our culture like a cancer, far too many men have been infected and are picking up the feminist banner betraying the exact principals of positive masculinity that they should instead be supporting.

As Rollo pointed out in Equalism and Masculinity the Feminine Imperative has tried to redefine not only what masculinity is, but what it means to be a man. Rollo explains that this modern social conditioning conflicts with our natural sexual strategies and instincts.  This conflict leads to nothing but the chaos we see every day in the SMP and MMP.   You see men and women having unhealthy and damaging attitudes about not only sex but love and what it means to be in a healthy productive relationship.

Men are checking out of the marriage scheme because for many, finding a suitable spouse has lead to only failure, disappointment and unhappiness.  Observing this it is not difficult to see the corollary between the feminization of men (and the masculineization of women), which started in earnest in the 1960’s, and today’s current rates of unhappy relationships.  It is unfortunate that only a small percentage of me and women in or society have realized this and are actively fighting to counter the attendant ideologies that have caused so much harm.  Someday we might win, but in the meantime there is war in the streets.  Which side will you be on?

article-2158262-139366D9000005DC-727_634x467

images

It’s sad that so many men and women both have such a messed up view of what sex is, what it means and the importance of it in a monogamous relationship.  Take the case of Samantha Pugsley who through an unhealthy mix of her apparent hardcore Christian upbringing and her belief in radical feminism maintained her virginity until she married and now has a very unhealthy attitude about sex and especially sex in marriage.

Since pictures can tell a story by themselves this is her a few years ago and her now after her full indoctrination into feminism, colored short boy haircut included.  Her transformation validates that wedding cake is very fattening indeed.

She was able to convince an obviously very beta or omega boyfriend to remain celibate and wait for her throughout 6 years of dating.  What happens in these cases is that she turned her virginity into not only a big part of her identity but an idol.  The end result for these young women who have this attitude is that they often remain unmarried and become old spinsters who are still virgins, which is bad for men and women both.  The 463 point checklists these women create are also a big roadblock for them in their quest for the perfect feminist Christ like husband.  The whole virginity game that religious women and beta men play is harmful and can have lasting negative repercussions throughout their lives.  We see this game played out in celebrating virginity for virginity’s sake with purity balls, rings, and other such unbiblical nonsense.  These women’s virginity ends up being narcissistically all about them and not about the gift of their body to their future husband, as is apparent what happened in Pugsley’s case.

Although this seems far more common in virgin women than men, many of these people end of with unhealthy attitudes about their sexuality which creates sexual dysfunctions as seen in Pugsley’s article and throughout the comment section with women who adopted virgin game ended up disappointed because they failed to realize their unrealistic expectations about sex.  I follow a fellow blogger who also saved herself for her husband, but she was taught by her mother the proper attitude about virginity and about the importance of sex in her marriage and now her and her husband experience the wonders of sex as God truly meant for it to be.  A lot of poor teachings come from the parents of these young men and women.  The fathers of these girls essentially go super white knight and pedestalize their daughter which in turn just gives her unrealistic expectations because no man would live up to the fantasy that she created in her mind with her parents encouragement.  The boys on the other hand are also taught harmful attitudes.  One such thing is even remaining a virgin to begin with.  Unless a young man quickly courts and marries and has sex (which is biblical) he should be experiencing other women.  He should not become promiscuous per se, but a man does benefit from having experiences, sexual and otherwise, with other women.  A young man should never remain celibate just for the sake of waiting but only a short time in order to marry particular woman.  It’s also important to note for those men with moral hang-ups regarding sex, that nowhere in the bible does it instruct men to remain virgins prior to marriage.  I am of course challenged to raise up my 2 daughters with the proper attitude about sex so they will make their future husbands happy and have lifelong happy marriages.

The church is extremely schizophrenic when it comes to sex in general, and especially sex in marriage.  Deti’s comment stood out to me and nailed the point quite well:

From Pugsley’s article:

“When he did, I obliged. I wanted nothing more than to make him happy because I loved him so much and because I’d been taught it was my duty to fulfill his needs. But I hated sex.

“My feminist husband was horrified that I’d let him touch me when I didn’t want him to. He made me promise I’d never do anything I didn’t want to do ever again. We stopped having sex. He encouraged me to see a therapist and I did. It was the first step on a long journey to healing.

“When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.

There is always a horribly distorted view of sex and a woman’s sexual role in marriage whenever these discussions are had. A wife is supposed to be sexually available to her husband at all times. She is supposed to give her husband sex when he wants it. Look at it this way: Would a wife put up with a husband who said “well, I’ll work when I feel like it. I’ll give you money to take care of the family when I feel like it, or I think it’s a good idea, or when I decide you need it”. Would a wife put up with that? Didn’t think so. So it is with sex and a husband’s view of it.** But women don’t want this. They don’t want to be totally sexually available to their husbands, for many reasons, chief among them are that most wives just do not desire their husbands sexually. This is a problem because most women are having sex with men who are more sexually desirable than they can get for marriage.

The other prime reason that women don’t want to be sexually available to their husbands is if they are, then they cede a lot of control in the marriage to the husband. A woman before marriage is able to control men by using sex and sexual access. Sex, sex appeal and sexual access are the greatest measures of a woman’s power, and if she gives them completely and totally to one man, she has given up most of her power. She doesn’t want to do this, of course, because that would require her to submit and trust, and what if he screws it up?

** NOTE TO liberals, feminists and other dipshits: I AM NOT SAYING THAT A WIFE IS CONSENTING TO RAPE. I am not saying a wife must have sex when sick or injured or recovering from childbirth. No loving husband would demand sex under those circumstances. I AM, however, saying that a lot of wives unreasonably withhold and limit sexual access. No wife is too busy that she can’t take 20 minutes out of her schedule to take care of her husband’s need. And if she is, then her priorities are screwed up. I am also saying that if a woman doesn’t consent to having sex with a particular man when HE wants to and NOT just when SHE wants to, then she should not marry that man and should not marry at all, because she has a distorted and improper view of marriage.

It is likely she was only a technical virgin and not one in fact.  She states in her bio she is bisexual and so one may deduce that not only do other women join her and her husband in bed, but she likely engaged in certain woman on woman activities prior to marriage.  That said, she was not a virgin and whatever waiting she forced upon her husband was not done in any biblical or moral sense, but as a way to satisfy her own warped view of controlling her own sexuality and sexual morality.  This is evident in her disgusting attitude of “my body my choice”.  All you have to do is read how she hates her husband so much she cannot stand the thought of being impregnated by him and goes ahead and terminates her pregnancy.  I just wonder what the story is behind her husband who waited 6 years in order to have sex with this average looking obviously mentally unstable woman who’s motivations are fueled by radical feminism.  Regardless of one’s religious convictions this man was nuts to remain celibate for 6 years while he waited for this woman.

fSYtDJD

I found this article through Empathologism’s site and found it to be quite interesting in that it is consistent to what I have pointed out in some of my recent essays.  Before we get into the overall theme, I want to point how this article and this site in general seems to encourage beta behaviors as it also caters to a primarily female audience under the auspice of helping men in their marriages.  It is important to point out directly that if a man does indeed follow the advice given, it is likely it would negatively affect the happiness of both partners and probably lead to the premature ending of the relationship.

