Similar posts

Julian Vigo #sexist feministcurrent.com

In an effort to move to a greener existence, I recently switched to an ecological toothbrush. As I have been living uniquely from solar panels for almost two years, I was forced to ditch my electric toothbrush. In choosing an ecological toothbrush, I studied materials, as well as the advantages of recycled plastic brushes versus those with replaceable heads. In the end, I had to eliminate every single option aside from the single one I chose. Yes, I had to exclude that which did not meet my personal standards and convenience.

I think a lot about exclusion these days. The #MeToo campaign which emerged in reaction to the sexually aggressive acts of Harvey Weinstein is clearly a female-centered campaign. But recently I’ve seen arguments that #MeToo should be extended to include males. While being “inclusive” of everyone might seem like a nice idea, the reality is that there are perfectly rational reasons for exclusivity in many situations. Our shared experiences with certain humans help us form bonds where and when we need them. These bonds can often make life bearable for those experiencing particularly painful moments in their lives. Commonalities help to create community. The truth is that all communities are exclusive, in one way or another, of individuals who don’t share certain experiences or requisites. While some might be tempted to argue exclusion equates to segregation, such arguments are very much apples and oranges, particularly in the context of women’s rights.

There are several key differences which should be underscored, when discussing “exclusion” in the women’s liberation movement, beginning with the myth that feminism must focus on males. Thanks to liberal feminists like Emma Watson, among others, many women have been made to believe that arguing for the inclusion of males in the women’s movement is a worthwhile cause. But any group in protest of its oppression by another group is within its rights to demand that the oppressor not be included in its organizing. For instance, when labour unions secured the legal right to represent employees in 1935, employers were excluded from the class of employees because it was understood that employers (as well as managers and supervisors) held power over workers. In terms of economic class, it seems that most people are on the same page when understanding which group holds power over another.

Similarly, civil rights advocacy began with the premise that there is social inequality between people of colour and white people, making a necessary distinction between who is being oppressed under white supremacy. Robbing a person of the right to distinguish the oppressor class means that she is barred from speaking about and identifying her oppression.

Nobody expected the Black Panthers to consider the marginalization of KKK members from their organization for good reason. Similarly, no such claim of exclusion was made about the Million Man March in Washington D.C. in 1995, when approximately 400,000 African American men converged en masse in the nation’s capital to engage in teach-ins, worship services, and community organizing. While there was a discussion over the fact that women were excluded, there was also recognition that black men had the right to gather without women to discuss their issues, and this action was largely supported by African American women. Two years later, the Million Woman March was held in D.C. to focus on issues specific to women.

This sort of exclusion is not based in hatred or a desire to do harm. Exclusion is how we decide, like me and my ecological toothbrush choices, what meets our needs. Exclusion is not necessarily about owning a card to an elite club — it is about setting a particular direction for an individual, group, activity, community, and so forth. All social groups exclude in some way. While I am a big believer in reaching over the aisle to dialogue with those responsible for our subordination, I also recognize the need of any group to make decisions within its group before reaching across that aisle.

(..)

Does the fact of breast cancer support groups for women mean that males cannot get breast cancer? Of course not. And there are breast cancer support groups for males. Why? Because males and females experience breast cancer differently. Commonalities between same-sexed bodies are part of the social intimacy that both males and females alike cherish across cultures. Be it in the hammam or the steam room, the hospital ward, or the changing room at the gym, there is intimacy between people of the same sex that provides a space of security and dignity. Females especially value these spaces because the public sphere is not safe for women. Being in a female-only changing room can offer women a needed reprieve from the daily sexualization of their bodies, and from unwanted male attention and judgment.

The issue of “exclusion” has become a touchpoint for the left in recent years. Most notably, we have seen exclusion being derided as bigotry in trans activist circles where women who say they would not feel comfortable with a male in their change rooms, their women’s shelters, or in a women’s prison are labelled transphobic. Yet both these examples come from real life paradigms. In 2007, Vancouver Rape Relief Society won a case against Kimberly Nixon, a trans-identified male who had attempted to join the training group for peer counsellors at the women’s shelter.

Nixon was asked to leave the group account of having been born male, and because the shelter operated on the basis that women could best counsel other women, having had the specific experience of growing up female under patriarchy. The B.C. Court of Appeals’ decided that Vancouver Rape Relief had the right to determine its own membership, as any oppressed group of people has the right to “discriminate” when organizing in their own interests, as a class. Currently pending in Texas is the case of three female inmates who are suing Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, claiming that, “They are living in a degrading and dangerous environment by being forced to share showers and bathrooms with the transgender inmates.” The truth is that, for most women, sex does matter. What is more remarkable is that males who claim to have an internal “female identity” have zero compassion for or comprehension of the reality women face in a male supremacist world, and would prefer women put aside their own material reality, comfort, and safety in order to validate men’s feelings.

Choosing a female gynecologist or desiring a female-only space for changing is not meant to incriminate all males as, to paraphrase George W. Bush, “evil doers.” Rather, a woman might choose a female gynecologist both because she feels a woman would better understand her body, but also because she feels safer in that vulnerable state with someone statistically unlikely to assault them. Women’s desire to change in a locker room without male-bodied persons would likely be based on something similar, as well as a desire to maintain healthy boundaries that too often go unrespected. In excluding males from female spaces, women are demanding that society accept the healthy boundaries of women, even if, in certain scenarios, males might wish to be on the other side of the line.

Last week, Bustle ran a story arguing that “some members of LGBTQ community feel that the [#MeToo] campaign focuses too strongly on the gender binary and seems to erase nonbinary or genderqueer people from the conversation.” But what this statement really conveys is that males feel excluded from a conversation lead by women speaking out about male violence. While I would not deny that males experience violence, it is overwhelmingly violence inflicted by other males. What makes #MeToo important is that violence against women and girls is coded into the structural social hierarchy. When women contribute their #MeToo stories, they are doing so as females who have, from childhood, been groomed as objects that exist for male use.

It cannot be overstated that females suffer disproportionate levels of sex-based discrimination and violence, including sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, and trafficking. Women are quite aware that they are discriminated against and physically abused because of their sex, regardless of how they may feel, internally, about the gender roles imposed on them. It is entirely insignificant, for example, how the over 200 women who James Toback sexually harassed identified. To demand that #MeToo include non-binary people is to miss the point of the feminist movement: feminism has from its inception been explicitly about breaking the hierarchy and stereotypes reinforced through gender which demanded women not leave the house, not vote, and not work. It is not the “binary” that is the problem so much as it is gender itself, under patriarchy. Men who rape women don’t care whether their victims feel “binary” or not.

What Bustle would like is for women to use a language that is seemingly more neutral, less politically objectionable, and more inclusive… of males. Otherwise there would be no uproar with focusing specifically on women’s voices and experiences in this campaign. Males insisting on being “included” in women’s social protest against sexism is just more of the same sexism — women are being instructed to shut up about their oppression by males unless they include males. Beyond that, under patriarchy, women are always under pressure to be sexually available to men. This new language of “inclusion” that frames “exclusion” as inherently harmful has led to males who identify as transgender to insist that women include them not only in their groups and politics, but in their beds. That this is explicitly sexist is made clear through the fact that I have yet to see any male who identifies as trans pressure heterosexual men into sleeping with him.

A narrative that insists on coercing or goading women into including their oppressor is anything but progressive. Likewise, insisting that the language of gender neutrality is what matters in a conversation about sexual violence is far from revolutionary. Taking up the five-cent terms like “non-binary” and “queer” will have no impact on the facts of sex-based oppression for females. The challenge we face as a society is not to carpet bomb women’s movements with accusations of “exclusivity” and “bigotry” when women recognize that males and females are different and have different needs. Creating linguistic games might seem avant-garde to undergraduates, but the reality is that gender is what prescribes the behavioral cues engrained in females throughout their lives. Gender is what is hammered into females as a class, rendering them subjects of a discourse they have no power to respond to. The notion that gender can ever be neutral is patently absurd since gender is not the solution. It is the problem.

Changing language to be “be more inclusive” is counter-revolutionary and pretending that such language does anything other prevent women from effectively organizing towards their own liberation is delusory. The language of gender inclusivity does nothing to dismantle the social and political inequalities that females face. It does, however, create a lovely illusion (especially for men who want to seem progressive in their attempts to thwart our movement): that saying “genderqueer” makes one a “feminist.”

Caamib #sexist blogger.com

bold is mine


Gally, I will reply to you though my goal isn't so much for you to read it, as you're a delusional idiot, but to make an intelligent reader, somebody who really wants to learn about this stuff, see why you're wrong and misrepresenting a lot of what we believe.

"Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. "

Jesus, what idiocy ! Of course they don't have nothing to do with it. You're right. You know what it has to do with? Actual improvement in male lives. Making it easier for healthy, reasonable males to get women. Which masturbation actively impedes by making them less motivated to do so. But the fuck would you know about any of that?

That's basically the reply to that entire paragraph of utter bs. Let's go on...


"You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). "

You have no idea why and how feminism comes about. Today's males have far less sexual choices than those in 1970s, when there was less feminism. Another thing that's a waste of time to discuss with you.


"How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?"

Which "junk science" are you rambling about? Feminists were never against masturbation, in fact they deem it to be an acceptable "solution" as their idea of a nightmare is whites having any kind of sex. But this is also something you're too stupid to get.

"You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades."

No, in fact you do. Your idea of robots replacing women in that women will not happen. And I'll tell you why. There's several reasons. First of all, the technology won't develop. In late 1998 people believed they'd have robots as servants and various other stuff by 2018. We don't. We have been stagnating technologically since around 2000 and your fantasies simply won't happen. Chances are that technology will decline, not improve with times.
Other issue is that there's still a lot of shame connected to using such technology.

But there's one reason that is much more crucial - men and women still want to be with each other. I still meet women 13-40 with my online ads, because modern Western women, as messed up as they are, still are looking for somebody to control them and own the shit of them, to put them in their place. You won't replace this and the male need to do so with any robots and virtual reality.

And there's a more important reason as well- why would we want to do so? Can you marry a robot, have a child with a robot? No? So what is the point, anyway? Why live in a virtual reality and knowing you'll never procreate? You think men like fschmidt, Nathan or myself would have kids if we did so? Why don't you just take drugs or kill yourself if you don't want to live in the real world?

"This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws."

No. This would be a blessing, which he understands full well as he's not as dumb as you are. It would make thousands of men get off their asses and take women.

"'I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage"

No, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy."

Standing up to delusional idiots like yourself, who pretend to be their friends (unlike the less perverse Norwegian state) is also quite brave. As I told you, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'."

No. Another thing you get completely wrong. An actual comparison would be "find me a cannabis legalization activist who actively promotes harmful chemical alternatives to pot that are known to destroy people's lives". And that is what masturbation is - a shade of actual sexuality, nothing. A dangerous tool that makes you complacent and unlikely to seek out actual sex. If you think being a male sexualist is about helping males jerk themselves off in dark rooms... Well, I'll just say that getting rid of that would be the first step to not being an idiot.

"We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws"

But feminist sex laws would collapse quickly if men stopped jerking off. Because, guess what? You are not a hebephile. There's no such thing. All sane men would sleep with 12 year-old girls and younger. And they'll be much more motivated to so when they don't jack off. When millions do it regularly, and they will when boys are discouraged from masturbating, it will be easy.

"Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??"

No, no, no, no.... Just no.

Everything wrong and stupid. The problem with the term incels is lookism and cultism, which didn't exist when I was in charge more, as I explained in my June article. This is directly connected to their takeover of the term after July 2016, Also, you miss the real point. Incels aren't meant to be popular or liked, of course feminists will hate them. The point is to promote actual solutions, which don't have to do with looks but are extremely contrary to feminism (finding non-feminist wives, rape etc). When men who call themselves incel seek actual solutions then the term will be seen more seriously. The idea that you will get a political solution in Western countries is pure idiocy. I just want to help men improve their everyday's lives. Politics is a waste of time and these countries like Norway will collapse like all countries which adopted their policies did.

It's your stupidity and idiocy and listening to mainstream media that you believe incel is some political term or whatever. It isn't. You're a fucking incel.

My goal is simply to improve the lives of men, not some great political solutions you dream of.

I already addressed the robot thing. Your assumptions about the state of technology and human nature are wrong.

If I chose robots instead of women I'd never have a daughter now, for example. Or several girlfriends or willing sexual partners, not to mention less willing ones.

Also, I'd like to address some of the shit you said before, some of which I painstakingly translated..

-Eivind's ideas on women being the owners of sex don't mean that men can't reject sex. They just mean women forcing it on them should be very lightly punishable. If I don't want chocolate that moment and somebody force feeds me some delicious chocolate am I some great victim? That's nonsense ! And Eivind did say that in cases of harsher violence these women should be charged with assault. But for giving somebody chocolate, which is how men see women's sexuality? Of course not. Another thing you'd know if you weren't a brainwashed house negro.

- No, male fetuses masturbating in wombs aren't a problem. Males usually develop first serious interest at women at around 12-14. Besides, their penises are usually too small to be properly masturbated before around 10-11-12, so they masturbate them the way clitorises are played with before that age (at least that is my experience). So such males don't develop penile sensitivity and can be successfully directed to have sex with rl girls of similar age of slightly younger/older. See how stupid and clueless you are?

Also, remember just one thing, Gally. Sperm doesn't ask. It doesn't ask if you're worthy enough, if you achieved this or that, if you have this or that level of consent or respect. It just impregnates. Think about that. So impregnate somebody. Do your role in the world.

I was attacked for saying I should have killed 12 year-old girls with C4 and burning rubber tires around their necks, but guess what? THIS IS WHAT MODERN WESTERN WOMEN WANT. What they don't want is anybody of IQ above that of a goldfish and any respect. This went down the drain from the first moment they got basic "rights" like suffrage, which are nothing but privileges that enable the destruction of society.

Oh, and another thing. Regarding islamic minded incels, you're completely wrong, as usual. Those in such communities who are most islamic minded, like myself or fschmidt, aren't even incel anymnore. Most actual incels, at least by my definition, are lookist fools who know nothing about history or wqmen's nature, want to have consensual sex (and nothing else) with dirty Western sluts who get raped regularly anyway and don' give a fuck about it, and then they're are angry when this fails.

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

HalfAsianTruthTeller #racist stormfront.org

The TRUTH ABOUT WHITE MEN AND ASIAN WOMEN FROM THEIR EURASIAN SON
Asian women and their insistence on breeding with white men is not something based on love, but rather on hate (largely of Asian men), yet their sons are Asian men and we are taught from birth that love is not colorblind. If love were color blind, then there would indeed be more Asian men breeding with Asian women, black women, or white women, but instead Asian women rely on their privilege of having a vagina, being the gatekeepers to sex, to negotiate relationships with white men in a perverse form of hypergamy. If love were honest, and good, and unbiased, then Asian women would marry black men, Indian men, and Hispanic men at the same rate that they do White men. But they do not. If love were honest, good, and unbiased, then Asian women would be as open to dating Asian men as they are white men. But they are not.

For this reason, I curse my own mother, I am glad she is dead, and I hate every ounce of the whore, slut, white-worshiping piece of trash that my mother, an Asian woman from Hong Kong, was. I am not alone in this feeling, as I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of Eurasian men who have, at one point in their life, questioned their own mothers.

Whether they do this for status or for appearance is not relevant, though I do think that it is probably for the sake of appearance, since the taller build, wider face, and healthier skin color of white men might be the main reason why Asian women chase white males. Regardless of their reasons, they clearly will not stop doing it, and completely ignore the massive negative repercussions this has on their children, like me.

I was born of this relationship and to this day, I remain a failure, full of self hatred, lost, confused, and destined to die by my own hand, or to die having run to the furthest corners of the world, now for five years, to get away from the very thing that birthed me.

I will, as a result, maybe as one of the only things I may accomplish in my life, write about the insanity of these relationships, how they are the ugliest thing on earth, and how they lead to pure disaster for their male children, the worst case being Elliot Rodger, whose sentiment, at times, I emulated with. I have long been known as eccentric, odd, weird, lost, and have a poor reputation among people who know me as being antisocial, distant, and prone to lunatic beliefs; the day before Elliot Rodger’s massacre I even reached out to him on a popular forum and told him that I identified with his feelings, his self-doubt, his narcissism, his issues with his mother, and I said that they were uniquely Eurasian male issues.

So, these relationships are sick, for the following reasons:

1) The white males, in many cases, view the Asian female as an easy alternative to white women, and as a valid vessel to propagate the continuation of their intelligent, master-race “genes,” whereas white women are seen as being sexually perverse, and prone to mating and having relations with the “lesser races.” My father is a strong example, having long harbored extremely religious, white-supremacist, and misogynist viewpoints. Some, in many ways, would consider him a Men’s Rights Activist, or to a lesser extent, a MGTOW, who, like many other white men, felt entitled to a world where God reigned, valued the white man, and white civilization, rewarded the white man for being white, and, when white women failed to recognize his inherent “power,” (instead choosing to lie down with black males, or to party, or embrace liberalism or feminism), Asian women, of course, were the next best choice. I also know this because having come across numerous other blogs (hapasons.wordpress.com) that talk about the same issue, my case seemed remarkably common. My father, for example, believes the Nazis were heroes, and my mother even called the police on him, when we were growing up, for talking about how the Holocaust never happened. He strongly supports Mel Gibson, goes on racist rants about blacks, and vehemently hates Jews, Hollywood, and modern day American society. In this way, my “chaste,” Oriental mother was a strong alternative for him to marry, as Asian women are well known for worshiping white males.