As Anonymous commented on Empath’s article:

The article is deeply flawed as relationship advice because the problem is stated in such broad and fuzzy terms as to be almost without meaning. Empath hit it : what problem is to be solved, here? By lumping in all sorts of visual behavior into one, catch-all category “looking at other women” the author conflates many different male actions with “bad”.

Whatever the intent of the author (and I am not so kind as Empath) the effect is to give a blank cheque to women’s demands. No matter how strictly a man may control his eye muscles, from time to time in the Western world he will see a pretty woman, and by declaring the simple act of “looking” to be a crime or a sin, men are set up in the “Nothing you can ever do will be good enough for me” pedestalization trap.

There is a not very subtle dominance issue in the original article – men are to be accountable to women, period. Oh, and apparently to God as well, but women first. So the standard Churchian hierarchy is reinforced: God > women > men > children.

Although as always, there is more than a whiff of: women > God > men > children, even though it would be stoutly denied by the original author and the various female commenters. But frankly, “God says you have to do what I say!” does bleed over from the first hierarchy into the second without much effort. […]

[‘’’] Even if the author is well meaning, he’s just fanning fears. I’m sure that there are women who will find the article and who were sorta content with their husband / LTR, but who after reading it will find themselves compulsively watching his eyes in order to see what he’s looking at, then taking notes for future reference. So as with so many other “advice” articles, the author is creating trouble in other people’s lives by playing on the fears of women.

In the end, it’s just another example of how the notion that women must control men, and men must submit to women, has become shot through all aspects of at least US society.

(emphasis mine)

Most of the aforementioned article represents two separate but related issues that need clarifying.  The first is that women will often act hypocritically.  In this article and other on the site, they are flavored with men bad>women good either overtly or implicitly.  However when men understand women’s behaviors and motivations it will help us navigate through the various minefields and shit tests that will inevitably come our way.   This is part of the feminine primary social conditioning that the ‘sphere has illuminated over the last decade or so.

topless11n-5-web

Men should never notice this.

 

It is worth noting that the comment section represents the various shit tests these women gave their partners and the results of their partners failing and them.  At first, I thought that the women who get upset at their men looking at other women were possibly mate guarding behaviors, but mate guarding would entail that woman actively try to please her husband all of the time and thus keep him interested and invested in their marriage.  However, that attitude was not shown in any of the comments, nor was it presented in the article.  In fact Smith put the entire onus on the man to somehow suppress his natural urge to look at beautiful women.  When considering preselection and women’s attraction triggers, a man who looks at another woman and especially other women showing interests in him normally trigger behaviors in the woman that would reinforce her attraction to her husband.  This would manifest as behaviors such as the woman being more sexually available to the man and a likely increase in a woman’s general submissiveness to her husband.  This is the proper context of mate guarding behaviors and as such should have been mentioned by Smith.  Instead he promoted the general fem-centric view that woman should control men via a man’s sexuality by essentially encouraging the tactic of the women throwing a temper tantrum until a she gets her way.

A brief reading of the comments, which were mostly a repeating of the same mantra, show us that women have no understanding of men and our sexual impulses, nor does it seem that most women are in fact really interested in learning how to improve their relationships.  One such natural and normal impulse is when a man glances and even starts at a beautiful woman.  The feminine imperative tries to shame men and tell them that we are wrong and we should “bow our heads” and divert our eyes” in a perverted display of submission and supplication to the feminine goddess.  As I stated in my comment to his article:

Women have no right to castrate men’s natural urges to appreciate other women.  As one respected writer (Empath) indicated “women generally feel a strong inclination towards letting their morals be guided by their emotions”.  That is probably the underlying cause of a majority of frivolous divorces, only to be spurned on by shit article like this that give women the moral cover they desperately seek.  These same women would set aside their high morals when it comes time to divorce their husbands, proving the above statement.  It’s all about you honey, aint it?

I suspect that the majority of the women who take issue with this are at, or have already hit the wall.  All the comments showed was that overwhelmingly these women are very insecure and not content in their relationships.  I suspect that their men simply look at women who are much hotter than themselves.  I wonder if these women honestly assessed themselves and made themselves more attractive to their men by growing out their hair, losing weight, and being sexually more available and exciting how much less this would be a problem in their relationships.  Of course that would mean they would have to stop being delusional and maybe appreciate their husbands more, but I digress.  The women who got their panties all twisted up seem to constantly need the affirmations and reassurances of their beta husbands that they are the most beautiful women in the world to them, blah, blah, blah.  I pointed out in my comment that no, that with a lot of men their wives are in fact NOT the most beautiful women in his eyes.   It is not hard to notice that with the typical married woman, they gain weight, cut their hair short and it seems deliberately make themselves unattractive.  Even in cases where a man’s wife is still a hottie, men should use caution in telling her this all of the time.  In many cases (with the typical woman) this just adds to her already excessively large ego.  Nothing good comes out of pussy worship.  I will add that in a healthy relationship a man shows his wife his attraction for her on a daily basis through his actions, and a woman with a healthy attitude accepts this as his affirmation of love and attraction.  What we commonly see is that too many women have unhealthy attitudes and expectations.

Fat_chicks_1   Many mens wives.

If I can point at one important thing I learned is that women are responsible for their own feeling, good or bad.  It’s not something men are responsible for in this age of female fickleness and general flakey behavior. Smith adds to this by encouraging the delusions of these women.  He has several articles about how husbands are not attracted to and do not want to have sex with their wives.  The comment sections were hamsterbation in the first degree.  Reading many of the comments on some of his articles it is apparent that many of these women are seeking validation for their behaviors which simply turn their partners off.

My comment was met with the typical white knight shaming language from the author and of course he preemptively dismissed the entire context and premise of what I said;

Michael, You’re correct that insecurities can drive some of the conflict between partners on this subject. However, so can how many men look at other women in such a disrespectful way. Many of your points can apply to both men and women. I wish you had chosen to present them in a more balanced manner, because unfortunately your one-sided, angry approach is going to cause your points to get dismissed. –Kurt

(emphasis mine)

There are two quiz’s on his site, one for men to see how shitty of a husband he is, and another is for wives so they can validate their feelings that their husbands are in fact shitty.  Below is the pitch.