2) The white males oftentimes are socially inept, socially awkward, or unable to compete in the modern day marketplace, both sexual and economic. My father would be diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome if such a syndrome was known in his younger days. He is a social recluse, has almost no friends, listens to wave radio, believes strongly in conspiracy theories that are very common to White Nationalists and anti-semites, and believes strongly in God and that God hates Jews and that the judgement day will eventually come; common to people like this, white supremacy, the belief in Aryan people at the top, with Asian people being a distant cousin, and Asian women, of course, being a healthy substitute for hypergamous, slutty, immoral White women, while Asian women remain hypergamous in their own right. I know this, because sadly, I am both antisocial, have long since disappeared from all of my friends, have gone through a thorough depression at the way American society was, and during the time period that I considered myself “white,” I too embraced white nationalism (sadly), and was so depressed about white women mating with men of color that I sought refuge in China, to await the eventual apocalypse. As insane as it sounds, this is what brought me to this country, and I would have killed myself had I not been saved by my wife.

3) Asian women make divergent, opposing, and illogical statements about Asian men that will eventually find their way to their sons. The common claims from Asian women about why they don’t date Asian men come in two forms: The first is that Asian men are patriarchal, controlling, and conservative. THIS IS A PATENT LIE.

This is a lie because the white men that they engage in relationships with are even more patriarchal, racist, and conservative, looking to Asian women as an alternative to feminist white women. The entire premise of white feminism is that white men are TOO CONTROLLING, PATRIARCHAL, AND CONSERVATIVE. I know this looking at my own father, who is by far the most patriarchal, far-right individual that I know, so much so that it might have eventually contributed to my mother’s death. Again, there are several other races that Asian women can choose from, but they only choose white men, making this a complete fabrication and lie based on faulty logic and excuses. The very fact that they are capable of framing an entire group of men as the same while saying that another group (white men) are inherently better reeks of

The second claim is that Asian men are ugly, unattractive, small, with small penises, which contrasts strongly with the claim that Asian men are overbearing and too patriarchal. The horrible danger of this claim is that it trickles down to Asian women’s very own sons, who begin to SERIOUSLY doubt that their mother’s “preference” has anything to do with character, and everything to do with physicality – whereby I have come to despise and hate my own mother with a vehement passion that is borderline violent. Much of my history, if you care to read earlier in this blog, might stem from this ingrown self hatred that comes from being quite literally cuckolded by my own mother, whose own belief that white men are physically superior mentally drains and destroys me, as her male offspring, and causes a bitter, catastrophic dichotomy within myself.

Regardless of the “reasons,” or if sexual preference can be negotiated, the very fact that it is so common and the fact that our mother’s choices were based inherently on preference for determinants of sexual / genetic health make all of our life choices irrelevant, because it is clear that ultimately our deciding factors and success in life and love are determined by our genetic makeup, so much so that our own mothers were driven in such a way to shoot down AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP while giving unfair preference to another – means that any and all choices we make in life are hinged on our appearance and that nothing we can ever do can make us as attractive as a white male – as proven by OUR OWN MOTHERS.

4) Our own mothers reinforce the horrible stereotypes about Asian men. Regardless of their reasons, there are persistent stereotypes that exist in Western culture about Asian men. Whether or not they believed these stereotypes, we assume that they had no qualms about reinforcing the extreme negative image of Asian men by chasing, in droves, white men, and that our own mothers were very, very capable of betraying the possible future of their own sons by proving to the world, and their own offspring, that Asian men are and forever will be less desirable than white men. For every time that an Asian man is shot down for being Asian, the perception that Asian men are undesirable is reinforced, and our own mothers become GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION for actively being part of the self-congratulation group of Asian women who HATE ASIAN MEN AND THINK THEY ARE TOO GOOD FOR ASIAN MEN. For this, my own mother is a guilty whore, who I shall hate until my last dying breath, and I will never, ever, EVER be able to look at what she did in another way; I shall go out every day, very well aware that Asian men are so undesirable that my own mother sought to avoid them entirely, knowing that I can never, ever be viewed as desirable as them, and that any woman who notices me notices me only because I am whiter than I would otherwise be.

In Conclusion

Asian women will deny, lie, and beat around the bush until doomsday, but they will never admit that what they do is for purely physical reasons, and they will never admit that the ramifications it has upon their children is profound and disastrous. As I have read on some other blogs, this kind of relationship is purely evil, simply because it follows the patterns of basic biology and evolutionary psychology, while deceiving its offspring into thinking that it is normal; the whole “Eurasian” children or “mixed children” are valuable and / or beautiful is nothing more than a generalization and a lie, and it soon becomes evident that mixed children are birthed from couples forming extremely unbalanced patterns that favor women over men. The male offspring of these relationships are then put at special risk and wind up imploding, as is the case of my brother, who is 32 years old, bed ridden, schizophrenic, and so badly damaged from his combination of racist/religious white father / self hating Asian mother, that he is essentially dead. I am essentially considered crazy by the larger community, have been outcast to China, will die alone in a small apartment, am suicidal, depressed, and unable to work.

In short, these relationships are based on the hatred of the Asian male (in some cases, with the extra bonus of hating the white female), and the resulting offspring, should he grow up in America, be keenly aware of this societal hatred, and grow, as I did, to despise his own mother. Luckily, mine is dead, (from a bad blood transfusion after a C-section birth), otherwise I would make it my goal to humiliate, demean and hate her, as I hate Asian women who refuse to date any such race, if only because she is a rotten, ROTTEN person, and it is not enough to assume that “maybe” she did not hate Asian men – as the pattern exists enough that I would sincerely doubt her excuses if she attempted to explain it away.

some tumblrers #sexist dogirlsandra.tumblr.com

(proud-misogynist-patriarch)

Normally I post where my captions can’t be removed but this is an exception because it needs to be re-blogged everywhere. If you remove the caption at least add your own showing that you DO support degrading porn to cunts. Hardcore porn needs to be promoted and encouraged more in the world. Cunts seen leashed, collared, and used as a cum-rag gives our younger generation of men the encouragement on how to treat these fuck holes. It should be looked at as education. And the more bitches are exploited to it the more they see how they deserve to be treated. It is a win/win…..for men, of course. I proudly post this and hope you all do the same if you agree.

(coffinnail97)
I support degrading women, whether it be in porn or real life.

(agonyaunt4sluts)
I support it 100% despite being fiercely independent and having been an ultra successful business woman running businesses that simply outperformed all my male competitors.

I support it because I think it reflects the vast majority of males attitude to women. The sooner women learn to accept that and adjust their sexual behavior, the better society will be. I support it because the more degrading porn that is available, the more young boys will see it and expect that behavior from the girls around then. And the more young girls will see it as a role model for themselves

Porn that degrades women should be the most mainstream available type of porn

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

asianwhiteworship #fundie asianwhiteworship.tumblr.com

(Remember cantfightnature? This shit is similar.)

The New Asian Sexuality

Preface

Asian males do not own Asian females or their sexuality. This toxic attitude has unfortunately led to the resentment and hatred of Asian women for simply expressing their desires and living their lives. This is about the development of Asian sexuality in the 21st century. By accepting and evolving to this new arrangement, Asian males can live more fulfilling lives in the process.

The New Asian Sexuality

Over the past decades there has been an evolution in Asian sexuality which has been bravely led by Asian women. The old pairing of AMAF has diverged, as many Asian women are now solely having sexual relations with White men. The WMAF pairing has become a sexual revolution for Asian women. More are choosing this as their sole sexual identity, and Asian women are more empowered than ever to express and own their sexuality in the way they prefer.
This development has led to enormous increases in promiscuity and sexual freedom. Many Asian females now have numerous white sexual partners throughout their lives, some having sex with tens or dozens of men. Asian females also feel empowered to regularly share White men with other Asian females. The new Asian sexuality has dramatically increased both the amount of sex and pleasure Asian women have on a regular basis.
This hyper-promiscuity is one of the biggest positive outcomes of the new sexuality. Asian women have been liberated from antiquated feelings of shame due to having large numbers of White sexual partners. They have more fulfilling and active sex lives than ever before. In addition Asian women in the 21st century have also become very confident and powerful in society. Attending top universities, filling many high corporate positions, and becoming wealthy and influential.
However some Asian men are resentful about this new arrangement for reasons that might seem justifiable on the surface, but are actually quite indefensible.

Asian Heterosexualism

Due to the success of Asian women the Asian male must now converge his own sexuality with the new reality. The disunity of preferences is what causes feelings of resentment. It cannot remain the case that only Asian women have a sexual preference for White men. This must become the preference of Asian males as well. Their sexuality must also now be based on the expectation of WMAF sex by default, like their women, and it must be supported and respected with care and understanding.
The new Asian male heterosexuality is still traditional in the sense that they are men attracted to women. This aspect has not changed at all, and requires no perceptible alteration of identity. The difference is the focus: The heterosexual Asian male must consider WMAF sex to be the new default arrangement. The heterosexual Asian male must derive sexual pleasure from Asian women having sex with White men. He must come to terms with the fact that he is the passive portion of this sexual triad, with the White male and Asian female being the active participants.

Sexual Preference Transition

One powerful and easy way for Asian males to defeat their toxic masculinity and develop into a supporting ally of Asian women is through extensive consumption of WMAF pornography.
Asian men already watch WMAF porn of course, but it is not done through the correct lense. Some see it simply as sex and entertainment, and do not consider the political and philosophical implications. They ignore a large part of the meaning of WMAF porn through a lack of comprehension: WMAF pornography is the purest depiction of the new Asian female sexuality.
Asian males must transform their preferences to match the evolution of Asian female sexuality. They must be one in the same or else conflict will arise. The Asian female will have sex with White men, that must be accepted. This act is where pleasure and satisfaction must be derived from. It is not acceptable or reasonable for the Asian male to expect any other arrangement.
When their sexuality is aligned with their women, then the toxic attitudes will cease. If both the Asian male and female can derive pleasure from the same act: WMAF sex, then they will find that it is easier to have harmonious relationships. The men will be accepting of a partner who wishes to maintain her sexual identity, and who will continue to have sex with White men.

ItsACrazyWorld #sexist #crackpot incels.co

It's fucked up how men are mocked/their opinion instantly discounted/are disrespected by women if they don't have a porn dick, yet...

...women can have any size boobs and they are supposed to be worshipped. A typical example you can see in porn, both 'professional' and arguably more noticeably, in amateur (since in 'pro' porn, you can at least argue that the women are just shooting with guys they're paired with). You can look at pro-porn - you have loads of women who range from 4'8 to 5'2 height wise (i.e. femlets) with often A or B-cup boobs. I'm not going to write examples since I don't want to promote them, but I think we all know - these are primarily Asian, but also white & Hispanic women. In porn though, these women will never be paired with a guy less than around 7.5 inches - in extreme cases, you're talking 10 or perhaps more. Why is men's value in porn based PURELY on the size of their dick, whereas women can have small boobs and still be considered 'attractive'? So why do women in the bottom 1% of terms of size, feel that they are too good for 99% of men? Far too many women from the bottom 1% will demand guys that are way above average in terms of dick size, despite the women themselves being below average in terms of both height and boob size

Likewise, in amateur porn this is arguably even more apparent, since the women are choosing the guys they shoot with - again, pretty much 90% of women will openly shit on men unless they have a huge dick. Again, it's a kind of 90:10 rule - whereby 90% of men are happy with women's boob size (even if they are way below average), whereas many women view only 10% (or realistically, if they want porn dicks, <1%) of men to be good enough

And this isn't just about porn - women will instantly put down/not take the opinion of someone they consider to be 'inferior' seriously. I think this is why women care about 'social justice' for groups like blacks and not about others (Asians, Indians, Hispanics etc) - since they assume the penis size stereotypes (which, according to studies, allegedly aren't true) and therefore have the link "black = big dick = 'real man' = I'll listen, compared with e.g. Asian = small dick = loser/virgin/incel = I don't care/won't listen".

And it's like, I'm not even small - that's kind of the fucked-up thing. I'm 6.5, which is allegedly a bit above average...but the average men are expected to meet is some thing as thick as your wrist and long as your arm. That's why I empathise with ER...afterall, if you have a 4 inch dick as he seemed to admit, you'll not only never be able to satisfy women (who demand 8 inches), but they'll fundamentally never view you as a man. In 2020, I feel like 7 inches is the absolute minimum for many women to respect you, as a man.

Can you imagine if men had this attitude towards women - imagine a man in parliament saying "bitch, your boobs aren't GG, I don't care about your opinion" and all the men coming together to silence her. Yet, that is the attitude of women towards men...

StAliaHarkonnen #sexist reddit.com

self-respecting women would never have sex

Of course women had to evolve to be able to have sex and to get pregnant, so self respect isn't really in their nature. In fact, just read any topic on sex, you'll find most women are masochists who just want to be dominated and treated like sluts. They try to distance themselves from that in real life by calling it kinks and then pretending kinks should never be judged, but kinks don't exist in vacuum. in fact they speak volumes about a person's character, and in this case, character of a whole gender.

Just the nature of sex is such that female body gets penetrated and no matter how much women like to pretend that they need and love sex just as much as men do, it is blatantly obvious that this isn't the case.

There seem to be two types of women out there, women who really hate sex but will do it for a bit for their social status, try to get the best genetic material available to procreate, and then usually stop with sex unless they need a new provider. Many married men complain about this type it is practically a cliche. Instead of just refusing to have sex at all, these women fake it and degrade themselves only for practical reasons and then men wonder why they treat sex as currency. They do it because they know they are whoring themselves out when they do it, but they don't have enough self respect and independence to risk losing power it gives them over men. They are also often very stupid thinking they'll be very careful with whom they get fucked by and only have sex with Chad, and he will be eternally grateful for this precious and intimate "gift". Then after getting used over and over again they bitterly settle for a beta provider, reproduce, and stop. they often cheat to ensure the right genetic material and they can excuse it cause they hate their beta providers anyway for being the best they could get and still so shit, and for having that level male sexually degrade them (aka have sex with them). Betas are happy for a bit and then spend the rest of their lives between couple's therapy and porn at rare moments when they get some free time between providing and offspring. These women are spineless used goods who shouldn't get anything but ridicule.

The second group are women who genuinely love getting fucked, and to get there they fully embraced their masochism and decided to call it feminist and empowering, which is of course the complete opposite. Naturally, they need a Chad for it to really work because they need to feel completely dominated - whether it's by male body or his overall status, they always need to be the inferior ones - that way they are in touch with their true nature and they enjoy it. They let themselves have all kinds of shit done to their bodies and shoved in their holes,take videos and photos of it, allow other women to join in and get cucked, etc telling themselves they are being adventurous and progressive while men laugh and ask for more. They need a way to compensate for that or else they would suffer from some type of mental breakdown, so everyone who fucks them learned to act like they are the shit and keep their egos as high as possible when not fucking. This type be even more generous with their beta orbiters and normies will sometimes be fuck buddies between Chads, as it gives their egos more boost to additionally compensate the fact that they are everyone's cum box. They feel very superior to the first group of wannabe females cause they think they really are what men want, they aren't faking it. but then there is so many of them and after a polyamorous decade or so and getting the idea that they are actually just being used and ridiculed, the whole "I'm into it too" shit starts to slowly fade away. Then they wonder how they ended up in abusive relationships, or how they always get cheated on despite being so cool about it, once hotter younger models replace them for good. Now they are Chad's ex wife/gf, perhaps with kids and shittier body. Then it's the same beta provider route for them and "past is past". Those videos shouldn't make him insecure just because after 10 years she discovered she is no longer into anal and bisexuality.

Every woman who has sex knows she is degrading herself and allowing herself to be dominated. That is why the topic of sex and "objectification" is such a sensitive one. Look at a man sexually, it's a simple compliment, there's nothing to it let alone an ego offense. Women however always experience this mix of things ranging between ego trips to wondering if their whole essence is being mentally violated. Because they know that their role in the fantasy and actual act of sex is pretty embarrassing.

To be sexy, women act absolutely ridiculous. Wear shoes they can't walk in well, paint their whole faces, spend hours working on their hair, strike ridiculous unnatural poses for hot photos... a man who acts that way doesn't just look ridiculous because of social norms but because it is ridiculous and you see it in a context you didn't get fully immune to. From looking at women acting sexy to watching how women act while having sex, they just seem so affected and fake. Mo matter how much everyone tells them it really is so empowering, and no matter how many times they say to to themselves, on some level everyone knows this is the truth that can remain ignored as long as no one acknowledges it out loud.

That's why women put so much effort into attacking everyone and everything who doesn't sugarcoat their sexual reality, but don't have the spine to have personal dignity and not act like sluts since it could cost them some social attention. Rather than doing something different they focus on forcing people not to call it what it is.

Rad fems are right, they should never let anyone fuck them at all. I could even respect that. It's their only way out of being Chad's bitch, as that is the only thing sexually active women can strive for due to the nature of the act - it always makes them someone's bitch so everything below Chad just isn't going to feed their rationalizations long enough for them to keep on doing it before they start to get sick of it. For women, sex always has a price. Betas should know, most of their energy has to go into paying for it.