Guys

  • Are you a good husband? Learn more about yourself, take the quiz and see how you rate
  • Learn what women really want from their husbands
  • Discover ways to be a better husband

Ladies

  • Want to know what kind of husband you have? Take the quiz and see how your husband rates
  • Learn how to get the husband you’ve always dreamed of

The questions were typical and I received the grade I expected.

new york street style high heels short dress almost showing off ass and legs fashion by he

How can you not look?

Heartiste, as usual, does not disappoint in his uncovering of the pretty lies.  What was brought to us today is a young white suburbanite slut who gets chain railed by 12 black men, and then we find out her deplorable beta boyfriend forgives her in a slobbering display of emasculation.

Bebryqa      11EXExx

Women who insist on fucking interracially are like herpes patients.  Women will oftentimes keep their disease a secret from the men they meet and have sex with.  You may never find out as long as she does not have an outbreak when you are together, but an outbreak will eventually happen if you are with her long enough and when it does your in for a world of hurt and your own reoccurring flare ups.  That said, these types of women are irredeemable.  This piece is not about hating on the black men who bang these sluts.  All they did was exploit the opportunity of banging a white slut.  There is no shame in that.  However, it is the women themselves that have shown they totally lack not only self respect but discretion and they care not for any consequences arising from such abhorrent behaviors.  Women like this are going to be more apt to having multiple gangbangs and other examples of extreme sluttiness in their sexual histories and of course lying about it all when pressed for the truth by some future chump husband.  You will see many of them as single mothers, ending up divorced, doing drugs, excessive partying, never married and of course they are also highly likely to cheat if you find yourself the unfortunate victim of her.  Women like this need to always be abandoned by every white man so she may forever chase her love of the BBC.  She is forever contaminated.  As one commenter stated, “after you’ve slept with a black, you just can’t wash that shit off”.

My criticism also does not extent to interracial marriages per se where the marriage was built on a strong foundation (ie: a non gangster, educated, intelligent, well spoken black man and good white girl OR with a balck female/white male when it occurs).  These relationships, although quite rare, normally produce good and decent enough children and they often last if the couple embraces white culture.  The blacks in this scenario were also likely raised in predominantly white environment.  It is the women who date gangster nigga’s and who does shit like this that end up worse than useless for anything more than a pump and dump.  For that matter I would personally just forgo fucking any woman who has fucked a black man regardless of how hot she may be.  Normal (used loosely of course) white women when they hear about things like this will normally feel revulsion in the pit of their bowels.  Even the most progressive of women would feel this.  That is the normal response.  This behavior is the stuff of only but the biggest cum guzzling sluts.  The type of pairing off as brought to us by Heartiste is the common result of interracial relations.

It is important to point out that the different white woman who will usually fuck black men.  There is of course the fatties that white men don’t want anyways.  There are the “hot wives” married to emasculated and neutered beta men.  This is the proverbial cuckold.  And of course you have this prime example of good looking white meat, which although in the minority, this group grows as does the mixed race illegitimate pregnancies it produces thus further handicapping and already handicapped generation.

As this writer stated:

Am I wrong in saying this chick can still get it even after seeing all this, though? Like I’d prefer not to hear about the time she banged the Tuskegee Airmen while we’re hooking up but she’s still pretty sexy and clearly has the moral compass of Pol Pot. Bang of a lifetime if you can keep your dick from melting into Gak as a result.

As for the question on why do white sluts do this shit, aside from the obvious, she’s a slut, because all ho’s do not spread their legs and labia’s equally.  I would speculate that the sluts who will not fuck a black man still outnumber the ones that will.  Unfortunately I think, amongst the millenniums at least, this disparity is shrinking.  Much of this is probably due to the progressives normalizing gangsta behaviors and not holding blacks accountable for their action through PC enforcement against calling a spade a spade if you will.  As it is, the powers that be and rationalization hamsters everywhere are trying to normalize an activity that is quite probably very detrimental to our society.  In the past there where social controls that not only stigmatized this sort of behavior but provided for immediate and harsh punishments for the actors.  These controls are now nonexistent.  If fact we have come full circle and women everywhere will now celebrate other women’s slutty behavior using the guise of being sex positive.

One commentator asked in Heartiste’s article, why white women are attracted to black men?  White men have refused to appreciate how the black man relates to women of all races.  Black men are normally and quite naturally more alpha than white men as a group.  Through selective breeding they also have better muscle development.  I just wanted to randomly throw that out.  You will rarely meet a black man who does not have pussy available to him on demand.  Many unmarried black men maintain harems.  White men can learn a lot by watching a black man interact with various women.  Much of what I have learned is that black men simply have much more moxie in general when dealing with women.  It is not uncommon for a black man to call out to woman and have her respond positively to him.  It seems that black men can sense these women and exploit the opportunities more consistently that most white men.  Also black men do not have the aversion to “group activities” that white men often do.  In my own experience when the opportunity presented itself, I have seen white men pull this sort of thing on various young hotties, but it took one or more of the group being excessively bold to pull it off.  I of course do not recommend adopting or imitating any other aspect of black culture, lest one lessens his overall value.

It is important to point out that black women are probably the most difficult race of females to deal with in a relational and sexual sense.  The black race in general is based upon a matriarchal family system.  This goes back thousands of years to the tribes in Africa and the black community reflects this.  Black women have always been more promiscuous in the sense that it was not unusual for a black woman to have children from multiple men.  The last man in this line would marry the woman and raise all of the children as his own.  This created a strong community with close ties and resulted in generally strong families.  The welfare state basterdized this to the extent of what we see today with the majority of blacks being raised in single mother households and the lack of positive masculine influences’ for these children due to the now incentivizing for these women not to marry lest she lose her welfare checks.  Suffice it to say that without going into this in such detail that would end up reading like a research study, white woman and black women are polar opposites in terms of behaviors as it relates to relationships yet now similar in regards to female sexuality.  Black men have had to evolve and learn certain skills in order to successfully get past the oftentimes over embellished Strong Independent Woman™ personas most black women portray.  This is why white men marrying black women is still quite rare, although it is now fairly common for the opposite to occur.