Only women who reject sex completely are truly dignified. Of course they get hated on as well, even here. But it's maybe the only chance they have in being people, one thing they always (rightfully) fear their sexuality is taking away from them. Except instead of addressing the cause they try to hide the effect.

emasculasian #racist sexstories608.tumblr.com

[Source NSFW. Also "vaginal suction" what the shit]

Biological reason why Asian women are exclusively mating with White men.

For centuries, East Asian cultures procreated with no emphasis on female sexual gratification. As a collective culture, assertiveness, individuality, and aggression are frowned upon. Testosterone levels are generally low among the males as a way to facilitate harmony and cooperation, and thus, their primary mating strategy revolved around avoiding mating competitions and mate-guarding.
As a result, the women were kept sexually repressed, powerless, and submissive through imposed social norms. Women had little rights and often went through their entire lives with only one sexual partner. Without the need to compete with other males, these men were able to reproduce with relatively tiny penises and testes compared to the men of other races. Sex generally lasted only a few minutes and rarely pleasurable for the women since only the male orgasm is required for conception. Men thus, worried little about their physical sex appeal and only focused on advancing their social standing and financial success to secure mates. Over time, their bodies and faces evolved to be bare and devoid of most of its masculinity.
This mating strategy that involved collective self-emasculation and suppressing female sexuality worked for a long period of time, up until the day Western men were introduced to their society. Forged in a culture that celebrates individuality and aggression, Caucasian men have retained most of their virile qualities while also advancing further as a civilization. While the Asian man was being taught to avoid confrontation at all costs, the Caucasian man had already been practicing the mating game with other sexually aggressive males since his early teens. Along with the privilege and status the comes with being White male, the White man already put the Asian man at a severe disadvantage. Not only is the East Asian woman already conditioned to seek after higher status males, the White man also has an assortment of mating tools in his arsenal that Asian men do not possess.

For generations, sexually repressed Asian women rarely got to experience sexual arousal or climax as it wasn’t required to procreate in an Asian society. To the Asian female, sex is just a chore and often a painful one due to there being no lubrication from her lack of arousal. Generations of feeling sexually apathetic towards her men leave her helpless in the face of unfamiliar erotic desire The White man’s high status already coincides with her social value of seeking after successful men, but it’s his testosterone filled physique and attitude that makes her forsake all social stigmas imposed by the feeble Asian male and mate with the White man.
For once, her genitals become supple and wet, ready for penetration. Her vagina, which has only ever accommodated small Asian members, is extremely tight and virginal to the foreign man. Though she experiences tremendous pain as her White lover enters her, his larger phallus is able to stretch her out and reach orifices Asian men typically can’t, stimulating an array of unexplored nerve endings. He, in turn, introduces a multitude of erotic sensations completely foreign to her, making her experience immense pleasure from sex for the very first time.
The White man’s more sexually experienced background empowers him to delay his climax. His muscular physique from maintaining his sex appeal enables him to continue thrusting vigorously without tire. As he is doing this, his cock is acting as a suction piston, emptying the contents her vagina of any previous insemination. The longer and more rapid he thrusts, the more her vagina is sucked clean. His larger cock also makes him more effective at removal, leaving not a spec of the Asian man’s sperm behind. Her sexual repression and inexperience leave her easily overwhelmed by all the erotic sensations his cock is giving her, and before long she will have already achieved orgasm; an experience the majority of East Asian men are unable to give her.

Since the experienced White man is only competing with sexually incompetent men, it was incredibly easy for the White man to bring his sexually repressed Asian partner to climax. He, in turn, still has a lot of endurance leftover. While she has already reached her sexual peak, he still isn’t done relentlessly thrusting his cock inside her, pushing her to a brink of continuous, multiple orgasms. Liquid starts gushing out of her, something she did not know is possible. Her body begins to convulse uncontrollably, her already tight snatch spasms on his cock, finally making the White stallion ejaculate. His large cock is then able to ejaculate his semen directly to the top of her vagina, making them first in line to enter the cervix. His large gonads allow him to generate and deploy a large enough load to both impregnate her and still leave a large sum behind to block rivaling sperm from entering. His ability to make his partner climax also means her cervix will dip uncontrollably into his seminal pool, proactively drawing his sperm inside her.
Once she has mated with the White man, she will no longer desire to mate with an Asian male. This is unfortunately due to the fact that there is no biological purpose for her to do so. The Asian man’s mating strategy has been rendered obsolete in the face of foreign competition; his genitals simply aren’t equipped for competing with other men, much less foreign men. His tiny phallus won’t be able to reach deep enough to scoop out the White man’s deeply-planted sperms. His sexual inexperience prohibits him from thrusting for very long before ejaculating, making him unable to generate enough suction to displace the White man’s seminal pool. His gonads, which is two-fold smaller, only produces half the number of spermatozoa as White men. His small penis won’t be able to deploy his sperm directly to the top of her vagina either, leaving his small army of swimmers to be blocked from entering the cervix by the large remnants of the Caucasian man’s load that he was unable to displace. Due to the absence of his partner’s orgasm, her cervix won’t dip into his seminal pool. Instead, her lack of arousal makes her vagina dry and inhospitable, giving his already smaller army of sperms even less of a chance to fight through to the cervix. This essentially renders the whole act of mating with the Asian male pointless. Even in the event where the Asian male mated first, her sexual frustration from his inadequate performance will lead her to seek out a Caucasian male, who will in turn empty the contents of her vagina of his inferior sperm.
Though procreation isn’t on the mind of any of these individuals, the White man’s superior mating abilities are what causes the Asian woman to start longing for sexually competent males. He, in turn, compromises the East Asian male’s primary mating strategy, which involves collectively emasculating themselves and keeping their women sexually repressed to avoid sexual competition with one another. This essentially completely backfires, handicapping themselves against the sexually competent White men who also tower over them in social standing. Even if they wanted to change, their bodies and faces have already evolved to be devoid of most of its masculinity, making them the least sexually desirable among women of all races including their own. Unable to escape their genetics, they will forever be resigned to the fate of watching over half of their women mate exclusively with White men.

randman78 #sexist reddit.com

Porn aimed for women is definitive proof they're more shallow than men

Ever notice how porn for heterosexual women features men who all look the same, white, over six feet or more in height, chiseled jawline, six-pack abs, full head of thick hair, and in the age range between 20-40. The Chad of all Chad's is what they are.

Yet porn for men, there are fat women, skinny women, athletic body types, big boobs, little boobs, no boobs, white women, black women, asian women, brown women, old women, young women, midgets, amazonian women, everything and anything you could possibly want in porn aimed for heterosexual men; women of all shapes and sizes, the possibilities are endless. Yet for some reason, women act as if they're the more noble creatures, and men are the shallow pigs.

Next time some foid tells you that men are shallow and superficial, just lay this fact on them. Men are the ones with the diversity, and are attracted to all kinds of women. Women all want the exact same boring look in a man. Porn is definitive proof of this.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[When you actually agree with the feminist argument that domestic violence is political and about control]

A pernicious point of difference amongst men concerned with men’s issues is the debate over violence, and how to approach it. There are those who point out that women are as violent as men in interpersonal relationships, those who scoff at this idea, and even some who condone some degree of violence within relationships (these sorts exist on both sides, of course).

The problem with the violence debate is that the issue of violence has been so thoroughly politicized that we have lost sight of what the argument is really about. Violence is force. Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. It pervades our society, and is how we – Americans in particular – keep people in line. The obsession with violence against women – a considerably smaller problem than violence against men – on the part of feminists is all about “who? whom?” (kto? kogo?).

We can’t honestly discuss violence without acknowledging that violence is a reality that overshadows our lives. Every time we see a cop with a gun, a patrol car, a prison and even a courthouse we are reminded that we are subject to the state’s violence if we incur its wrath.

Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law, which is why one of the founding principles of the American republic was that the use of force against the state is justified when it sets itself above the law and in opposition to The People.

If we are to follow the logic of the law, therefore, we must accept that we are all subject to violence if we behave in certain ways. Those who don’t accept this are by definition lawless. For example, if I were to steal from my neighbor, I would expect to be arrested and jailed if caught. To assume otherwise would be a sort of civic hubris.

However, there are certain classes of people for whom different rules exist. Children, for example, are subject to a different standard where force is concerned. To be sure, they are not immune to it, but in general violence against children is of a far milder variety, and usually involves little more than being shut in a room for a spell or dragged into the principal’s office. Even when the state deals with children different rules apply. A child who kills, for example, will generally not face the same sentence as an adult. Furthermore, the state delegates a certain amount of force to adults in the child’s life. Rather than have the police deal with every infraction, parents and other adult authorities are expected to use force as they deem appropriate.

The logic behind this is that children are not “equal” to adults. They have neither the faculties, judgment nor physical capability. They are therefore not deemed to be fully participating citizens, but rather “in custody,” which means that they are under the authority of adults.

Likewise, women are formally held to a different legal standard. In times past, they were legally in the custody of one man or another, and under his authority. Although emancipated women have always existed, they were rare, and I would argue that they still are, because the only serious attempt to make women equal citizens under the law failed spectacularly within a span of only about a decade (1970s).

In the old days, when women were considered to be wards of men, society expected men’s superior force to keep those in their family in line in much the same manner that the law uses superior force to keep men in line. This isn’t to say that force was always applied, but rather that it existed and could be applied, just as a bailiff exists in every courtroom. There was a chain of command that went like this:

Men are subject to the law

Women to men

Children to women

Each relationship was backed by some degree of force. As one goes down the scale, the amount of force deemed appropriate was less severe, but probably more frequent. For example, an arrest and a stint in prison is quite rare, affecting only a small fraction of the male population, but it is a severe punishment. A domestic squabble involving some use of force was also rare, probably affecting a minority of couples, but more common than incarceration (and still is if DV stats are to be believed) and inconsequential compared to prison time. Finally, children were punished relatively frequently, but mildly.

The old system was simple, but effective. It lasted up to about the 1970s, when domestic violence became politicized. We could point directly to feminism as the cause of the old system’s breakdown, but feminism was actually more of a symptom of other changes than the cause. Men’s authority in the home had been breaking down for over a century as urbanization and industrialization proliferated throughout the West. Women found themselves alone as the sole authority of the family when their husbands went to work at the factory or office. Many women also worked under an authority other than their husband or father. It no longer made sense to delegate authority over women only to one man in their lives. The private and public sector found themselves managing women as well as men, and as their authority over them increased, that of their husbands declined.

There was a reversal of this in the idealized 1950s, when a deep social conservatism, partly a result of the return of millions of citizen soldiers who were empowered by their victory, characterized society, but the relentless growth of capitalism guaranteed that this couldn’t last. The economy was growing, and more workers were needed. Women gradually returned to the workforce starting in the 1960s, and the process started again where it had left off.

Since then, husbands (and fathers) have lost essentially all of their old authority over women. However, this is not to say that nobody has any authority over them, but rather that it has passed into other hands. Today, there is still a struggle over who has claim to the women of our society, but it is between the private and public sector. Both presidential candidates understand this quite well, which is why, in pandering to women, one of them is promising state support and the other good jobs. It is almost amusing to see the public and private sector wooing America’s women like a couple of suitors singing to an undecided girl.

Both the public and private sector exert most control over women through economic incentives and punishments rather than physical force. A company keeps its females in line by threatening them with loss of income if they misbehave, which is called abuse or “contempt of court” when husbands do it. The public sector retains the option of using physical force against women – again, called abuse when husbands do it – and also provides (or withdraws) various goodies through bureaucracies.

The public and private sector have come to wield far more authority over women than the men in their lives. Men are ordered to provide for women in their lives no matter what, and never to use physical force on them, but the state follows neither mandate, and the private sector only the latter (which could be a powerful selling point for the Republicans). Given that very few single women make a living from their own businesses, most being dependent on the state or a job in the private sector, the proportion of women who could be said to be truly emancipated remains as low as ever.

However, despite the state and private sector’s current authority over women, a different standard is still applied. Not only a different standard as far as the use of force, but in terms of provision as well. Equality of men and women is widely assumed to be enshrined in law, but this is not the case. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass back in the 1970s, largely because women didn’t want it in its unadulterated form, and considering the Hayden rider there was nothing equal about it. For some interesting background on the fight to pass the ERA, see how, according to suffragette Alice Paul, NOW (the National Organization of Women) essentially killed it by supporting the Hayden rider.

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, originally written by Alice Paul, is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

However, the Hayden rider was added in the 1950s:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

This rendered it self-contradictory and not at all different from the status quo, yet it is the version supported by feminist groups, and that is why the amendment never passed. It was too much of a sham to make it through the full process of ratification.

So, according to US law women are still a special class of citizens, like children, who are afforded protections and benefits not extended to men. They are exempt from the draft, they are given special accommodation at work and school, their activities are subsidized at men’s expense (e.g. Title IX), and far more social welfare is directed their way.

Although the myth of women’s self-sufficiency and independence is widely repeated, it is ignored in practice, and contradicted by law.

Because women are acknowledged both by the law and custom to be a special class, and not fully equal citizens, it follows that others are responsible for ensuring that they are taken care of and kept in line. Because the state has arrogated the responsibility of managing women to itself and taken family choices entirely out of the hands of fathers and husbands, male citizens’ responsibilities toward women’s provision and care should likewise be removed.

If we are to remove individual male authority over the women in his life and replace it with collective authority over women, then we should remove individual male responsibility and replace it with collective responsibility over women, and be quite honest about it.

The same would apply to children, of course. Would it be just for the state to remove a child and terminate parental custody and then present a bill for doing so? [Actually, because the overwhelming majority of CPS removals are from single mothers, the child will frequently be placed with a foster family without any input from the father, and then he will be forced to pay child support directly to the state.]

One could view abolishing male authority over women as a liberating trend, because collectively managing females would spread the burden over a greater number of taxpayers, including women themselves, freeing men from so much individual responsibility. And rather than having to control women ourselves, we could allow the police and private business to handle them. The problem with this is that the state is running into problems with expense, and the private sector is starting to face the same issues itself. Because women are a special, legally-protected class with more needs and associated expenses, we simply cannot treat them as men. This is why Barack Obama and a number of other leftist politicians desperately want to collectivize birth control: because single mothers and their needs have grown into such an enormous drain on treasuries.

And here is where the issue of force and violence is bound to come up again. So far, the state has managed to use force mainly against fathers in a bid to maintain the politically convenient facade of female equality while balancing the budget. But it has reached the point of diminishing return. The cash cow that was middle-class American men is starting to dry up for a number of reasons. Young men are marrying at much lower rates, they make less relative to their parents, and a greater proportion of them is now working class or underclass than was the case a generation ago. The marriage issue is important because public expenses for single mothers are considerably higher than for those who live with a man. Even onerous child support guidelines don’t come close to making up the difference, and at this point increasing child support collection will simply start to eat away at tax revenue.

So, eventually the state will have to begin to turn the screws on women, and when the state sees people as a “problem” the treatment they get tends to be very unpleasant. People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them. Even married women who didn’t control their fertility were subjected to these measures. Women who had more than one child lost state support, and were forced into deep poverty, the likes of which most American women cannot comprehend. If that isn’t violence against women, what is?

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong. Leftist American professors in China studies openly endorse China’s birth control measures. The honest ones will tell you that they’d support doing the same here.

I doubt we’ll need to take as drastic steps as China in the foreseeable future, but changes will be made. Control over reproduction – the feminist holy grail – may be handed over to the state in our lifetime and taken away from certain classes of women (e.g. those on welfare). We could see women being forced to take birth control, and punished when they fail to do so. Women who defy the state on these matters will be dealt with forcefully — just like men. Women could well be coerced into being economically productive, as fathers are today. Single mothers who refuse to work could face some punishment, and as men’s wages decline even farther relative to women’s, married women will likely no longer have the choice to stay home and care for their children themselves. Furthermore, because men no longer have authority over their wives, they have none over their children, either. Ultimately, the state will have the final word on children, and tough luck if mothers disagree.

The Violence Against Women dialog was born out of a desire for throwing off the authority of husbands, but it doesn’t seem the feminists considered that women would only end up with another master. And this time it is a master that sees them as only one of millions — a mere number in a database. Also, a much stronger master that will not tolerate any deviation, and will apply force impersonally without any sentimental considerations.

“Violence” against women will therefore never cease, but only be applied by a different force. In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free. They imagined they would achieve a sort of blissful anarchy, like all utopian fantasies, and answer to none but themselves. However, they eventually find that the office manager, the case-worker, the policeman and the magistrate are less forgiving and caring than the typical husband, and far less concerned about protecting them.

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be needier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight. To be dependent is to be under another’s control, and to be under control is to be subject to some degree of force. Practically speaking, the party responsible for the subject is the one who should have legitimate authority.

The way we need to frame the debate concerning violence against women is in recognizing that the argument is centered entirely on who has authority and the right to wield it — not on the naturally repellent idea of a man brutally assaulting a woman. If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. I’m not sure that will ever be feasible, but eventually we will have to make a choice along those lines.

SchrodingersDick #sexist incels.co

The collapse of civilization is happening in your lifetime. Feminism caused it. There is no coming back from this. Long post.

Expanded upon another post of mine in another thread.. been meaning to post this for you all. I kinda suck at writing so it might be all over the place. There’s a TL;DR down below but I put a lot of effort into this so I’d appreciate if you took the time to read.

For the cucktears lurkers, before you shit on this, Take a step back and look at the world in the context of just another sexually dimorphic mammal species to understand the following.

Civilization is inherently a patriarchy. They are the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. In order for a civlization to exist, female sexual nature (hypergamous genetics-based mate selection) must be kept in check, for men to be treated equally and fairly, to allow for all members to have hope that if they contribute, they can be rewarded with guanrateed breeding right over a female of their choosing. In this sense, it is necessary for the success of a civilization that women be sexually oppressed.. this developed world is a man’s thing and will only ever cater to men. It is our creation for the benefit of all, but mostly genetically subpar, men. It’s all built at the expense of women’s vaginas. Any society in which women have free mate selection can not function. In tribal times, there was 1 sexually successful man for every 17 sexually successful women.. assuming a 100% female sexual success rate, that leaves 94% of men sexless. This is important. If it weren’t for this fact, we wouldn’t have a problem and this site wouldn’t exist. We need to replace genetic currency with something else in order to appease all men and make it possible for everyone to contribute and build something great.. Money was invented. Money must represent survival in order to be worth anything. It must replace the baseline definition of survival meaning a big strong male able to kill other males in a fight. Well we have a police force for that now so no need to worry. But most importantly, it must be able to be used as leverage to purchase pussy under the guise of survival. That’s the only way to keep the male population happy. Without it, women have to reason to mate with subpar men.. This system is inherently oppressive to women. Unfortunately for them, this system favors survival over reproductive success. Everyone survives and procreates but at the expense of females carrying and birthing inferior DNA. Survival is not enough for them. The idea of 1:1 male to female mate pairings guarantees that all the females not paired with a high SMV male with be with a low SMV male and produce genetically poor kids (which is why they are repulsed by low SMV men, which is why rape only exists with low SMV men, but you knew this already, no need to expand), something that disgusts them on a primitive level. It’s a system they need to get rid of.. hence the sexual liberation, fighting for rights, fighting for a right to work, etc. no matter how hard men try to keep a society strong and prosperous, women will actively try and tear it all down.

This snowball formed when women were given rights.. it started a snowball effect. Now there are several things that compounded with each other make for a nightmare scenario for the world.

1: women in the work place. Women earn their own money now. A Man’s resources cannot be used as leverage to purchase reproductive rights with a female. Thus his contributions to the tribe are meaningless as his reward holds no value.

2: genetic misrepresentation and contraception. Estrogen frauding Makeup, plastic surgeries, gym to build a high estrogen ass.. all these things are being used to falsely elevate women’s sexual dimorphism, perceived serum estrogen concentration, age, fertility, etc. notice how every foid does makeup the same way. Thin narrow nose bridge, shadows under the zygos to show zygo projection, rounded chin makeup, eyeliner to fraud thick eyelashes (health indicator).. women are walking around looking like top tier specimens the likes of which would make your caveman ancestors balls explode. Tbh they should bow down to partiarchy that they’re able to walk around like this alone and not immediately be gangraped when they step out of the house looking like they sweat pure estrogen and fertility. And lastly contraception.. things like birth control, condoms and abortion make casual sex and being a whore consequence-free. It’s the reason the cock carousel exists.

3: easy access to a global sexual market. The tribe is no longer a handful of guys and girls with the top guy doing all the fucking. Smartphones, Tinder, Instagram, cars, planes, buses, etc all help make the sexual marketplace a global thing.. in essence it’s an 8 billion member tribe, with easy access to all types of chad dick. Far more competition among males and a far lower sexual success rate among the male population.

4: destruction of religion. Religion isn’t really a thing anymore. It was once a powerful tool to convince women that 1:1 mate pairings are what’s to be expected, no sex before marriage, shit like that (had other reasons too. Keeps men’s testosterone at bay, thou shall not kill, steal, etc. keeps things civil) .. They had a reason to abide and ignore their primal instincts. It did a pretty good job.. now that’s gone, and there’s virtually no way of enforcing monogamy and chastity. Which funny enough, is also the only prerequisite for a woman to get married.. just be a virgin. They can’t even manage that yet a bunch of captain save a hoes are quick to wife em up, and these hoes will wear white on their wedding day symbolizing their purity.. jfl

Compound these 4 new phenomenon together, and you can quickly see that the sexual market is fucked, and a society with a SMP like this cannot sustain itself.. This is a world that belongs to women now. This world automatically excludes all men unfit for reproduction. In this case, it’s likely over 99% of men. What will these men do once they realize money doesn’t buy pussy? Once they realize that if there’s truly no hope for them, they can rely on government assistance, or work a menial bottom tier job just to make enough to survive. If these men even have the drive to go to work, they will have no drive to innovate, get promotions, invent something, become millionaires, etc. you’ll have a lot of complacent men with no motivation to contribute anything. Best hope automation can replace the entire workforce, and if not, then you got a work force made up of 99% women and just lmao if you think that’s gonna take us anywhere. Women have no incentive to make money other than to rid men of their only leverage and open up their prospective mating options. Same deal with them.. they’ll just aim to make the minimum amount to survive and genefraud enough to land 6’4” chad.

This results is a catalysmic shift of the world as we know it.. there will be a total collapse once the number of men who drop out of society reaches critical mass. But until then, you will see a shitload of people dependent on government assistance, the rich being taxed out the ass, who now have even less incentive to keep perusing high paying careers, more people coping with drugs/alcohol, a spike in suicides and mass shootings, high SMV men forming harems, etc.. basically 2018 x10.

For this to happen, It’s not even necessary for the masses to swallow the blackpill.. it’s only necessary for them to realize money doesn’t mean anything anymore. That’s all it takes. Put simply, one’s contributions to society are no longer worth the effort. It’s basically slave labor at that point.

So there you have it. All the causes are there and cannot be reversed.. things have already been set in motion. just wait till the effects of them become painfully obvious. This cannot be fixed since nobody is gonna accept that women’s vaginas are the reason for this. Maybe next time around men don’t fuck up and start the civilization off strong with commoditized pussy. This will all go down in documented history so a mistake like this likely won’t repeat itself. That’s the good news.

This should be lifefuel for you all. You are witnessing the collapse of the most successful civilization on earth in YOUR lifetime. Pretty cool. So ditch your ER plans, untie your ropes, and Sit back and watch the world burn.

TL;DR; a couple rights here and there and a few apps destroyed the world. Patriarchy, religion, and commoditization and sexual oppression of women are paramount to the existence and survival of any civilization. We lack all 4. It’s over. Bunker up and stockpile food and ammo. We’re going back to the jungle.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.

...

Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.

Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.

These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.

...

To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.

I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on an tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high status men, no matter the consequence.

The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.

...

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirely of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

...

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

Charles Sledge and Chateau Heartiste #sexist charlessledge.com

Some Of The Most Insightful Quotes From Chateau Heartiste

Chateau Heartiste is a blog ran by Roissy and is hands down the top game resource in the manosphere. If you want to understand the nature of woman and game, this is the site to go to. Chateau Heartiste and it’s main writer Roissy got their name from a book called The Story of O by Pauline Reage, granted that the best resource for understanding the nature of women took his name from this book I would recommend that you read it. I often reference Chateau Heartiste’s work in the Weekly Roundups as well as in the Quote of the Week section of the roundups. I figured instead of continually having Roissy’s articles as the quote of the week I’d include them here so we can have some other author’s words highlighted. With that being said there are some very illuminating words from Roissy that I would be remiss if I didn’t share with my readers. Below are some of the greatest quotes from the site and my own personal thoughts added in.

Below in the head line I will write what article it is from as well as link it. Under that I will include the part of the article that stood out to me in particular. Below that I will include my own commentary as well as anything I would like to add or disagree with about the quote. After reading this article I would encourage you to read the linked articles in full.

From “The Natural State of Women Is Submission”

“The proposition that women are natural submissives is not new to this blog. It is a core tenet underlying the truth of game. When I say that the natural state of woman is submission, I mean that woman is happiest when she is in a submissive role. Submitting to a worthy overlord. When she is forced to submit to an unworthy ruler — i.e., when her womb is exposed to the threat of beta sperm — or when she finds herself adrift in a sea of weak, apathetic, surrendered men, she is unhappiest, and will lash out furiously to reclaim her prerogative to save her submission for the deserving.”

Many males are confused when a woman balks at the idea of submitting to them. This often happens to wimpy males who then erroneously conclude that women want to be “strong and independent” or whatever the latest buzzword is when in fact she desperately wants to submit just not to a pussy. She wants to submit to a man or a Roissy said an overlord. Think about it like this say you were a soldier in an army and you had two choices between who could lead you into battle. The choices were Leonidas of Sparta of the 300 fame or Barack Obama. One a battled tested masculine warrior the other the definition of a beta male. Now just because you wouldn’t want Obama as your general does this mean you don’t want a general and wish to rush into battle without a leader? Of course not but the leader must be worthy of you. Women want a man they can respect and submit to, they hate boys that they must coddle and look down upon. Women crave submitting the only caveat is that it must be to a man, not a boy, a pussy, or a male but a man. If you don’t understand the difference between those listed do yourself a favor and get a copy of The Primer.

From “The Sexual Frame”

“This is how every man should approach his interactions with women he is turned on by — unapologetically, sensually, instinctually. Civilized norms should hold no sway over your untamed thoughts or the id that fuels them. They are yours to do with as you please and to set the tone of whatever follows. The advantage to having this carnal mindset at all times lies in the power it gives you to draw women into your reality. When a woman is into you she will sense your sexual energy and mirror it…Lead as a man in making no excuses for your libertine nature, and she will follow.”

Attraction, sex, and seduction are biological functions. Sure we have the trappings of civilization surrounding them but it has little overall effect in the outcome. Men are way to apologetic and women are disgusted by it. Look at it this way imagine women were able to change their physical looks moment to moment by the actions that they took. So if she was loud and argumentative her body would suddenly become fat and her hair short. However when she was sweet and submissive her hip to waist ratio would hit the golden ration and her skin brighten. Men have this power. Because their attractiveness to women is based on their actions not their looks. So when a man unapologetic follows his natural biological inclination and pursues a woman she is incredibly turned on by it likewise when a man makes apology for his natural biological inclination she dries up like the Sahara Desert. You can never be too bold or forward with women.

From “One Glaring Difference Between Alpha Males And Beta Males”

“Alpha males are DEMANDING of their women…Women WANT to work for a man’s interest. A man’s respect. A man’s LOVE. A man who challenges women is a man who is rewarded with women’s zeal to please. This is the nature of women…Beta males don’t like to demand anything of anyone, but especially not of women. Strangers, acquaintances, girlfriends, wives; none will ever experience the distinctly female pleasure of deferring and submitting to a man if that man is a fearful, non-confrontational beta male. And over time resentment and contempt will find a home in these women, and their sexual desire will find a home elsewhere.”

Like women are begging for you to pursue them and express your manly desires to them likewise women are begging for men to force them to meet their demands and standards. Women are living in a very unnatural time and are very frustrated because of it. Women need men and masculinity. They always have and they always will. Imagine if a society didn’t have water how weird and desperate the people would act, well Western societies war on masculinity have caused women to go crazy in want of it. Women may say they don’t want men or masculinity or whatever (then again women say anything and everything) but they respond to it like no other. You could go up to a person about to die of dehydration and they may have been brainwashed to say they don’t want water but nevertheless they want water more than anything else. Women are the same way in regards to men and masculinity. They want men who put them in their place and make demands of them. That is what they naturally respond to.

What I have highlighted here is just the beginning of great insights from Chateau Heartiste and I would encourage you to check out many of the old posts. There is a post on the Roosh V Forum titled “The Roissy Reader” that has a collection of Chateau Heartiste’s classic posts I would suggest you start there and work your way down. If you haven’t been exposed to this information yet prepared to have your mind opened and even if you have it always good to have a refresher of timeless truths.

If you have any questions you would like to see answered in a future post send them to me at charlessledge001 (at) gmail (dot) com. If you found value in this post then I would encourage you to share this site with someone who may need it as well as check out my books here. I appreciate it. You can follow me on Twitter here.

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

based_meme #sexist incels.co

RE: Feminist in letter exchange wiki with a guy admits the winner in the dating scene is Chad.

The dating market is highly competitive, hierarchical, and often cruel. This fact is uncomfortable for anyone who values egalitarianism, so a more appealing – albeit dishonest – option is to instead blame Incels for their plight by suggesting that their unpleasant personalities must be the problem. The truth is that sexual attractiveness is a profound form of inequality, affecting not only relationship prospects, but also e.g. income and popularity.

[...]

So here’s the deal for a ‘Stacy’ in the modern dating economy, or indeed for a ‘Becky’ (a woman of average looks). She’s bombarded with male sexual attention, offline and online, most of which she doesn’t welcome, and some of which she feels harassed or frightened by. The ‘Chads’ she dates may be reluctant to commit to her exclusively, since there’s no longer social pressure on them to do so, meaning that she may end up as part of an informal harem, having plenty of sex, but without the kind of monogamous commitment that most women say they want. In our porn-saturated culture, the sexual script prioritises male pleasure over female, meaning that most women don’t orgasm during hook ups, and commonly experience unwanted acts of aggression like spitting and choking. Then there’s always the risk that she might go home with a man who turns out to be really dangerous. Of course there is a certain thrill in feeling attractive, which provides some compensation, but it’s time-limited; after a certain age, a woman can no longer rely on her looks as a source of self-esteem.

All of which is to say that ‘Stacys’/‘Beckys’ and Incels are all losers in the modern dating economy, and that as far as I can tell there is really only one group of winners: ‘Chads’. Which is why, although I don’t think we should ‘re-impose moth-eaten and oppressive sexual mores on women’ [note from me: she refers to enforced monogamy], I also see our current sexual mores as harmful to women, just in a different way.

Following a link on an article @FrailPaleStaleMale shared, I came across this, which happens to be written by a feminist (Louise Perry). What are your thoughts about this, supreme gentlemen?

Interesting.

Though I value a feminist's opinion on male problems, especially sexual inequality, about as much I value a wet fart, it's a peculiar thing to see that the degree to which the mental gymnastics can be performed is severely restricted in the undeniable face of the black pill.

She still found a way, however, to do some mental gymnastics. She had to lump in the stacies and beckies as losers in the sexual market along with us, only because chad doesn't commit, thanks to the abundance mentality that they've been conditioned to by women's very own choices.

When you act like a disposable slut for chad you're going to get treated like a disposable slut by chad. Amazing, isn't it? Who would have thought?

Women play a game where they come out losing and then have the stone-faced audacity to say they are just like the losers who were never given the opportunity to play the game at all.

Nuke this gay earth.

Lori Day #fundie feministcurrent.com

There are not enough baby elephant videos in the world to soothe and distract me from all of the pain and suffering I see daily in the news. At the moment, I am obsessed with the Zika virus, which has just been declared a global emergency by the World Health Organization. As more and more babies are born with microcephaly, male politicians in Latin American countries are requesting that women not get pregnant for the next two years, while simultaneously denying them access to contraception and abortion.

I’m sure that men will wait patiently until 2018 to have sex with their wives and girlfriends, and I’m equally certain the extraordinary number of rapists in those regions will stop raping women during the same time period. But in case the menfolk don’t cooperate, there are always coat hangers, and women’s lives will be at risk along with the risks that the virus poses to their children. Men, however, don’t seem to have much skin in the game (even though they are refereeing it along with the mosquitos.)

And I notice this is a recurring theme. Too many men coasting ahead of their own wake.

Often men do suffer along with women, though. For example, men breathe the same poisoned air and drink the same polluted water women do. They die in wars alongside raped and murdered female civilians. They are among the poor and the homeless. American men perpetrate — but are also killed by — gun violence. When the human race begins to go extinct due to climate change, men will not yet have left the planet… I think. But here’s the thing: Men are experiencing karma. Women, on the other hand, are experiencing toxic masculinity — something that has been actively destroying the world since our first human ancestors, standing upon two legs, started walking around Africa three million years ago. If only “Lucy” were available for comment. I think of her as Patient Zero.

Here’s a list of various domestic and international male-made problems, in no particular order:

Climate change

Domestic violence

War

Rape

Sex trafficking

Wealth gap

Pay gap

Air and water pollution

Gun violence

Under-education of girls

Degrading porn

Religious oppression of women

Overpopulation

Deforestation

Poaching

Slavery

Gender discrimination

Poverty

Hunger

Extinction of species

Terrorism

Torture

Sexual harassment

FGM

Political corruption

Homelessness

Restricted reproductive rights

Exploitation of fossil fuels

Strip mining

Clubbing of baby seals

I’m sorry I didn’t have time to add many things to the list. Feel free to add more in the comments.

What can be done? Well, I’ve decided the Earth needs a Mandemic. The human herd must be culled, and it’s time for buck season.

I know what you’re thinking… Cool! How could this work?

I happened to be watching an episode of Star Trek: Voyager last night when the idea came to me. There could be a virus that causes gene mutations in men that rewrites their DNA. Then, when men have sex with women, they are drained of their DNA, “where it is then implanted into females, causing the death of the males. As a result, new males are constantly created and harvested” by women, as suits their needs. You should have seen the desiccated corpses on the Taresian planet!

But perhaps this is too harsh implausible. It is science fiction, after all.

Look, I’m not an infectious disease specialist. I’m not exactly sure how this could work. I just know that there are 200 million missing females in the world because of patriarchy, so Mother Nature needs to put her finger on the scales, and if She would kindly oblige, just push down a little extra hard.