Now this incident has forever been memorialized on the interwebz where it will stay to only be discovered in some unspecified future by this woman’s beta husband.  He will complain that she will not give him this type of free uninhibited sex and she will come clean about some of her past, and like this woman’s current boyfriend he will forgive her and tell her it was ok that she ate 12 cocks in one night.  She will eventually bore of him and discard him, whilst stealing his money and children from him.  Before she finds her herb, the otherwise good men who meet her will deduce enough of her past behaviors where she will get repeatedly pumped and dumped until her soul is gone and she is nothing but a used up vessel filled only with the semen of the multitudes of lovers and BBC past.  This is the real world consequences for her for that one night of slutty fun.   All we can do is laugh and feel the nausea build up inside of our guts as we use her and her boyfriend as an example that yes, all women do posses this very nature and a beta’a worse nightmare is only one or 12 Alabama Black Snakes away.

mbqsm3 awkward

Maddy 078

A fun and yet informative article on why sex everyday is very good indeed for marriages.  I would suspect this same attitude would benefit any LTR as well.  It comes on the heels of The Spreadsheet Couples troubles which would not have occurred if the woman followed Meg Conley’s advice. I have to agree with much of what this writer said and would think that her marriage, like others where the wife has a healthy attitude about sex, are likely very happy not only in their marriages but in life as well.  Of course I am a man and when my lovers approach sex like this it does make the relationship oh so much better.

The most important thing I noticed is that in the comment section you can see the truth about our society’s general attitude about sex and specifically sex in marriage.  Our society’s women by an overwhelming majority had devolved its notions of human sexuality.  I expected to read that no man should ever expect sex and how being a mother is somehow so degrading and unempowering.  Well what the fuck is modern marriage for then?  I was of course not disappointed.  No wonder our birth rates are so low and our divorce rates are so high.  Why would a man want to reproduce with such a creature that is the modern empowered woman?  Unfortunately the plugged men in often do.  The comment section essentially became a tirade by these feminists and the dutiful white knights supporting them.  It’s fun to look at these men’s profiles and see that they are fat bastards with peculiar hobbies.  I will briefly mention that if white knights would stop reproducing already or just take the red pill it would go a long way to finally killing off feminism.  However it is only when we put controls back on women’s hypergamy will we see improvements.  Unfortunately it will require the help of the AFC’s and white knights to accomplish this.

The feminists completely freaked out over one statement the author made that being a mother is “one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood”.  That statement is actually highly accurate and I would think that being a mother IS the ultimate expression of womanhood.  The feminists and the white knights, who outnumber the rational folks by a very uncomfortable margin as they always seem to do, go on and on about how it is not right and somehow immoral to see women as having children and God forbid, want to have sex and desire to please their husbands, as the normal beautiful thing it is. When you see a woman who has a positive and healthy attitude about sex, you see her man as also happy and wanting to give her happiness and pleasure.  It’s a self feeding circle of marital bliss.  Several of these women also criticized the author’s over simplification of men’s basic needs, where she said that if we are well fed and well fucked, men are usually pretty happy.  I think many of these types of comments were made by women who simply didn’t want to have sex with their husbands.  I don’t think I can disagree with that statement because nothing says I love you to a man like an awesome sammich before or after some really good sex.

What is ironic is that the women who could not have children for whatever reason really fly off the handle.  Many comments open discuss this.  These women have finally realized that that they cannot have it all as they face the wall and spinsterhood.  Some will snag their beta, but as the words used in the comments, many remain unmarried.  I sense a lot of guilt and regret in those comments, but solipsism and the feminine imperative keeps them from acknowledging their own responsibility for their very own failures.  Many of these commentators then make claims that defy nature and biology.  What these women fail to realize is that their attitudes are hurting their own happiness.  When there is relational equality, there is bad sex and unhappy partners.  You can almost see the bitter tears through the comments.  What the comments from the women boiled down to was that they had all sorts of insecurities about not being attracted to, and attractive to their husbands, being infertile, not being able to orgasm and of course the whole working mother thing and all of its related stresses.  The ideology that these women so believe in is the very same belief system that is the source of all of their unhappiness.

Another issue I want to take to task is that you have many women’s comments speak of how hard it is to work and be a mother and wife.  It is easy to see that all of the working mothers really hate on the SAHM.  Maybe if they reduced their expenditures and did things more traditionally like, oh the woman stays at home and raises the children and takes care of her husband.  It is really out there to think like that, I know.  Modern women will have nothing to do with this notion because raising a family and keeping your man happy is degrading and goes against the branding of the Strong and Independent Woman™.

It has been shown over and over again, and this article just proves it yet again, that the typical modern woman hates everything about masculine sexuality.  That is the medium of the message that you will read in every article from the one above to this one where essentially the same things are discussed.

poss-sella

Ironically I found the above picture from a magazine article from the 1960’s on the same feminist’s blog.  These women there also criticize the wisdom of the advice given and even go so far as to claim that those values never really existed.  It when I read women talk about these issues I again am reminded that Feminism really is a mental disorder.

The commentators overwhelmingly bash on the one red pill guy who just happens to agree with me, yet he and his ardent supporters of rational thinkers were greatly outnumbered.  As I stated yesterday to a white knight defending feminine imperative:

It could be he was trying to gain their approval in an effort to test the waters because he thinks spanking might be a good idea (unlikely), or he was entering into their frame as a white knight so that he could show these women how great and special he is because he not like that sadistic monkey over at The Reinvention of Man who like to spank his lovers asses red and then have wild sex with them (likely)

Or as Rollo puts it:

“What interested me most about this ‘discussion’ wasn’t just the intensity of the responses, but also how quickly and comfortably the Plugins were in their need to set the “troglodytes” straight. You see, in our disconnected lives it’s much more difficult to express our ideology without real-time social repercussions. We can get fired from a job, kicked out of our social circle, excommunicated from church or not be asked back to the lady’s bridge club when we venture a disenting perspective on a great many topics.”

Essentially the majority of the comments by women call childbearing unnatural, degrading, and unnecessary.  I wonder what how they would react if their mothers though of them as disgusting little parasites, as some of these women called little babies.  Apparently these women failed their biology and sex-ed classes.

One woman tried to enter some logic into the exchange and actually gets close to seeing it.

Cameron Mcmahan , I feel sorry for you…Advice for future…When you are a guy, you cannot make any comment which can in the farthest sense be considered anti-feminist…No matter how valid it is….

I think that the point Mr. Cameron Mcmahan is trying to make is that every species has the main target to survive. There have been many scientific researches about it and have been extrapolated to human species…Why are peacocks beautiful?? Why does lion have a mane?? Why in every species the male is given the extra plumes to impress females?? That is nature’s law…. If you believe that human species is different then that is your opinion and it is equally valid whether me or Mr. Cameron Mcmahan agree with it or not.

Fertile or Infertile, the pleasure of holding , developing and if possible creating a life and a baby IS unbeatable…I have never felt as invincible as on the day the doctor held those tiny feet and told me that you are a mom now…I have friends who have adopted children and they felt the same way when they held their baby for the first time…

I don’t believe that both genders should be treated equal … because they are not “comparable”… I do not believe that creating a good marriage and having children is anyway demeaning…I, for one, am proud to have that role… And yeah, I have been a working woman for a pretty long time and DID give it up entirely by choice and to all the feminists, there is nothing bad about it…

If you do not wish to have children or cannot have children, its ok…you dont have to defend it…you do not need to prove anything to anyone…The fact that you are defending it just goes to show that you have some doubts about your decisions…

So this begs two questions. Is childbearing one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood, or is it THE ultimate expression?  And, would marriages be better if the wife was more giving in sex as an expression of her commitment, love and respect for her husband?

I wrote most of this as a companion to The Women in Church essay, but a comment on J4M prompted me to include his comment in this essay and thus my response to it as an example of the typical man you would meet in church.

Church Man writes:

I stopped reading alt-right and christian game (an oxymoron) sites last year. The hypocrisy and lunacy was too much to digest. I call myself a church man on purpose, since that crowd is so anti-churcianity as they call it. Supposedly they are the “real Christians” and the rest of us who go to church and actually enjoy it are fakers and dupes or chumps.

I took a gander at Grey’s blog and its the same ol’ crap. A fornicator deigns to lecture men about “church sluts”. And those men lap it up like the dogs they are.

The only people with a right to critique the church are those who are IN IT and trying to make a difference. Not those who have left it to lead wanton lives and yet deign to lecture those of us who have stayed and are living straight.

I am glad Church Man stopped by.  However it seems he read the title of ONE post, got his panties in a knot and stormed off to randomly criticize me on a article that was talking about something else entirely instead of leaving his remarks at the end of my essay.  I think he should have read more of my essays.  He did this in an effort to discredit me personally instead of addressing the issues in the j4G article or my particular comments. This is the classic behavior of the white knights and mangina’s I speak about below.  Many of these men are probably married to the older church women I wrote about in my previous essay on the Types of Women in Church.  When you point out how these mens’s behavior is perpetuating some of these problems they take it as a personal attack and act out emotionally, just like women really.  He ambiguously uses shaming language against me and the entire sphere because he is somehow more moral than any of us, or he thinks of himself as so.  Maybe this is because he chooses to attend church were some of do not.  I personally think that Dalrock and Rollo are quite moral and probably more moral than most of the men who actually go to church including my criticizer.  I will also speculate their marriages are happier and more fulfilling for both spouses than most church men.  I will admit I am a bit more amoral than what I used to be in regards to having sex out of wedlock.  I am also pragmatic, but I digress.

He goes on to state that no one is allowed to criticize the church if they no longer attend.  This smacks of someone who is so entrenched into the feminine-primary mindset that they cannot see past their own misandry.  He must go to the non-typical church were the virgin women are marrying the good virgin and non virgins men regardless of their beta mindsets and none of the church girls have 463 point lists of qualities their perfect man must possess.  His church also takes divorce and female promiscuity so seriously that women are excommunicated for frivolously divorcing their husbands.  The sluts in his church (yes they are there) have forsworn their promiscuous ways and thus many have relegated themselves to a life of celibacy and singleness because they know that they are far to damaged to be a good wife who is able to bond to the beta men who she would meet in church.  These men like Church Man, when (not if) they find themselves victims of hypergamy and the feminine imperative will either resign themselves to a lifetime of loneliness and bitterness or they will be the first ones lurking on Roosh or Heartiste in order to learn the skills and mindset necessary on order to meet and keep his new love interests.

Continuing the original essay, we see from the example above that these men do exist in large numbers and the comments just lends credibility to what follows.   As for the older or married men in church, I have NEVER met a red pill alpha, or any alpha for that matter.  Even the combat vets, who I consider brothers, are still white knights mangina’s when it comes to women and the feminine imperativeEverything they say about marriage and relationships is usually dead wrong.  Many of these men are led by their wives and their children, although they will be the first to tell you how much of a leader they are in their families.  If you criticize or call out the bad advice they commonly give about intergender relations you are thoroughly chastised and shamed.  They will never debate or talk about these issues in an adult and intellectual manner.  Normally they tell you that their interpretations are the only ones that matter, call you immoral and rush off in a huff.  I really cannot totally respect a man for behaving like that.  These same men continuously tell the unmarried and younger men they must marry.  All you have to do is attend any modern church and you will hear the cry from the pulpit and the other male attendees for younger or unmarried men to Man Up (and marry those sluts) and woe unto the man who has sex with one of the precious single princesses who attend church.

Other men you will meet are the young men who were brought up in church and are hoping to find that “one special snowflake” to marry.  They saved themselves, in most cases from lack of opportunity mind you, and are hoping to find the vestal virgin of their dreams.  The problem though is that these men dry up the vajayjay’s of the pretty little church girls who with their lists, only get hot and tingly for the alpha bad boys they would only meet outside of church.  Some do get lucky and their personalities and potential win out, AFBB.   For these men they might end up with a good woman with a healthy (but previously restrained) sex drive that can now be released in all of its naughty fury.  Woe to the man who ends up marrying the 30 year old virgin spinster who had very few choices to begin with or the fake Christian woman who has already worked up a notch count in the double digits.  I hope most of these men at least have enough sense to ask his love interests some very basic questions. It’s unfortunate that for many of these young men who ascribe to contemporary Christian dating advice (bullshit really) the only women who will actually settle for them are themselves settling.  They wouldn’t have to settle so much if they learned game and upped their alpha quotient some.  But these men can rest assured that although she probably wasn’t your first choice, neither were you her first choice.

It’s important to remember that most Christian women have thoroughly adopted the Fireproof world view of how marriage should work and of course if you are not a weeping slub like the (supposed) hero of Courageous, well your just less of a man.  Of course the men who act like this are the ones who end up being cuckolded and possibly forced to raise another man’s child.  Most Christian women also have no problem blowing up their marriages for whatever frivolous reasons, such as her husband looking at porn or he no longer makes her haaapy.  When Christian leaders exalt praise on single motherhood, then you know for sure the church has big big problems.  The older men in church encourage the women to act like this because they refuse to hold women accountable to that higher standard.  They also refuse to teach the unpopular masculine messages in the Bible.  Lastly they deify their wives which of course contradict every teaching of the bible and ends up leading the man to idolatry.  When there is a problem in a couple’s marriage, the following excerpt gives a perfect example of the men=bad, women=good meme.

“When my wife left me for frivolous reasons I approached the head pastor of her church in order to get some help reigning in her rebellion.  All he told me was that it is a woman’s right to divorce and that I am abusive because I told her (my wife) we were going to go to a different church because I did not like the teachings of the one she was attending, which was the church this guy led.  He actually had the gall to tell me that I should be listening to her and coming to his church.  Suffice it to say that we never did reconcile our marriage and are now divorced”.