“But I love men.”

Ok. You probably do love men. Most women have some men in their lives that they dearly love. There are tons of wonderful men! So sure, it will be sad and tragic when the Mandemic rages with the fire of a thousand suns and randomly selects enough male victims to disrupt the current power structure around the world. This will be necessary to create an opening for women to become equal — maybe even dominant.

But isn’t our only hope the removal of excessive male humans from the continents? If women don’t take the reins of this doomed planet and get cracking on resolving those few items listed above, we don’t stand a chance.

albouski #sexist returnofkings.com

Last year, I decided to stay over at an old friend’s apartment, who had been my roommate back in college. A couple of weeks of residing there, every time I moved in and out of his room, my old buddy would be watching anime on his laptop. His door had a poster of his favorite anime, ‘Sword Art Online’.

He wasn’t an otaku or a dumb weeb, rather to simply put it, it was his pass time or a hobby, to relax from the stress that men face in the modern day world. I remember watching anime as a kid, and I admit, I enjoyed it…

But not anymore.

When he watched anime, he stared at the screen with fascination, as if he was a scientist waiting for the rocket to land on the moon. I was curious, so I asked him to recommend me some anime that he enjoyed. This is where I realized the ugly, misandric nature of anime that teens are exposed to.

The first anime I chose from the list, was about a teenage girl named Misaki, who joined an all boys school which recently opened to girls. She works as a maid to support her family as her father had abandoned them.

...

The “Does Not Like Men” Female Protagonist

Misaki never trusts her male counterparts, and beats them up if they tried something she didn’t approve of. The whole show is centered on how girls can be better than boys, where she terrorizes men, and how these men are portrayed as nothing but pervs, violent, thirsty mindless jerks.

Usui, the male character, after being yelled at for no reason, is strangely drawn to her, and so are the other boys of the school. This hyper misandric woman deemed ‘attractive’ in the eyes of both anime characters and the male fans. This show is targeted towards girls who call it “one of the most romantic anime”.

I was extremely disgusted and had to quit watching within 10 episodes. I couldn’t have a place in my mind to understand how men watch shows like this and enjoy it.

...

This is a common formula used by anime and manga creators to depict a strong independent woman who doesn’t need a man. Female superiority is rising within anime, and young may become some of those ‘nice guys’ who get used by women.

The common genre for anime girls called “tsundere“, which refers to a stubborn woman who is abusive to the man she likes, is very popular, shows like Sword Art Online, Bleach, Toradora, DBZ, etc. I could name a hundred more, but that would mean I would include almost every anime. And not just any people are influenced, but the most desperate men across the world. Men who have never had any luck with women are always attempting to fulfill a woman’s most dangerous desires just to keep her.

These shows are not only designed to destroy the male image and present it as inferior, but also to ruin their self confidence as human beings for being male. In dozens of anime, males are portrayed as either weak, or stupid, similar to how Daddy pig in the cartoon Peppa Pig is simply made to be laughed at, or how the main male cast of the Simpsons slowly degraded into ambition-less couch potatoes and the women becoming political figures.

...

Go-Girl-ism And Male Bashing

If you grew up watching TV in the 1990s, there is no way you escaped seeing at least a few episodes of Sailor Moon. It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality. The series also makes a point of commenting on how the less traditionally feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.

...

The “girl power” concept is counter productive, but unfortunately it’s an inescapable void of entertainment, Charlies Angles, Steven Universe (where the male character is a boy who learns from women), Taylor Swift videos, etc. Australia’s national women’s soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEENS boys’ side, we know that story.

I decided to look up on the internet for further research. Apparently many men have the same opinion. As I’ve read on an MGTOW (anti-feminist, red pill) site:

" “…my friend’s been watching this anime called great teacher onizuka and it makes me fucking cringe. The women in that anime do terrible things to the main character. for instance, there’s a girl who lures him into a laundry mat promising sexual favors, but instead, she takes off her clothes, takes his shirt, puts in on, tears it up a bit, and makes him wear all these kinky things only to scream and call for the police claiming sexual assault. The teacher eventually just acts like it wasn’t a big deal. Also, there’s an episode where a female student of his runs into a building she knows is going to be bombed because she wanted to save a fucking piano.

“…today i witnessed something really disgusting in that anime. The students are on a field trip to a tropical island and one of the boys is kidnapped by three other female students. He’s a small, submissive type so he doesn’t fight back. They tie him up and blind fold him before leading him deep into the jungle. Basically, the leader of the three females wanted to leave him there to die because she hated how much of a loser/crybaby he is. She expressed disdain for how he just listened to whatever people told him to do (sounds familiar). Eventually, the girls realize they’re lost and start blaming the boy for everything. They tell him to man up and get them out of the situation and when he starts to take authority by telling them to remain calm… “"

...

Male disposability in anime was the right word I was looking for. Naruto has plenty of scenes where he is beaten up by women. Not to forget, where I thought Gintama would be free of male bashing, where Shimura Tae, a smiley woman constantly beats up a ‘hairy’ man – simply for asking her out.

Is this supposed to be comedy?

There’s plenty of hentai anime, like Girls Bravo for example, a blue haired boy who is mocked for being short by his female school mates, he is bullied to the point where he’s even ‘allergic’ to women. (Imagine an anime where a girl was treated like trash because she was fat). In one scene of the first episode, the boy accident walks into the bathroom where his female neighbour was taking a shower. She screams and throws a tantrum, she brutally beats him up, where his nose begins to bleed, until he falls into a tub, where he is eventually woken up in a planet where there are only women, however, since he was the only male on the planet, he is sexually harassed constantly through out the episodes and women molest him.

Being an Hentai (porn/pervert/sexual) anime, aimed for men, abusing boys seems to be normalized. In most households of Japan, women control all the finances. I wonder if Japanese men get domestically violated by women the same way as in anime.

Low Birth Rates In Japan

...

Feminization of men is also an issue, perhaps the decline in population is simply because of this hidden feminism in Japan. In Btoom!, a hunger games styled anime, Himiko always carries a stun gun whenever she goes because she is afraid of being touched by men. Her fear of men stems her past experiences with men who attempted to rape her. Her trauma is so severe that she announces to Ryota that every man on the island is her enemy. On two separate occasions when she is about to lose to a man, who is usually attempting to sexually assault her, she was willing to kill herself along with the enemy using a bomb. Almost every man in the anime attempts to assault her. The male protagonist of the story is a ‘wussy’ who simply allows her to treat him with distaste (yet another stereotypical main male character in anime).

While I was on my final anime, which I watched for research, Mirai Nikki, the female character Yuno will resort to cruel and usually violent methods, most of the time coming out of nowhere, that generally end in bloody deaths of anyone who tries to get in the path of the boy she likes, even if they are his close relatives, effectively making her a “Yandere“. The young girl seems to be having the “othello syndrome”, a type of delusional jealousy, marked by suspecting a faithful partner of infidelity, with accompanying jealousy, attempts at monitoring and control, and even violence. Many men often suffer when their wives who are extremely jealous, where as this “yandere” genre is particular that of a girl who stalks her lover, keeps him away from everyone he loves simply because she wants him as her property.

...

I also stumbled upon an incomplete game, about a playable Yandere girl, which had many references to Mirai Nikki, on starting the game I had a picture on what it was about. Your character is simply an emotionless teenage girl who harbors feelings for a guy who doesn’t even know she exists. Your mission is to stalk him, and try to eliminate “rivals”, so that she has him for herself. By eliminate meaning, to kill. The game would even include your crush’s sister, who has a chance of being a rival. (Think of a scenario where a boy would be stalking a girl, taking her belongings, sniffing or licking them to gain arousal, where he tries to keep her friends away from her, there would be a different response)

In the basement of the game, one would come across tape recording, when played, it reveals that your character’s mother (I assume) murdered everyone close to her crush, and tied him down onto a chair, forcing him to give in to her requests.

...

Recently, I was informed that the developing team had added a tsundere character and a pedophile teacher into the game, who would seduce him perhaps, I don’t feel the need to talk anymore about it.

A pedophilic female teacher who preys on a teenage boy’s sexuality. There’s plenty of harem (a anime with one guy and many female characters) where he is eventually mistreated by his female counterparts. Even many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films are centered on young “strong empowered” girls. When asked about it, he said:

"“When we compare a man in action and a girl in action, I feel girls are more gallant. If a boy is walking with a long stride, I don’t think anything particular, but if a girl is walking gallantly, I feel ‘that’s cool’. Maybe that’s because I’m a man, and women may think it’s cool when they see a young man striding. At first, I thought ‘this is no longer the era of men‘.But after ten years, I grew tired of saying that. I just say ‘cause I like women’. They are more reality.”"

All these point out why there are sites entirely dedicated to feminism in anime.

Yesterday, I decided to get in touch with my friend, to ask him about his life and job. He’s a stereotypical “nice guy” who remains friend zoned. He lets women pinch his cheeks and push him, when he just laughs it off. If a woman does something unfair to him, he simply sweeps it under the rug.

“I’m not interested in dating currently” he said when I asked him if he had a girlfriend. Either anime had terrorized him to protecting his virginity, or he’s simply happy being treated like a loser in a tsundere anime by his female co-workers, just like the great teacher Onizuka.

Marc #fundie patheos.com

I’d first love to correct several blatant misreadings of Scripture, not for the sake of the Wannabe Gay Marriage Debate, but for the sake of Scripture, which deserves better.

1. “Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships.”

True. Nor did he utter a word about rape. Or genocide. Or running a crystal meth lab. Or suicide. Or pedophilia. To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.

2. “The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.”

Well, I guess we can just look at the New Testament for this one:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Now it’s true that Paul wasn’t speaking of the committed homosexual relationships we speak of today, primarily because the idea of a homosexual relationship would have made no sense to the Apostle. That a man is defined as a homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is a modern concept. For the Ancient World, homosexuality was an act performed, not a life lived, and certainly not the summative feature of your being. The idea of two men proclaiming “We are homosexuals, and we are in a committed relationship,” would have been utterly foreign to Paul.

Unfortunately, Paul’s claims cannot be dismissed on that basis, as the Apostle makes abundantly clear that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. Not homosexuality, but homosexual acts: “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

To explain what he’s talking about, we must understand his premise: Humans are meant to be happy. Good actions will ultimately make human beings happy, bad actions won’t. If an action is seen to be detrimental to the human person — that is, if it ultimately leads to unhappiness — then that action can be defined as contrary to our nature, and thus sinful.

This is what Paul refers to when he speaks of an act being “unnatural.” He does not use the modern sense of the word, which seems to define the “natural” as “that which has been observed to take place in the Jungle.” He uses the word “natural” in the philosophical sense, that which is aligned with human nature — that which makes humans happy.

(And to be clear, this idea takes for granted that many of the acts we spend our lives pretending make us happy do not. We might say that binge eating makes us happy, but ultimately it won’t — it brings pleasure, but it is detrimental to the human person. A man who sleeps around and must satisfy his every urge might say that he is “happy” with his life, but in reality he has made his “happiness” dependent upon having his urges satisfied. He is not happy in and of himself. So to the claim that drugs make us happy. They do not. They bring us pleasure, and they make our happiness dependent on them — again, we are not happy in and of ourselves.)

So when Paul says that men and women committed “unnatural” homosexual acts and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” his claim is quite simple. The punishment for a wrong act is not God all up and smiting you from the sky. The punishment is naturally received within the human person. The homosexual act works against a human being’s natural end of happiness, and thus the human suffers for it. It’d be interesting to know if Paul was aware of what we are aware of today, that those performing homosexual acts are at greater risk for unhappiness, a risk that has not been directly associated with intolerance or hatred.

If what I say is true, that Paul is claiming that the homosexual act itself is contrary to the natural law, it does not seem reasonable claim to make, that he would have spoken differently were that act contained in a committed relationship.

But our graphic-maker covers his tracks on this one, by saying:

3. “Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man.”

I would simply note the difference in quality with which these different words of Paul were made. In the former, which we have just discussed, Paul appears to be pointing out an act that is inherently detrimental to the human person. This is not something subject to change-over-time or an evolution of understanding or modern reinterpretation. In the latter, the author is referencing two different passages. The first is from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

What Paul is saying is clear: Wives submit to your husbands, husbands offer up your life and die for your wives, as Christ did for the Church. I understand that this rings harsh and alien in the secular ear — that authority within a marriage is not a 50/50 split, but the meeting of two distinct, gender-specific, and equally difficult duties — but I cannot apologize for it, other than to say that the secular world is wrong about marriage.

As to women remaining silent:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

This passage is subject to change over time, as it is contained within Paul’s instruction on public worship which similarly — though not in substance — changed over time. This might be a problem to the Literalist Christian, but not to the Catholic, who with Pope Benedict can assert that the Paul’s passage must “be relativized.” Again, this is not the case with Paul’s assertion that homosexual acts are inherently detrimental to the human person.

4. “The Bible defines marriage as One Man Many Women, One Man Many Wives and Concubines, A Rapist and His Victim, and a Conquering Solider and a Female Prisoner of War.”

This is a prime example of the secular mind putting way more faith and trust in the Bible than the Christian is ever called to. The Bible is a library of history, storytelling, poetry, letters, and biographies: Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it — those which we are told are endorsed by God.

More importantly, we need to look at the context. The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New. From Matthew 19:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

Jesus says that it is for the very reason of maleness and femaleness that “the two will become one flesh.” He then says that the marriage rites established by Moses — which include divorce, polygamy, concubinage, etc. — were not condoned by God, but allowed for a time because of the hardness of their hearts, a time that Christ announces is over. Welcome to now. To ignore this and imply that because all sorts of immoral craziness happens in the Old Testament gay marriage should be considered a-ok, well, it’s a stretch.

Alright, those are the main ones. Now allow me to mention the real problem.

No one is claiming that because homosexuality is sinful, homosexual marriage shouldn’t exist. If marriage was an institution designated for the sinless there wouldn’t be marriages at all, for we have all sinned and fallen short. This graphic exemplifies a terrifying insistence within this “debate” — to argue on the most idiotic level possible. Ignoring the question of whether marriage is a definite Thing with a raison d’etre or a blank for us to fill, we waste our time with Scripture we don’t bother to understand, brushing the world and our intellects with varying shades of stupid.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Some time ago, I and a bunch of other reactionaries had a debate on whether women commonly fuck dogs.

I have no evidence that women of commonly fuck dogs, but I have lots of personal evidence that women very commonly do lots of horrifying stuff that many of my commenters find very hard to believe. These personal observations are perhaps statistically insignificant and may be from an unrepresentative sample of females, but is consistent with the rather small subset of women who watch porn, who generally watch disturbingly deviant stuff, while most males watch fairly vanilla stuff.

Most women read romance, rather than watch porn. Romance male leads are generally demon lovers, rather than the nice boy next door – one notable exception being when the female lead is sold, enslaved, kidnapped, abducted, or subject to an arranged marriage without her consent at a very young age by the otherwise nice boy next door. In the very common genre of supernatural romance, the male lead is often a literal demon. How is a real life male going to compete?

Male and female sexual impulses are the product of natural selection. In the ancestral environment there is biological and evolutionary conflict of interest between dads and daughters, in that daughters prefer cad type demon lovers, and dads prefer dad type sons in law. Daughter prefers the best sperm, but dad does not want to be stuck with support. Similarly a conflict between husbands and wives, in that wives prefer demon lovers, and husbands are seldom demon lovers – the best semen is unlikely to belong to the best protection and support.

For civilization to exist, fathers and husbands have to be able to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women.

For it to be politically possible for fathers and husbands to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women, we have to have it generally accepted that women are the dangerously lustful sex, whose dangerously powerful sexual impulses have to be overruled for their own good, for the good of their children, and the good of society – that women’s dangerously powerful lusts and self destructive lusts are the big problem that has to be solved, not immoral males.

Whether or not women commonly fuck dogs, for civilization to survive, men need to be inclined to suspect that they might. For civilization to survive, men need to control women’s sexual choices. For men to control women’s sexual choices, it needs to be politically incorrect to have excessive confidence in the purity and chastity of women. That women are dangerously and self destructively lustful needs to be taught by authority, presented in the media, and the sort of thing you need to believe if you want to get on with the important people you need to get on with if you hope to get ahead.

allecto #fundie users.livejournal.com

A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly
This is a really long rant about Joss Whedon's Firefly. Why? Because I'm angry and I think it is really important that feminists don't leave popular culture out of the equation. Especially considering that popular culture is increasingly being influenced by pornography.

***

I have become increasingly interested in examining Joss Whedon’s work from a feminist perspective since I had a conversation with another lesbian feminist sister at the International Feminist Summit about whether Joss was a feminist. I am really quite shocked by how readily Joss is accepted as a feminist, and that his works are widely considered to be feminist. I decided to start re-watching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and also to watch Firefly and the movie Serenity.

I have to say that now that I have subjected myself to the horror that is Firefly, I really am beyond worried about how much men hate us, given that this was written by a man who calls himself a feminist.

I find much of Joss Whedon’s work to be heavily influenced by pornography, and pornographic humour. While I would argue that there are some aspects of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer that are feminist and progressive, there is much that isn’t and I find it highly problematic that there are many very woman-hating messages contained within a show that purports itself as feminism. But Firefly takes misogyny to a new level of terrifying. I am really, really worried that women can call the man who made this show a feminist.