Too many Christian men and believe that marrying Christian woman will shield them from the reality of divorce.  Unfortunately that is simply not true.  Christian men would be much better of marrying a secular non believer.  If anything the sex will probably be better.  By marrying a secular woman  you can feel confident that at least she will not be having the trad-con version of feminism pumped into her brain twice a week.  It is a sad state of affairs when a non believing woman is preferred to a professing Christian none.

I blame the men in church for not biblically leading their women.  I feel sorry for the young men who grew up in church and have never been exposed to proper thinking about what works with women.

How many times have we seen our friends move in with a woman or have their girlfriends move in with them and then later the relationship always fails and your friend is worse off than if he had not lived with his girlfriend?  I see this all of the time.

But it gets worse for men who live with their girlfriends.  Now we have some interesting data that living with a woman is worse for your health than living alone.

Married men were more likely than cohabiting men and other not-married men to have had a health care visit in the past 12 months.

Figure 1. Percentage of men aged 18–64 with at least one health care visit in past 12 months, by marital status: United States, 2011–2012

db154_fig1

Regardless of age, married men were more likely than cohabiting men and other not-married men to have had a health care visit in the past 12 months.

Men aged 45–64 (79.6%) were more likely than men aged 18–44 (64.1%) to have had a health care visit in the past 12 months. However, the association of marriage and cohabitation with men’s use of health care was generally consistent regardless of age. Among both age groups, men who were married were more likely than cohabiting men and other not-married men to have had a health care visit within the past year. Cohabiting men were less likely than other not-married men to have had a health care visit within the past year (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Percentage of men aged 18–64 who had at least one health care visit in past 12 months, by age and marital status: United States, 2011–2012

db154_fig2

Married men were more likely than cohabiting men and other not-married men to have received recommended clinical preventive services in the past 12 months.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that, on a regular basis, all adults have their blood pressure checked, men aged 35 and over have their blood cholesterol checked, and adults with hypertension be screened for type 2 diabetes (3). Marriage and cohabitation were both related to men’s receipt of these clinical preventive services. Among men for whom the service was recommended, receipt of each service was more likely for those who were married than for those who were cohabitating or not married. Cholesterol and diabetes screenings were less likely for cohabiting men than for other not-married men (Figure 4).

db154_fig4

Summary

Married men were more likely than not-married men to have had a health care visit within the past 12 months. This association was observed for both younger and older men, but only among men with health insurance. When men have the means to access health care, spouses may play a role in their use of health care by directly encouraging men to seek preventive care and by indirectly evoking in men a sense of economic and social obligation to the family (1,2).

The results suggest that cohabiting partners do not play a similar health-promoting role. Compared with both married men and other not-married men, cohabiting men were less likely to have had a health care visit. They were also less likely to have had selected clinical preventive services in the past 12 months, including blood pressure checks and screenings for elevated cholesterol and diabetes. In fact, cohabiting men are a group particularly at risk of not receiving clinical preventive services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Only about one-half of men in this group for whom cholesterol and diabetes screenings are recommended had received these screenings in the past 12 months.

Summary and charts from the CDC:

So what does all of this tell us?  Married men are usually encouraged by their wives to take better care of themselves and go to the doctor for preventative health care services.  Single men living alone are less likely to go to the doctors but still they seek out preventative medicine in substantial numbers.  For men who cohabitate with a woman they are the least likely to go to the doctors for preventative medicine and they take care of themselves the least.  It seems that they are less healthy overall than both married and single men living alone.

Looking at this as a social dynamic, I speculate that the women these men live with care much less about them than a wife would.  Living with a woman is so much different than living with your wife (who you did not live with previous to marriage) for a variety of reason.  There is a subconscious dynamic that although it initially may be hard to see, it is there.  Not only will you be less healthy but you will be less happy overall.  There is never a good reason to live with a girlfriend.  Just ask yourself what are the benefits that you cannot get living alone, with male roommates, or even just marrying her?  Will she appreciate you more?  Will you have more and better sex?  Will your girlfriend whom you agreed to live with love you more?

I think the worst thing a man could do is live with a woman and then marry her.  The dynamics involved will almost certainly assure that not only will the marriage ultimately fail but the marriages that do in fact succeed (in relative terms) the man will be more miserable overall.  In these situations such as this the man becomes preconditioned by the faulty premise of the previous cohabitation dynamic.  Thus the merging of the different dynamics from cohabitation to then marriage is such that most men are powerless to navigate the minefield of a woman’s hypergamy and solipsism.  Maybe she really loves you and wants to always be around you.  That is fine, but remember, the anxiety she may feel when you two are not together is the same emotion that helps keeps her attracted to you.  When you agreeing to live with her you take away that anxiety and you lose your power and most importantly room to maneuver and you might die sooner.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #4
NEVER under any circumstance live with a woman you aren’t married to or are not planning to marry in within 6 months.

Sexless Marriage Series #2

The Spreadsheet Couple who received so much notoriety as of late as shown some very disturbing trends in how a large portion of American men and women think about sex, especially sex in marriage.

One issue as Dalrock recently brought up is the vagina’s power that women often then misuse with most men.  I agree that the nets reactions was based on the sudden loss of the wife’s V-power and all women’s sudden worry that their men would wake up and realize how tenuous their own power plays really were.  Go read Dalrock’s article and come back.

I will however disagree with Dalrock’s observations that women were only half hearted in their support of the wife.  The articles were essentially all the same, essentially telling us that this guy creates a spreadsheet because his wife didn’t want to have sex and that although she should have used better excuses, no man, and especially this lame ass, should ever expect sex from his wife or any women.  What I read was pretty much all female and most male writers supported the wife directly.

Another issue is the very disturbing trend that I have seen reading the comments on the various articles.   This trend is one of male entitlement to sex, specifically as it relates to the sexual dynamics within a marriage.  Feminist have been telling women that their body is theirs to do with as they please regardless of consequences or context.  At first this was directed towards abortion and the feminist’s belief that only women have a right to decide whether to kill their babies or not.  Of course the fathers feeling in the matter are irrelevant.  However, this same attitude spilled over into the sexual arena.  Now we read stories such as this where a wife consistently denies sex to her husband and he is then compelled to document her refusals and reasons in a spreadsheet.  Instead of working on her marriage WITH her husband, she runs off and posts the spreadsheet and her brief story in the net hoping to garner the support of her sisters.  We then see women and their male supporters come out of the woodwork in droves supporting this woman using the same logic that a woman has an absolute right and even an obligation to refuse sex to her husband anytime she does not feel like it.  The modern woman and mangina really do believe that a woman should NEVER put out if she did not immediate desire sex and that sex should ONLY occur if she wants it.  Of course a lot of blame was laid at the husband’s feet because he approached his wife everyday for sex.  Apparently men are not supposed to do that either.