For myself, I’m not sure that I will recover from the shock of watching the malicious way in which Joss stripped his female characters of their integrity, the pleasure he seemed to take from showing potentially powerful women bashed, the way he gleefully demonized female power and selfhood and smashed women into little bits, male fists in women’s faces, male voices drowning out our words.

There is so much hatred towards women contained within the scripts and action of the series that I doubt very much that this post will even begin to cover it. I am going to try to focus on the episodes that were written by Joss Whedon but I will also refer to the series as a whole. As Joss Whedon was responsible for the concept development and was a producer, ultimately I hold him accountable for the depiction of women in the entire season. Only one episode was written by a woman. It was no better or worse in its depiction of women than the ones written by men.

The pilot episode, Serenity, was written and directed by Joss Whedon. The basic plot of the series is Malcolm Reynolds and his second in command Zoe, have made a new life for themselves after fighting a war against the Alliance, which they lost. They bought a Firefly, an old space ship, and Mal calls it Serenity, after the last battle they fought for the Independence. The pilot of the ship, Wash, is Zoe’s husband. Kaylee is the ship’s mechanic and Jayne, the final member of the crew, is the brainless brawn. This bunch of criminals go around stealing things and generally doing lots of violence.

They also take on board passengers. There is Inara, a Companion (Joss Whedon’s euphemism for women in prostitution). She rents one of the ship’s shuttles. Simon, a doctor and his sister River. And a Shepherd (which means preacher), a black male character.

The first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start.

The next scene is set in the present. Mal, Jayne, and Zoe are floating about in space. They come into some danger. Mal gets all panicky.

Zoe says, “This ship's been derelict for months. Why would they –”

Mal replies, (in Chinese) “Shut up.”

So in the very second scene of the very first episode, an episode written and directed by the great feminist Joss, a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders, even when they are dumb orders, for the rest of the series.

The next scene we meet Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic. <- Lookee, lookee, feminist empowerment. In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”

What the fuck is this feminist man trying to say about women here? A black woman calling a white man ‘sir’. A white male captain who abuses and silences his female crew, with no consequences. The women are HAPPY to be abused. They enjoy it. What does this say about women, Joss? What does this say about you? Do you tell your wife to shut up? Do you threaten to duct tape her mouth? Lock her in the bedroom? Is this funny to you, Joss? Because it sure as fuck ain’t funny to me.

Our first introduction to Inara the ‘Companion’, Joss Whedon’s euphemism for prostituted women, is when she is being raped/fucked/used by a prostitutor. I find it really interesting to read the scripted directions for this particular scene:

We are close on INARA's face. She is being made love to by an eager, inexperienced but quite pleasingly shaped young man. She is beneath him, drawing him to his climax with languorous intensity. His face buried in her neck.

He tightens, relaxes, becomes still. She runs her hand through is hair and he pulls from her neck, looks at her with sweaty insecurity. She smiles, a worldly, almost motherly sweetness in her expression. He rests his head on her breast, still breathing hard.

So, Joss Whedon refers to rapist/fuckers who buy women as sex, as ‘eager, inexperienced but pleasingly shaped’ who ‘make love’ to women in prostitution. Obviously, ‘love’ to men like Joss Whedon, requires female powerlessness, force and coercion. Women in prostitution enjoy the experience of being bought for sex. They feel ‘motherly’ towards the men who have just treated them as property and bought them as sex.

In Joss Whedon’s future world prostituted women are powerful and respectable. They go to an Academy, to train in the arts of being a ‘Companion’. They belong to a Guild which regulates prostitution, forces women to endure yearly health tests and comes up with rules to make prostitution sound empowering for women. For example, one Guild rule is that the ‘Companion’ chooses her rapist, not the other way around.

But there is one really big question that does not get answered. The women who ‘choose’ to be ‘Companions’ are shown as being intelligent, accomplished, educated, well-respected and presumably from good families. If a woman had all of these qualities and opportunities then why the fuck would she ‘choose’ to be a man’s fuck toy? Would being a fuck toy for hundreds of men give a woman like Inara personal fulfillment? Job satisfaction? A sense of purpose? Fulfill her dreams? Ambitions?

Money doesn’t seem to be the motivation behind Inara’s ‘choice’ to be a ‘Companion’, presumably she just ‘enjoys’ swanning around in ridiculous outfits. And being used as a fuck toy by men is seemingly a small price to pay for the pleasure.

At any rate, Inara’s apparent ‘power’ is merely a figment of Joss Whedon’s very sick imagination. In a later episode, Inara is shown to have set down three very specific rules in relation to her arrangement to hiring one of Mal’s shuttles as her base of operations. 1) No crew member, including the Captain would be allowed entrance to the shuttle without Inara’s express invitation. 2) Inara refuses to service the Captain nor anyone under his employ. And 3) the Captain cannot refer to Inara as a whore.
Mal agrees to all of these rules but he breaks every single one of them. Blatantly and deliberately. The third thing that Mal says in the first interaction between Inara and Mal is, “She’s a whore…” Does Inara stop him from calling her a whore? Nope. She just goes on smiling and being gracious. So he calls her a whore again. Lovely man this Mal is, dontcha think?

And in regards to her first rule, Mal takes every opportunity he can to break it. In the first episode Mal barges into Inara’s shuttle. The interchange goes like this:

Inara: What are you doing on my shuttle?

Mal: It's my shuttle. You rent it.

Inara: Then when I'm behind on the rent, you can enter unasked.

Scenes like this continue to occur for the rest of the series. Mal never apologises for breaking the terms of his agreement with Inara. And although Inara gets a little annoyed, she does not get really angry at the Captain for consistently undermining her power and invading her space. She tells the Captain to get out but he rarely complies. The point is that a man should never invade a woman’s personal space to begin with. Especially when he has been told expressly that he is not invited. But Mal delights in pointing out Inara’s powerlessness, it makes him feel all manly.

In regards to her servicing the crew, she begins to service the Captain and the male passengers of the ship from day one. The following is an excerpt from the script of Serenity. Book is a black male character. He is a Preacher and disapproves of Inara’s ‘profession’.

BOOK Is this what life is, out here?

INARA Sometimes.

BOOK I've been out of the abbey two days, I've beaten a Lawman senseless, I've fallen in with criminals... I watched the captain shoot a man I swore to protect. And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong.

INARA Shepherd...

He is shaking a bit, tearing up.

BOOK I believe I just... (a pained smile) I think I'm on the wrong ship.

INARA Maybe. Or maybe you're exactly where you ought to be.

He lowers his head. She puts her hand on it, a kind of benediction. We hold on them a second.

It is clear from the outset that a large part of Inara’s service involves addressing issues of male inadequacy and fulfilling many other emotional needs of her clients. The ability to do this IS a resource and it is therefore a service that Inara must perform. BUT Inara services all of the male passengers and the Captain in this way. She also services Kaylee but the relationship between them is a little more reciprocal. In any case, Mal makes it pretty obvious that he expects his emotional needs to be serviced by Inara and she willingly obliges. Mal also allows the male passengers to demand her emotional services and does not tell them to stop, despite the terms of his agreement with Inara. Inara is not paid by any of these men for her time, energy and emotional support.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources.

Aside from women being fuck toys, property and punching bags for the men, the women have very little importance in the series. I counted the amount of times women talk in the episode Serenity compared to the amount of times men talk. The result was unsurprising. Men: 458 Women: 175. So throughout the first episode men talk more than two and a half times as much as women do. And women talk mainly in questions whereas men talk in statements. Basically, this means that men direct the action and are active participants whereas women are merely observers and facilitators.

Given the fact that women are largely absent from the action and the dialogue of the majority of scenes it is unsurprising that the action onscreen is highly homoerotic. Men jostle with each other for power. Pushing each others buttons, and getting into scuffles. This intense homoeroticism is present from the outset as Mal asserts his rights as alpha male on the ship.

Completely unnecessary and unprovoked violence is a spontaneous result of this hypermasculinised male character. In Serenity, Mal enjoys using a character called Simon as his personal punching bag. In one scene he walks up to him and smashes him in the face, without any provocation or logical reason. In another scene Simon asks Mal a question and Mal smashes him the face again. No reason, no explanation, just violence. Violence is a part of the landscape throughout the whole series and Mal is often the instigator. He is constantly rubbing himself up against other men, and punishing wayward women, proving and solidifying his manliness through bashing the shit out of anyone and everyone.

Zoe, the token black woman, acts as a legitimiser. Her role is to support Mal’s manly obsession with himself by encouraging him, calling him ‘sir’, and even starting the fights for him. Zoe is treated as a piece of meat by both her husband (Wash, another white male) and the Captain. Wash and Mal fight each other for Zoe’s attention and admiration, both relying on her submission to them to get them hard and manly. In fact there is a whole episode, War Stories, devoted to Wash and Mal’s ‘rivalry’. By the word rivalry, I mean violent, homoerotic male/male courtship conducted over the body of a woman.

Zoe is not shown to have a personality of her own. She has no outside interests, no ideas or beliefs, no conversation with anyone other than Wash or Mal. She has no female friends, in fact she tends to dislike women. For example, she is the first one to insult Saffron in the episode Our Mrs. Reynolds, calling her ‘trouble’.

Zoe, of course, is meant to be our empowered, ass-kicking sidechick. Like all sidechicks she is objectified from the get go. Her husband, Wash, talking about how he likes to watch her bathe. Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour. I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.

Joss Whedon does not share my view, of course, and he paints the relationship between Zoe and Wash as a perfectly happy, healthy union. If anyone is interested in portrayals of relationships between white men and black women written from black women’s point of view, I would suggest watching Radiance, Rabbit-Proof Fence and Serenades, skip Joss Whedon’s shit.

Also if you are interested in the reality of women in prostitution/prostituted women rather than the candy floss version that Joss Whedon has produced, I highly recommend Rebecca’s story Lie Dead. Skip Joss Whedon’s women-hating bile.

I can assure you that this is just the beginning of my rant on Firefly. There is so much more disturbing stuff later in the series. In particular, an episode called Our Mrs. Reynolds, another episode written by Joss, which completely demonises women as well as pornifying male violence against us.

Salutextm #sexist incels.co

[Serious] Why do women have sex?

According to a study which surveyed over 800 college students, only 39% of women reported having an orgasm. Another group of writers asked over 1,000 women from all over the world their reasons for wanting sex and report that pleasure was rarely a reason. They reported that women use sex mostly as a means to an end. They use it to please their partner for some greater purpose and to boost their self esteem. I would assume women barely orgasm in comparison to their male counterpart is because it's harder to arouse a woman (sex drive difference) and it's harder to please a woman (female anatomy is retarded. Clitoris is almost too sensitive to stimulate but must be stimulated for them to receive any physical pleasurable sensation lul). Also, intercourse, which is literally the default act for most mammals to procreate is insufficient for female pleasure.

So if women know this, why do they even have sex? Why engage in intercourse with someone if you aren't getting anything out of it physically? I thought women weren't slimy, manipulative snakes who bear no ulterior motives, or, at least that's what Reddit told me.

Unnamed members of Paraguayan government #fundie feministing.com

The Paraguayan government is denying a 10-year-old girl the abortion care she and her parents want. The girl, whose name will not be released, was raped by her stepfather and did not realize until 20 weeks in that she was pregnant. However, abortion is illegal in Paraguay except in cases of extreme threat to the woman’s life, and the government is not making an exception for her case.

Pregnancy at such a young age is actually very dangerous, notes Tara Culp-Ressler at ThinkProgress. Girls under the age of 16 are at four times greater risk of dying in childbirth and are much more likely to have medical complications. In fact, 28 minors died last year of pregnancy complications in Paraguay alone.

We’ve seen this problem of putting politics before women’s lives throughout Latin America. Last year, Chile denied an 11-year-old girl the abortion she needed and not long before her, El Salvador almost let 22-year-old Beatriz die instead of allowing her to terminate a pregnancy. If you need more proof that this problem is systemic, Mexico has imprisoned women for miscarrying, and there are currently 17 women sitting in jail in El Salvador for terminating their pregnancies.

Denying women abortions isn’t simply about religion and a difference of opinion. It’s about denying women their basic freedom to bodily autonomy, health, and even life in some cases. In fact, the UN has compared blocking access to abortion with torture. Says Culp-Ressler: “Under international human rights law, reproductive rights are recognized as a critical aspect of reducing maternal mortality, and UN officials regularly call on countries with particularly harsh abortion bans to remove unnecessary restrictions on the procedure.”

Banning abortion risks women’s lives and doesn’t protect children. It protects power.

biblicalgenderroles #sexist biblicalgenderroles.com

While most married men view porn you may directly contribute to your husband viewing it more by neglecting your physical appearance. If you gain an excessive amount of weight or fail to properly groom yourself or wear nice clothes your husband may look more to porn than he normally would for the feminine beauty that he is naturally designed to crave.

Even if you take great care about your physical appearance if you are harsh, critical, disrespectful or less than fully receptive to your husband’s sexual advances he may view more porn than he would have otherwise. Most women fail to realize that men do not view porn only because of the bodies of these women or the sex acts themselves. Many men also view porn because of the enthusiasm these women show toward sexually pleasing the man they are with.

Even if you as a Christian wife take great care of your appearance and you willingly and enthusiastically have great sex with your husband he may still look at porn. I refer you back to hard truth number 2 about men and their sexuality – men are designed by God with a capacity for polygyny. So this means even if your husband is thrilled with you in all these areas he will still be drawn to enjoy the view of a variety of women’s bodies.

Even if you deny most or all of the hard truths I have just stated the Bible nowhere gives you the right to deny you husband sex because is he doing something sinful. Remember that the same Bible which you believe says men viewing any kind of porn or thinking sexual thoughts of other women is wrong also says very clearly that a woman may not deny her husband sexually.

Even if you deny most or all of the hard truths I have just stated your husband is NOT accountable to you for his thought life or his actions. Even if you feel he is being disobedient to God in his porn use you are not his spiritual authority and you have no authority to confront him in this spiritual matter.

action #sexist discuss.queenonline.com

I've found the cause of neo-feminizm

decades ago, feminism was all about equal rights. But these days, it's not about equal rights anymore, but about the depiction of women in various forms of media. You'll see these female characters who are deliberately made ugly, manly and / or fat. this is a new thing. on social media, beautiful women are frowned upon by female SJW's.

the reason is obvious. beautiful women are getting all the men and have an easier time to reproduce. Fat, ugly women don't, so they're jealous and angry on all those women who like to please "those awful, awful men".

it's as if, they're trying to force a new female ideal into modern culture. the ideal women has changed over time. Women are depicted differently in art, over the years. Ruben's painted fat women because that was the ideal back then. the ideal women of the 80s was different than the one of the 90s.

and today, the ideal is, what? a fat, ugly man-woman? thanks, SJW's. But I prefer my pamela andersons of the 90s thanks very much. I wouldn't touch you lot with a ten foot pole.

Various commenters #sexist reddit.com

Re: Because your degree matters more to women then your personality apparently.

image

A Good Man Is Getting Even Harder to Find

Women with college degrees outnumber men by a significant margin. That means trouble for the future of love and relationships, writes Gerard Baker.

(wazzoz99)

I remember a few years ago, if anyone ever discussed the “hypergamy” question in the context of the earnings gaps and why it’s sometimes necessary on public forums , you would have immediately gotten the misogynist or even the incel label, for suggesting that men must outearn women for a rational reason. Now, as more empowered progressive women ironically complain about men not meeting traditional and sexist expectations, hypergamy is no longer a taboo topic to discuss. Although it’s important to note that no one in the liberal feminist leaning media has mentioned the term hypergamy to describes this phenomena, owing to its problematic links to the manosphere and Redpill philosophy.

Anyway, observing a lot of the so called progressive women who are reaching their early 30s being incredibly vocal about this issue tells me that eventually, we will have a neofeminist/neotraditionalist/5th wave feminist movement that will attempt to address the problems of modern women, one of which is the inability of men to outearn women. This movement will call on men to tolerate women expanding their gender roles and transcending gendered expectations whilst simultaneously calling on men to fulfil their gender roles and expectations for the good of women/western birth rates/marriage rates. And society will condone this inconsistent movement because prioritising female happiness above all else has become a western secular religion. I wonder if future generations of men will comply or will they stand up against hypocrisy and call out women?

(FastFourierTerraform)

Yeah, but not because of the women.

This men unmarried men means that any major problem will shatter our society like a hammer. Women won't be there when the shit hits the fan. And men with no families will prioritize themselves over society--as will literally every single woman.

That's assuming these men don't simply choose to tear civilization down.

We're doing a pretty good job of it right now. This is classic Jordan Peterson. It's incredibly dangerous for society to put so many men in such a shitty position. Even if most of them just wither and die in silence, there's a minority that will lash out, and that has the potential to topple society.

(reKSanity)

This is what happens when liberal schools make it easier for girls to succeed and harder for boys...I’m glad I have a daughter, i can’t imagine having a 14 year old son today.

I’m 34 and married maybe I’m lucky. It seems women want men who:

are older

taller

smarter - higher education

make more money than them

That will be a problem if schools are still making it harder for boys to succeed...girls will need to lower their standard because the only boys who will look at them soon will be beta male feminists...ugh...

(whynotbothey)

A good man means a man with a degree, but he should also be the one cooking in the house because women no longer cook at all, since being in a kitchen as a person with a vagina is very awful and demeaning. one who should shut the fuck up and stand back and never talk back and never, under any circumstance, stand up for his rights, one who should expect his woman to go around and talk about how they have sex and how big his dick is because it’s his body, her friends’ subject of discussion.