Now we all know, or should know, that you don’t “ask” a woman for sex, you initiate sex with her.  Oh, I can hear those feminists yelling rape already. Speaking of which, the feminists and manginas often state that anytime any man, husbands included, cajoles, pesters or negotiates for sex it is rape when the woman finally gives it up so her man will shut up about it.  Although I find having to pester any woman for sex unacceptable and I would never do that, I do not think such a thing is rape.  I need to write about what rape is and what it is not.  I know that essay will piss a lot of people off.

So what are a woman’s rights and obligations in regards to her husbands or boyfriends sexual desires and needs?  As I stated before, MEN NEED SEX.  I am not talking about duty sex which is lame and is usually less satisfying than looking at porn and jerking off, I am talking about good mutually enthusiastic and satisfying sex.  Without regular quality sex men will normally drift away from his spouse emotionally.  In time he may want nothing to do with her.  This happened to me. My now ex wife always maintained the belief that men are not owed sex and we ended up drifting far apart, so much so that I had zero desire to even try to reconcile with her after she left.  Needless to say our sex life was lame, I looked at porn, she pulled a Jenny Erickson and left.  On the other hand an ex girlfriend of mine not only told me she believed her job was to keep me utterly satisfied, our sex life was such that I had no thoughts of looking at porn and we even adopted the practice that every orgasm we each had would be with the other person.  No more going solo.  She didn’t care if I looked at porn, but we both wanted to share ourselves with each other all of the time.  Simply put, she derived satisfaction by tending to my needs and I derived satisfaction tending to her.  Yes there were times I didn’t want to have sex but because I cared for her I did it willingly and enthusiastically and I’m sure there were times she didn’t want to have sex also.  Ok maybe not, but she still would have had sex anyways.  Another thing to mention is that by cuming inside her pretty much every time I think the bond between us was greatly increased.  Also, regular sex keeps our man parts in good working order and we do feel discomfort and even pain if we have to go too long.  Either way men’s bodies are designed to have sex and ejaculate very regularly.

As Dalrock puts it:

A wife who almost never wants to have sex with her husband is a terrible wife.  As with a slut, only a foolish man would (knowingly) fall in love with a frigid woman.  However, unlike the slut she isn’t even desirable.  A frigid wife is powerless, undesirable, and (romantically) unlovable.  This recognition is what so horrified women around the world when the spreadsheet went viral.

We know that some women will refuse sex often, even when she wants it in order to leverage the power of her pussy.  However this is not the way God or nature intended things to work.  Reading Dalrock’s statement above we see that a frigid wife is a bad wife, a woman not even deserving of our love.  He is right.  Even the ones who “claim” they do cook, clean, etc. unless they are tending to her husband’s sexual needs she is still a bad wife.  You can hire out most of a wife’s other duties, but sex should not be one of them.  Sex is the only bio-chemical bonding a couple will experience.  I have yet to meet or hear about a sexless couple that is happy with two normal adults.  Although no woman seems to understand her own body as well as she should, that is fine because the amateur gynecologist is here.  Reading the comments from Scarymommy’s article it is easy to deduce that sex reinforces the bond between a loving monogamous couple such as a husband and wife.  You will read many of the wives report that they feel so much closer to their husbands with the more sex they have with them.  Without getting into the science, let me say that the science backs this up.  I just made a Walsism, oops.  Anyways, I will save the scientific details for another essay I am working on because it’s that important and it’s interesting.

A wife owes her husband sex.  Even in other committed and monogamous relationship sex is owed to the other partner.  We explored the health benefits and the benefits to the relationship.  Let’s now look at another issue the feminist will certainly scream about.  Us men we work hard for ourselves and our families.  Oftentimes we sacrifice our happiness by not doing things we would rather do or work a job we would enjoy more but the pay would be much less.  Also when we get married we EXPECT that there will be regular and enthusiastic sex with our wives as much as reasonably possible.  For the promise of our commitment, which men honor way more than the modern women does, we want sex, which is also part of the promise and commitment on the part of the woman.  What we do not want is to be the second man eating off of the same plate, which all too often happens.  Married women and women in committed monogamous relations have a responsibility to have a genuine desire, and to actually have sex with their men.  She owes it to him for his commitment to her and in exchange for his work.  If she no longer is sexually attracted to him then she should end the marriage and refuse to take any of his assets when she leaves.  In other words a woman might have to fake it, yes I know, but if she truly loves him her negotiated desire will likely change to the genuine desire which is so important in any couples relationship.  When a woman marries or otherwise commits to a man she loses her right to continually say no.  If she has a medical condition that makes sex difficult she needs to address it immediately.

One thing about control and feminism as it pertains to this instant issue.  Feminism and by extension pretty much all American women desire to control men’s sexuality.  They will use their frigidity, or refusals to have sex, their anti-porn stance, and of course the all too common tactic of using sex as currency.  All of this boils down to not just women attempting to control men’s sexuality but women controlling the whole man.  If you have a woman like this it’s simply better to leave.  It will suck at first but in the end a man will be better off.  I have noticed that many frigid women and women who use sex as power have deep emotional issues and unresolved baggage in their lives.  All you have to do is talk to a feminist pansexual woman for only a few moments to smell the psychosis.  One study pegged over 20% of American women fall into this category.  Unfortunately these same women can behave themselves long enough to snare an unwitting man into a relationship with them.  As I said before the man should just leave her.  If for whatever personal or financial reasons a man decides to stay, he will have to game the shit out of her hard and be at the peak of his own emotional strength.

Sexless Marriage Series #1

I was first going to write this essay about the Spreadsheet couple that has recently gone viral over the internet and the sphere here and here just to mention a couple of good articles, but I wanted to address this one thing first.  Men who look at porn.  Much has been written about this subject and I think most of it is wrong.  I am not going to take a moral stance against it because doing so will not only dilute the topic because I believe the common moral stance against itself immoral.

Men NEED sex.  Be it from their wives, a girlfriend, a mistress, hooker, Fuck Buddy, or good old jerking off it does not matter, we need to have that release often and when it comes to actual sex it needs to be good.  If we are in a loving monogamous relationship, regular quality sex causes us men to love and bond to our women more.  Likewise they bond to us more.  It’s funny how biology works.