Also, you should never address the issue of whether you and your woman are a bit too overweight and should solve it because that means you are controlling her body and shaming her. Maybe cut down on drinking that beer in the evening because you’re a drunk and men who drink are rapists 100%.

And maybe never tell a girl she’s beautiful because that means you’re a creep. Don’t tell her you’re not interested in her either because then you’re a dick. Basically don’t breathe next to them at all because who does that to women?

Fucking hell, I’ve seen way too many posts about relationships lately on reddit and I must say I want to put bleach in my eyes. And i’m a girl.

“Girl, he asked for your number?! That piece of creeping shit!!!”

Now it’s about degrees. Because that was a thing I gave a shit about when I met my man.

But you know, on one hand, it’s good if this type of woman ignores men like these. Dodging a bullet.

(ludwigvonmisess)

Isn't this just biology though? Women are driven by their nature to seek out a mate that has the most resources and highest possible social status, a college degree is one of the main ways you'd gauge that in our society.

Yes, obviously. But feminists claim gender is a social construct and men and women are the same. Further, when men out earn women, they claim to be oppressed. And now that women out earn men, it’s men’s fault there aren’t any good partners.

... are you just trolling or did you legitimately not understand the reason this was posted here?

(The_toast_of_Reddit)

I see a reset where having a high school sweetheart will be in more of a demand than a degree holder. I'm talking about a really dependable man who cares about how his lady is feeling.

Degrees are becoming the next taxi medallion. The car is now worth more than the medallion. There are a lot of nice men who're debt free & working the trades. If there was a college debt reset I could see a flow of woman that want to snag up one of those nice men because they no longer have to worry about debt because at that stage in their life they're looking to settle down.

Basically women in the near future will demand a hallmark channel movie and not a degree.

(dongkong01)

I'm gonna get me a 20 year old village girl when I'm ready to get married (in my home country) . Cos the difference between her at 20 without degree and 23 with degree, is the loss of skin elasticity. Probably the hardest thing to hear for carousel riders

(Hirudin)

Women have outnumbered men in higher education since 1983. It's been a long time since gender-specific education programs have been justified.

Currently, the imbalance in favor of women is greater than the imbalance in favor of men that inspired the passage of Title IX, but the pile of government-sponsored educational freebies for women only just keeps getting bigger.

(Svenskbtch)

We often hear that men feel intimidated by strong - in this context read: better educated or higher earning - women.

To me, this seems like one of those things that most of us believe, but for which there is not by far as much anecdotal or empirical evidence as we would expect.

Rather, from the little I have observed, the problem is more that it is difficult for women to respect lesser earning or lesser educated men. In fact, many of my female friends admit something like this openly. And this appears to be not so much because they are concerned about financial stability (most of them are high-earners in their own right), but rather some kind of deeper, evolutionary drive. In fact, in most of the scarce instances of couples where women are better educated that I know, I sometimes observe a disturbing tendency towards condescension among women. Not because my friends are bad people, but because it frustrates them.

True, better educated men may also be condescending, but the dynamics are different and the effects often innocuous.

The only true exception to this that I know are good friends where she is a specialised surgeon and he a photographer and part-time house husband. She makes a multiple of what he does and runs the household finances. I am not sure how they manage to overcome these instincts, but one idea comes to mind: he is a brilliant photographer, close to the top of his field - the issue is only that it pays much less than hers. So maybe that is why she is able to respect him?

I would love to hear about your anecdotes on this.

(mrmensplights)

also possible that not all guys are secure enough to date girls with higher education or career

I can't believe this kinda thing get's taken seriously. You can bet any argument based on "Men are just insecure" or "Men are just toxic" or "Men are just weak" can always be traced back to anti-male sources. There was never any evidence to back up that claim. It's just feels.

In fact, it's not just feels but projection. Many studies have been done that prove men will marry up or marry down. However, women are hypergamous and have a strong preference for 'marrying up'. Their own behavior mixed with the advantages society bestows upon them has lead to fewer men they prefer to be available. It has nothing to do with men being insecure or male behavior at all. Men are rational actors in the sexual market place. Why in wouldn't men marry up and improve their quality of life? In fact, now that women vastly outnumber men as graduates of universities you see exactly this happening:

Partnership shift. Men are now more likely to marry up

A Record Share of Men Are “Marrying Up” Educationally

Women's progress boosts men who 'marry up,' study says

Men Are Now More Likely Than Women to “Marry Up”

More Men Than Women Are "Marrying Up", A New Study Finds

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

There’s been a major shift in the public attitude concerning what is proper sex since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. When I was a kid in the 1980s, it was already taken for granted that sexual mores from earlier times were outdated, and only backwards dinosaurs adhered to them. For example, the idea that there’s anything wrong with extramarital sex has been laughed at for decades now. Additionally, old taboos concerning other sexual activities, despite clear evidence of their danger in the form of AIDS, divorce, etc., were portrayed as out of date and oppressive. Pornography was deemed legitimate political speech and therefore a right, and obscenity laws repealed.

To listen to the supporters of the sexual revolution, you’d think this would have led us to some sexual utopia where everyone’s sexual needs are met with no problem, but the human impulse to control sexuality returned in fairly short order, only in a different form. The result is that today, we still face a great – perhaps even greater – amount of control where sex is concerned, and a lot more people are locked up for sex crimes than in the bad old days of “oppression.” What compounds this problem is that it’s possible that even more men are sexually repressed now than a hundred years ago.

Today, there are essentially two kinds of bad sex: “nonconsensual” sex and sex with underage people. The bad actors in this regime are overwhelmingly male for a couple reasons. First, forcible rape is far more likely to be committed by males than females, for obvious reasons. Secondly, men generally prefer younger partners and women older. One could argue that prostitution remains in the “bad sex” category, but prostitution is increasingly held to be an example of male sexual exploitation. Examples from Superbowl sex hysteria and the Secret Service scandal highlight this. Essentially, prostitution has begun to fall under the nonconsensual or rape category. Pioneering Swedish legislation that only punishes johns for prostitution transactions will probably be introduced in the US soon, and then the process will be complete.

While only a few fringe characters have ever argued that rape or pedophilia is justifiable, what’s wrong with all this is that practically no female sexual behavior is currently seen as negative, whereas men are responsible for almost all of what’s deemed bad sex. Not all that long ago, this was far from the case. While rape has always been seen as the most serious sex crime, neither fornication nor adultery were held to be innocent activities, and women were seen as equal participants in these acts. In fact, in the majority of cases, a woman was just as responsible for “bad sex” as a man. Where prostitution was concerned, females were held to be more responsible than their clients, just as drug dealers are held to higher level of accountability than drug buyers, because they profit from the transaction.

However, lest we try to draw parallels, it should be recognized that most of what society considered bad sex was not criminalized until relatively recently. Fornication, sodomy, prostitution and adultery were definitely frowned upon, but they were not typically formally punished until the Victorian era. In the US, it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that these laws were widespread and regularly enforced. Nevertheless, people were a lot more careful about engaging in these activities, because social consequences could be severe.

Since then, aside from a brief period from the late 60s to early 70s when there was a sort of sexual free-for-all in the West, we’ve seen a steady crackdown on male sexuality combined with a loosening of restrictions on female sexuality. What has happened is that the entire burden of sexual control has been increasingly foist upon men, while women’s load has been lightened.

Probably the most important and liberating change for women has been the relaxation of the social prohibition on fornication. In the old days, fornication was definitely seen as bad sex. A loose woman was considered socially irresponsible and wicked for a number of reasons. She could lure a husband from his wife, seduce a young, naive man and capture him in a marriage against his interests, and have illegitimate children who became a burden on the community. Such a woman was not seen as marriage material. In general, men preferred virgin brides. Today, of course, the virgin bride is as rare as the horse and buggy.

A lot of men might say we have it a lot better than in those times, because “sex is easy and available” now whereas it used to be more difficult to obtain. I’m not sure I agree. Fornication is as much a risk for men as ever, and probably more so, because now only men are held responsible for the consequences. Get a woman pregnant and it’s on you. Sleep with a couple women, make one angry and jealous, and you risk a rape accusation. Sleeping with a married woman is another good way to get accused of rape if she changes her mind and decides to stay with her husband. Sleep with a woman who said she was 19, she turns out to be 17, and you’re in trouble. Visit a prostitute and you could be arrested or, if she tells the press, lose your career. There isn’t much of a difference from the old days, and you’re more likely to face jail time for slipping up. For men, fornication is clearly still bad sex. Possibly even more so than it was when it was generally recognized as such.

For women, on the other hand, the benefits are clear. Fornication has virtually no social consequences and the most minimal of risks. Pregnancies can be easily avoided, and if wanted the man will be forced to pay child support whether he committed or not. Male lovers can be easily controlled and kept in line, and as many taken as any woman pleases. Women even go so far as to proudly march in slutwalks to further demand rights to behave sexually in any manner they please. The slutwalk was actually very clear in demanding more of the status quo, i.e. less control of female sexuality and more control of male. For women, particularly young and attractive ones, this has been a real bonanza. But what has it done for society?

Let’s see…

Marriage rates dropping precipitously, men taking path of least resistance and dropping out, illegitimacy skyrocketing, class divisions hardening, children growing up fatherless and with fewer options. For most of us, it’s been quite negative.

I wish I could say there was a solution to the problem, but it looks pretty hopeless. The alternative to what used to be seen as bad sex – marriage – has been all but destroyed by the liberation of female sexuality and the redefinition of marriage as little more than a federal tax status; a sort of very risky corporation with arbitrary rules. The result is that for men, there is really no such thing as “good sex,” that is, socially-approved sex — it’s a risk no matter what. Furthermore, a society in which the overwhelming majority of women are fornicators gives men no choice; you just aren’t getting a wife in the traditional sense of the word, so why bother with marriage?

I think men ought to realize that we got suckered in this deal, and perhaps we should have listened to the old sages who have warned us over the centuries. We overreached in our naivete, thinking we’d get more of what we desire if we only tossed out the old attitudes, but all we ended up with was more responsibility and fewer rewards.

...

[Wait, aren't women supposed to be the uncontrollably lustful sex? Goddamn keep you misogyny lore straight]

Nah, she ruined herself. In a sane society (like most in the world), women are considered more responsible for sexual restraint, because they are better at it. It’s the same reason men are considered more responsible for fighting, carrying heavy things, etc.

Ilana Mercer #fundie archive.today

But where have women been since 1950? Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world`s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics.

During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world`s population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy: the alleged greater variability in men`s intelligence. The “Bell Curve“ of their IQ distribution seems to be less bunched around the median IQ than that of women. They are, consequently, more likely to enjoy very high but suffer very low IQs.

The subjects in which so few women have demonstrated excellence require particularly high IQs. And women, so the theory goes, simply have fewer high IQs.

However, Professor Richard Lynn, co-author of IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, argues that men enjoy an advantage in average IQ—their median may be as much as five points above that of women. This means that there are even more high IQ men than women. At an IQ of 145 there are about ten men to one woman.

The other popular but less credible explanation involves the equal-but-different approach to aptitude. Men are better at math, spatial and mechanical reasoning; women at verbal skills. Women`s mathematical reasoning might not be as good as men`s on average but women, according to this theory, make up for it with superior verbal fluency and artistic flair.

Lynn, working from his developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence, demonstrates that while men do enjoy the aforementioned advantage, adults are, on average, equal in verbal ability, with one minor exception: women are better at spelling and foreign languages.
Women`s relatively scant accomplishments in the second half of the 20th century as quantified objectively by Murray certainly puts meat on the bones of Lynn`s findings.

Since 1950, women have won only five Nobels in literature. And some of those are questionable. How can one put Toni Morrison into the literary company of Patrick White, Albert Camus, and Isaac Bashevis Singer?
In past years, the literature prize went to authors of the caliber of J. M. Coetzee, Günter Grass, and V.S. Naipaul.

But last year, Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek was awarded the literature prize.

I`m not suggesting the grumpy Jelinek is a fraud like Guatemalan leftist and Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Some of Jelinek`s dusty works, translated crudely into English, showcase some skill (if one can stomach the contrived subject matter). However, unlike her male predecessors, she is better known for politically correct posturing than for penning memorable works of literature.

Questions also surround this year`s choice for the most prestigious prize in medicine. I personally doubt whether Linda B. Buck`s olfactory discoveries warranted a Nobel (shared with Richard Axel). For example, this year`s Nobel winners in Chemistry—two Israelis and one American—appear to dwarf the Buck and Axel smell sensation.
Was the committee compelled perhaps to showcase at least one female scientist?

To overcome the shortage of women in male-dominated professions, some institutions are stacking the deck.

Statistician La Griffe du Lion has documented the campaign to make entry into engineering schools easier for women. To overcome the advantage that men have on the crucial mathematical reasoning sections of the admission tests, educational administrators are devising subtle ways to lower standards.

On a lighter note, look at the zany world of reality television—as presented in this scene from the first season of The Apprentice.
The task confronting the two competing teams was to refurbish and rent out two apartments. The team leaders—Katrina Campins and Troy McClain—were vying for the best apartment. Campins, tart and schoolmarm rolled into one, is a real estate “expert,” but is unsure which apartment is the better bet.

Although it is unclear to what avail, Campins decided that she and her rival would write down and then exchange their respective choices. Troy McClain, who had been watching her closely as she brainstormed (or infarcted) for the camera, smiled amiably and complied. When Campins opened McClain`s note, she went berserk. He had effortlessly outsmarted her: “I want what you want,” McClain had written.

Then and there he figured out how to claim the prized pick by picking the professional`s brain.

Of course, The Apprentice candidates constitute a restricted sample, chosen for a combination of looks and status.

Despite this, the disparities in character and cerebral agility between the men and the women could not be more glaring. An obviously déclassé act, the women would have been utterly risible if they were not so revolting.
I sincerely hope The Apprentice is not an accurate reflection of the crème de la crème of up-and-coming distaff America.

As a measure of woman, the Nobel Prize is depressing enough.

Semen_Retention_Liaison_Office #crackpot wehuntedthemammoth.com

Hi there, I am here as a practicing unbroken semen retaining celibate…It seems this site spotlights on semen retention(SR from now on) quite often. As a member of the SR community, is it okay if I strictly post in the comment section of SR posts in order to clarify the historical position (mostly from Hinduism,Buddhism,Taoism but also Western Oneida) as well as modern opinions from within the SR community?

It seems there is a lot of ignorance regarding the genesis of semen retention and celibacy in these posts….(Nobody’s fault as it is intricately linked with male body geography and male mental approach to sexual energy)

Hope this leads to fruitful conversations around history, society, various spiritual traditions around the world

interesting tidbit, Since this is a woman centric blog I think the following information would be of interest to the audience here:

The continued protection of Rome (the city not the empire) for 800 long years is attributed to the spiritual power of an unbroken line of female celibates within the SR community ….known as Vestal Virgins who would be celibate for 30 years before marrying in mid or late 30s

(marriage with Vestal Virgins was considered to be highly prestigious affair, nullifying the above ignorant comment that women over 30s are not desirable to eligible powerful handsome men)

A Vestal Virgin cursed Rome and its elite ruling class in the 380s after the Christians desecrated and shut down the Temple of Vesta….within a few decades of that Rome was overrun by Visigoths under Alaric after 800 years of peace

Christians of course tried to deny that fall of Rome was due to Christian abrogation of Vestal Virgins and paganism in their book called “The City of God” by St. Augustine of Hippo

another interesting tidbit. Women who have stopped their monthly energy loss through spiritual practice, even in their fertile years, are considered even more powerful than celibate semen-retaining men ….

Anandamayi Maa from Eastern India comes to mind in this regard ..She chose to go full on celibate even while being recently married

SR comes under various forms:

1) One would be carnal congress without any release. Mostly done with a committed partner (Steve Jobs. etc)

2) The second version is where the guy is celibate most of the times (no porn, no self-pleasure/pollution) and may engage in no-strings-attached intimacy with women a few times a year

3) Complete celibacy. Absolute no staring at women, fantasizing about women, touching oneself, peaking at porn, edging, romantic or sexual relationship, no wet dreams and hopefully no nocturnal emission…

This vow is carried out in 12 year streaks. A single failure means back to square zero and starting again…Vivekananda, Tesla and Newton were such kind of celibates

4) A fourth more realistic celibacy: Absolute clean celibacy till one gets married. The energy is used to create prosperity, security ..so that when one does get married, he can provide full security and well being to wife and child. In this day and age where whole nations are suffering from the vagaries of economic forces, this is the best option

such a man is celibate from age of 20 till mid to late 30s..before getting married…This way money issues donot sour the emotional atmosphere of the young family

Andrew Carnegie comes to mind when it comes to this sort of celibacy..Though he married in his fifties…well it really takes 35 years’ worth of sexual energy to build an empire

Sorry if the post was a bit hetero-normative..as I can only write from the male heterosexual perspective

if you think my voice in the comment section of SR posts would be helpful, do let me know

if you think I am irrelevant and a nuisance here, then also please let me know as then this would be my first and last post here

PS: the issue of wet dreams is the most fraught subject in SR community. More akin to the disputes regarding the Nature of Christ in Christianity

one must remember that it was controversy around the subject of wet dreams that split Buddhism thousands of years ago

cheers,

(submitter’s note This guy goes on to say a lot more crazy shit in the comments, way to much to post all of it, but I will post my favorite):

female sex energy is linked to menstruation as a cognate for male ejaculation..ejaculation is seen as the male period in the sexual esoteric community…both result in the loss of creative material ..though many believe abstention from orgasm will also confer a woman with great spiritual powers even if she may not be able to stop her monthly loss

cheers

Mark Driscoll #fundie books.google.co.nz

First, masturbation can be a form of homosexuality because it is a sexual act
that does not involve a woman. If a man were to masturbate while engaged in other
forms of sexual intimacy with his wife then he would not be doing so in a homosexual
way. However, any man who does so without his wife in the room is bordering on
homosexuality activity, particularly if he's watching himself in a mirror and being turned
on by his own male body.