However, the attitude of the modern American woman is that we, as men, are not entitled to sex and therefore should never expect it, even in the confines of a monogamous relationship or even marriage. Yet, these same women will state that they are entitled to an earth-shaking orgasm every time they bless the man with access to their golden magic super awesome vaginas.  Of course any man who might want sex from a woman, or dare I say expect it as part of their relationship is a creep.  This even applies to the husbands of frigid wives.  These women will of course get quite angry if a man ever rejects her sexual advances and will even post his rejection of her online with her hamsterlation on why she is so wonderful and how he was an asshole.  The other side of this coin is that men do not owe women commitment, fidelity or our resources.  If we are married and have scrotial fortitude we may very well leave them or fool around on these women.  Sorry babe, but that’s the price you will pay for your rejection of us.  Also it’s worth mentioning that a woman who only offers duty sex or who is otherwise frigid or unenthusiastic is quite unattractive, at least to me.

For the hapless beta or man who is otherwise chained to an unhappy marriage because of his religious beliefs there is porn.  Yea porn!  It’s maybe not the best thing for reasons I won’t get into right now but for many men it’s a valid alternative to getting a mistress, going to hookers or divorcing his wife.  Just remember that for most of you moral shackled men, your wife has done things too.

If a woman wants to keep her man around she needs to give it up enthusiastically and often, she needs to stay fit and be an overall pleasant person to be around.  The only happy relationships I have seen all had an exciting and full sex life in common.  Most western women simply refuse to be exciting in bed with their men.  They use sex as a commodity to be traded for men’s resources, favors and oftentimes commitment.  I don’t think many women even do this conscientiously but as a result of their upbringing in our feminist and female entitlement driven society and the unshackling of women’s behaviors due to feminism.  Then they take this destructive attitude about sex into their marriages essentially putting their own pussy on a pedestal all the while forgetting that sex is one of the main (and most important) components to bonding with your spouse.

I have to mention that when many of these women were young, and considering the modern view regarding female promiscuity, these women, now wives, likely had sex with quite a number of partners prior to marriage which would have lessened their overall value as potential mates and have increased the chances any marriage they entered into would ultimately fail.  Some became alpha widows and in all likely hood irreparably damaged their ability to pair bond to any man they might meet in the future.  When these women finally did catch their beta husband after a solid ride on the carousel, they will all too often deny him the wonders of her past sexual experiences and only give her now husband infrequent and vanilla sex.

One issue that came up several months ago was with Matt Walsh’s article telling married men that when they look at porn they are committing adultery thus lending moral justification to millions of women to justify divorcing their husbands.  I was heavily involved in the comment section which seems to have been erased for some reason.  It was good that I made notes at the time.   There were over 3000 comments on that article back in February.  Now there are only a little over 300.

In the comment section of that article there was a vigorous back and forth between commentators stating essentially the following three positions:

  1. Almost 95% of the female commentators stated, and many times with much vitriol, that a married man looking at porn is in fact equal to and in some cases worse than the act of committing adultery with another woman. Most of these women were self professing Christians. Several women stated that when they caught their husbands looking at porn they were mortified and so disgusted they never wanted to haves sex with their husbands again. In many cases They also stated that previously they were more than willing to have sex with their husbands but were rejected because their husbands would rather look at porn than have sex with them. I would say that a majority of these same women ended up divorcing their husbands for this reason alone, or for the ones who have not done so yet are seriously considering divorce. Most of these women plainly state that no man, including their husbands, are not entitled to, nor shall he expect sex on a regular basis with his wife.  Of course these same women get upset when their husbands would rather look at porn then have duty sex with them. These women then lavishly praised Walsh on his courage in writing the article condemning all men who dare to look at porn as adulterers, perverts and rapist in waiting.  This group of women and their supporting men always blames the man.  They say things like any man who “needs” sex lacks impulse control. They shame anyone who has a different view than theirs, oftentimes telling these individuals that they are sorry for their partners because the commenter in support of porn is such a wicked vile individual.  Most will shame any man or woman who even mentioned that looking at porn may be caused by a spouse not getting sex from their wives.  Most of the vitriol is directed to male commenter’s and the female pro porn commenter’s are responded to with a little les hate.  The people in this group never mention women looking at porn, divorce porn, or women and their romance novels.  The men in this group seem to me like they are soft and catering to their wives opinions.

 

  1. Another camp defended anyone looking at porn. This group postulated that in many cases porn use seems to be the symptom of them not getting enough actual and “quality” sex in their marriages and from their wives. This camp stated that INSTEAD of committing REAL adultery by having sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant they will look at porn and take care of their own needs instead.  These men along with a few women who supported these men’s actions, would rather have good fun and enthusiastic sex with their wives but either their wives are lame in bed (read duty sex) or their wives are just not interested in sex with them.  As stated above, this group was shouted down and shamed by the anti-porn people for their opinions.

 

  1. The third and smallest group consists of both men and women who both look at porn with and without their spouses or partners, but each allowing the other to look at it and even encouraging the other spouse to explore their own desires and fantasies online and later discussing what each other likes and even using porn as foreplay. From what I gleaned from the limited information in the comments, these men and women seem to enjoy the most stable and yet exciting marriages.  They also seem the happiest with their spouses. One thing I did notice is that in these marriages and relationships neither person overtly identified as being a Christian.

 

It should be obvious by now that feminist and trad-cons share many harmful ideologies in regards to male sexuality, male shaming, porn and divorce.

It seems to me that women who stridently identify as being Christian are the ones who seem to not only feel they are entitled to withhold and deny quality and regular sex from their husbands but that they will almost certainly be willing to divorce their husbands for the singular reason of him looking at porn, thereby stealing his money, resources and children from him using the Church™ and its femcentric teachings along with articles like those from Matt Walsh and Jenny Erickson as a justification for their decisions.

As for the article I think its pure rubbish.  All it was is pandering to women, especially Christian wives, giving them moral cover for frivorcing their husbands.  It was pointed out by a small minority of aware men that this article and others like it highlight that not only do men need regular and enthusiastic sex with their wives, these men when deprived will take the path of less damage and look at dirty pictures and videos instead of carrying out an actual affair with another woman, which in reality if done, may have a far greater negative consequences for the marriage than a man simply looking at porn, or would it?

Jenny Erickson left her husband over his alleged porn use.  It seems that in her case and with the many men who have to resort to porn and masturbation to relive themselves in their sexless marriages, porn is just a symptom to the far greater problem of having a wife who continually denies sex to her husband and when he finally does get it on his birthday and anniversary, if that, it is worse than lame.  In these marriages porn is more fun than having to throw a fuck into and likely overweight, definitely overbearing unpleasant woman.

There are many real world consequences for women’s prior and current bad behaviors.  Sex and female promiscuity prior to marriage and women’s entitlement attitudes are two issues that have negatively affected more marriages than any other issue, including men looking at porn.