Second, masturbation is a form of monosexuality because it is sex that does not
include another person. Since sex is given for such purposes as oneness (Gen. 2:24),
intimate knowledge (Gen. 4:1), and comfort (2 Sam. 12:24), having sex with oneself
seems to miss some of the significant biblical reasons for sexual intimacy.

Third, masturbation is often done in haste because of the mortifying embarrassment
of possibly getting caught in the act. Subsequently, masturbation encourages a man to
become a notorious minute-man who will not be well skilled in the self-control necessary
to satisfy a wife.

Fourth, masturbation can establish a pattern of laziness. If a single man wants to
have an orgasm, he needs to first become a man and undergo the hard work of courting
and marrying a woman. If a married man wants to have an orgasm, he needs to first
undergo the hard work of loving, leading, and romancing his wife. But, lazy men are
prone to rub one out in the shower each morning rather than undergo the labors usually
associated with responsible masculine married life.

Fifth, though masturbation is biblically permissible, the question remains whether
or not it is beneficial for you ( 1 Cor. 10:23). God's men are quite divided on this matter,
as many find it to be very beneficial to them before they are married, during seasons of
their marriage when they are away from their wife, etc. Conversely, other men claim
that masturbating is not beneficial for them because they become mastered by it and
unable to keep it under control (1 Cor. 6:12). This is biologically caused by the fact
that masturbating does temporarily relieve sexual urges and frustrations, but also causes
greater and more frequent biological urges for additional ejaculations. Practically, as the body emits semen it then quickly produces more so that supply can keep up with
demand. So, a man who masturbates to ejaculation will find himself masturbating with
increasing frequency as his body continues to demand more frequent relief, thus negating
his original goal of masturbating to relieve sexual frustration.

88Will88 #sexist reddit.com

Happy women act like children all the time. They believe in romantic vampires and knights in shining armour. They believe in fairy tales, they care about the Kardashians and they are scared of moths. They sleep with soft toys and get mad at you because of how you acted in her dream. However all of this behaviour is the privilege of the alpha male. Beta males find it offensive that we would suggest women are children, because they never get to observe that behaviour. You see when a woman is in the presence of a vagina drying beta, they act much like man. Indeed they have to act like a man because in the presence of a beta, no masculinity is in the room. She is forced to act logically, solve problems and lead because there is no one there to lead for her.

This is why manginas and SJW are so offended with red pill theory. They see women as equals who want to be politicians, doctors, CEOs and scientists. In reality only a fraction of women truly want to do that sort of work, there is no glass ceiling, just women who are not attractive enough to secure an alpha male so she is forced to act like a man herself. All the while she is upset that no man finds her attractive so her anger manifests as feminism due to her victim status. The betas of society believe the lies told to them by unattractive women who went to university to waste their time on gender studies. Even some attractive women have been brainwashed into thinking that they need to act like a man and be "equal". Feminism does more harm to women than it does to men.

Alpha men see the real woman and her real behaviour. They hear her squeals of delight when he comes home or lifts her up. They feel her completely surrender her body and become like liquid in his arms. They know she does not want to decide which restaurant to go to or where to holiday, she wants surprise and adventure. They know what it is to lead and provide for her, to relieve her of the thing she hates to do the most, think. She does not want to think, she wants to FEEL. Real red pill men know this so we see her behave as a child all of the time. Often this includes childish behaviour, temper tantrums, power plays, and other manifestations of childish behaviour we understand as shit and comfort tests. Whenever she tries to lead she is only testing you. If you let her lead she will become miserable and sabotage herself and all around her in the subconscious discomfort she is forced to endure. She does not want to lead, she wants a real man to do it.

So next time your girl is acting like a baby, whining over stupid shit, upset because of a dream she had, or generally misbehaving, smile to yourself and know that this childish behaviour is her natural state. She cannot help it, you have become the leader so she is now free to act naturally. Her natural state is submissive, pliable, temperamental and childlike. Part of her childish behaviour is being naughty sometimes. Simply treat her the way you would a naughty child and the behaviour will soon pass. Never lose frame, never negotiate with terrorists, just slap her on the ass and laugh it off. Know that if she was with a beta she would not be acting like this, she would be acting like a man and vying for control.

Also know this, if your woman is constantly vying for control, attempting to take the reigns of the budget, making major non-domestic decisions, then that is all on you. It is totally your fault and you have allowed beta behaviour to become part of your habits and character. The more she seeks to take charge, the more beta you are. Any guy who has made the transformation from beta to more alpha on the spectrum knows this is true. When he was beta she berated him and complained about life, she tried to take charge on issues, she was unhappy, she refused sex. Now that he has his shit together it is like she is a new person, she fucks him eagerly, she likes the direction of her life, she seeks his approval, and she acts like a spoiled little girl. Such behaviour is the privilege and domain of the alpha male, enjoy it.

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

How Anime Is Programming Men To Be Weak And Submissive

[...]

The first anime I chose from the list, was about a teenage girl named Misaki, who joined an all boys school which recently opened to girls. She works as a maid to support her family as her father had abandoned them.

The “Does Not Like Men” Female Protagonist

image
A female protagonist that openly hates men

Misaki never trusts her male counterparts, and beats them up if they tried something she didn’t approve of. The whole show is centered on how girls can be better than boys, where she terrorizes men, and how these men are portrayed as nothing but pervs, violent, thirsty mindless jerks.

Usui, the male character, after being yelled at for no reason, is strangely drawn to her, and so are the other boys of the school. This hyper misandric woman deemed ‘attractive’ in the eyes of both anime characters and the male fans. This show is targeted towards girls who call it “one of the most romantic anime”.

I was extremely disgusted and had to quit watching within 10 episodes. I couldn’t have a place in my mind to understand how men watch shows like this and enjoy it.

[...]

These shows are not only designed to destroy the male image and present it as inferior, but also to ruin their self confidence as human beings for being male. In dozens of anime, males are portrayed as either weak, or stupid, similar to how Daddy pig in the cartoon Peppa Pig is simply made to be laughed at, or how the main male cast of the Simpsons slowly degraded into ambition-less couch potatoes and the women becoming political figures.

Go-Girl-ism And Male Bashing
If you grew up watching TV in the 1990s, there is no way you escaped seeing at least a few episodes of Sailor Moon. It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality. The series also makes a point of commenting on how the less traditionally feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.

image
One of the most notable feminist anime works

The “girl power” concept is counter productive, but unfortunately it’s an inescapable void of entertainment, Charlies Angles, Steven Universe (where the male character is a boy who learns from women), Taylor Swift videos, etc. Australia’s national women’s soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEENS boys’ side, we know that story.

[...]

Male disposability in anime was the right word I was looking for. Naruto has plenty of scenes where he is beaten up by women. Not to forget, where I thought Gintama would be free of male bashing, where Shimura Tae, a smiley woman constantly beats up a ‘hairy’ man – simply for asking her out.

Is this supposed to be comedy?

There’s plenty of hentai anime, like Girls Bravo for example, a blue haired boy who is mocked for being short by his female school mates, he is bullied to the point where he’s even ‘allergic’ to women. (Imagine an anime where a girl was treated like trash because she was fat). In one scene of the first episode, the boy accident walks into the bathroom where his female neighbour was taking a shower. She screams and throws a tantrum, she brutally beats him up, where his nose begins to bleed, until he falls into a tub, where he is eventually woken up in a planet where there are only women, however, since he was the only male on the planet, he is sexually harassed constantly through out the episodes and women molest him.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

Mack Major #fundie edendecoded.com

God does NOT bless sin.

The only industries that thrive in the hood are the ones that cater to single unwed mothers. In other words: businesses that cater to fornication. Sadly, this also includes many churches! Think about it: what do beauty supply stores, liquor stores, day care centers, hair salons, nail shops, income tax businesses and churches all have in common?

They all cater to low income single women and unwed mothers. And by definition an unwed mother is someone who indulges in fornication - which is how she typically ends up as an unwed mother. The single women aren't any different. Most of them are living lifestyles of fornication too. They either hide it by getting abortions, or they simply haven't got caught slipping yet.

The 'hood caters to single mothers and SIN. Which is precisely why it has become a death trap for so many: especially black men.

The hood is really just reward for rebellion against God. Women these days have rebelled against God's assigned authority: Male Leadership. This is why they value the man's penis, but not his position as leader. They value his 'head' but not his headship. Let that one sink in for a moment.

In their often extreme pride and arrogance, many of these women actually expect God to bless their lifestyles of fornication and rebellion. They expect for God to make their lives better, when they're not even repentant for their own lifestyles of sin. No repentance for fornication, none for adultery, none for being lascivious, none for abortion.

It's the kids that end up suffering the most, because they are the fruit of that fornication. They're fornication babies and for all intents and purposes, bastards.

This doesn't mean God rejects those children; for He already declared 'he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.' But it does mark these kids of fornication as outside of the protective covering that comes from a home that is led by a man.

The man has been assigned headship by God. It's an anointing that each man carries, whether saved or unsaved. Not even Satan can violate or step over that assigned authority.

Now you know why Satan wants to remove men from homes so badly. He can only gain access to the home and therefore the children when the man is not present. Headship which equates to leadership belongs to the MAN - not the woman. A special blessing rests on families that are led by a man. Heterosexual man, that is. (It's a shame we even have to differentiate nowadays).

This is why single parent households ran by women are so disastrous to the black community. These are the leading cause of most of the crime, poverty, high incarceration and high school dropout rates. But at the center of it all is one word - rebelliousness. And that rebelliousness finds its biggest expression via sex outside of wedlock - aka FORNICATION.

While I agree that much of this can be laid at the feet of men as well; I'm an absolute realist: most of the men who mess around with women from the hood are hood dudes themselves.

Hood dudes are basically guys who were raised by single moms too - who rarely ever knew their own fathers - and now they are here repeating the process into the next generation.

Hood dudes aren't men who've abandoned their families. They simply never were a family in the first place. Mom was just a sex fling who wanted to get pregnant (why else take that risk of getting pregnant when a woman has over a dozen different ways to prevent pregnancy). And dad was just a guy from the neighborhood in search of an easy lay.

That's not a family. That's called fornication. And you can't expect a man who's a sinner to suddenly start acting like a saint, just because he's had sex with a woman. That's what whoremongers do - frequent whores! After all: a man can't be a whoremonger unless he's among whores, right? Hence the definition of the word.

Decent men, the marrying type, aren't hanging out in the hood all day, or sponging off of some woman and her kids.

Decent men are busy earning a living and being productive with their lives.

The only men you see constantly in the hood are:

• guys needing a place to stay because they're too immature to stand on their own two feet economically at the moment;
• drug addicts, winos, bums;
• broke gay/bisexual dudes who are known to be gay, who also have HIV (this is where many black women catch it from);
• drug dealers

All other men do their best to steer clear from the hood. Because they realize the urban black community operates as a deadly matriarchal society - something that is antithetical to real manhood. And no real man can be comfortable for long in a matriarchal environment. Sooner or later he's going to break camp too, just like the other decent men before him. Unless he fits that category mentioned above.

BOTTOM LINE: the hood with all its crime, death, brutality, violence, failure and poverty is the direct result of the judgment of God on all those women who don't want to do things God's way. It's an environment for spiritual rebels. And it won't get any better - not until there's wide scale repentance. You cannot violate God's divine order unrepentantly without expecting lots of negative repercussions.

The only kinds of businesses that tend to thrive there are ones that cater to a single unwed mother demographic. Which again includes many churches. Why else are so many churches filled with single unwed mothers every Sunday, with very few single men present? I posit that it's for the exact same reason why you find mostly women in beauty supply stores, daycare centers and nail shops: because those are places that cater to women in sin by making money off or attempting to ease their suffering.

If churches really wanted to be effective, they would preach a strong message of repentance from sin, living godly lives and exhibiting holiness. But here's the rub: most women currently attending church don't want to hear that! They'll attend church, become members, even pay tithes - so long as you don't touch their precious sexual sins! Once you start calling out their sins, they'll start exiting the church, and most likely end up down the street attending a rival church: all out of rebellion!

I'm just being real.

Many churches deliberately keep black women single by refusing to address their real problems and root issues.

The root issue these women have is sin - in particular sexual sin. And pastors know this. Which is why they'll often do slick things like verbally attack men with strong messages of stepping up to the plate, yet treat women with kid gloves.

This is easily understood when looking at it from a business perspective. Men aren't a church's main financial demographic. Women are. So it's easy to sacrifice a handful of men in order to make the women happy.

Male-bashing has always proven to be an effective sales tactic when marketing to women. And it's no different in a large number of churches.

It's time for a genuine Holy Ghost revolution in the black community today! I hesitate to even call these areas 'communities' because a community is built upon solid families. And when there are few husbands and fathers present in the home, that's not a family at all. It's an anomaly.

Strong families cannot be built upon the backs of women. That's out of divine order and will never fly. Just look at the black communities today where women are the 'backbone' for all the proof and evidence that you need. These areas are a wreck today - because only God's way works!

We must stop championing ignorance and dysfunction and start promoting a strong, robust spirituality that can anchor us to solid morals. Only with this type of foundation can we build real communities that are strong relationally, economically and politically. Our children deserve better than this.

Anonymous Coward #sexist godlikeproductions.com

Feminism is possible because women are fundamentally herd creatures

It’s been routinely observed that women are fundamentally herd creatures, followers who base their social status on the acceptance of other women. In other words, one of their greatest fears is social rejection, and for this reason they are very reluctant to „rock the boat” by openly stating their own views and questioning the motives, acts and beliefs of other women. This sense of sisterhood is probably a creation of evolutionary psychology in women i.e. they lived for long periods in all-female tight-knit social groups and depended on each other for many types of support (like childrearing) for hundreds of thousands of years.

This means that whenever a woman comes into conflict with a man for whatever reason, other women will instinctively side with her regardless of the circumstances – they always play for Team Vagina. Men have no similar sense of „brotherhood”. You don’t see any man saying NAMALT when the discussion is about a man’s deplorable act. They don’t feel they have a sense of common identity with him just because he has a penis. That’s why the MRM can never become the mirror image of the Women’s Movement, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – life would swiftly become hellish for women if this was otherwise.

In fact, one reason feminism has become so popular among women is because it portrayed a gigantic historical conflict between men and women. Most women believed and still believe that if a movement is opposed by many men and is supported by many other women, it MUST be great. Add to this that feminism has become the dominant ideology of the West, and thus women, being conformists, follow it without wondering why. It has affected the minds of virtually all Western women.

This creates a situation where some women openly support feminism, the majority of women do absolutely nothing to oppose or question it, and a tiny minority criticizes it and then gets routinely mauled by feminist attack dogs. It’s also very telling that probably 95% of the women who question feminism only do so because they noticed that it has adverse effects on…women. I’m sure 90% of women don’t even know or care about the injustice men suffer due to feminism, and 90% of the rest believe they had it coming.

All in all, I can tell you that a woman will massively improve her status among men if she’s willing to openly and actively reject the anti-male behavior of other women and distance herself from such women. It’s a refreshing change.

Mike78 #transphobia #conspiracy reddit.com

Something terrifying is going on in Porn: Attack of the Killer Man-Jaws

"You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth – nothing more.”

How do you subdue a powerful nation?

By invading from the inside out. By effeminizing the men. By loading their bodies with hormone disrupting drugs and chemicals, reversing the gender roles of their parents with liberalism and feminism, by pushing transgender and homosexual agendas in school, television and social media to shame healthy masculinity and condemn heterosexual normalcy. Everything you see happening around you today.

But there's another, far more insidious way that no one picked upon until now. Oh yes.

Fuck up their sexuality with porn. Inundate them with the most vile perverse shit imaginable: men fucking other men. But not just gay porn. Oh no- that would be too obvious and would cause a heterosexual male to turn off the computer and vomit. Trick them. Deceive them by dressing other men up in makeup, giving them fake breasts and fake asses and fake vaginas, plastic surgery and hormone replacement therapy and have even the men fucking them believe they are women. Sound impossible?

This is the fucked up truth of the Reality we live in.

That's right. the overwhelming majority of "female" porn stars are actually **trannies**. Men born with penises who had their dicks chopped off, fake vaginas stitched together, given estrogen at a young age and every operation imaginable to try to make them appear as women. But they aren't women. They are men dressed as women, and when people watch this perverse shit it FUCKS THEM UP.

Something very terrifying has been going on for many years in the porn industry and no one noticed it until now. After all- "HOW" you might say. How can trannies be having sex with other men and yet appear as real women with tits, asses and everything? Don't the men notice? It's really quite simple.

Lube. It's porn, people. They use tons of lube all the time and the actors will not be able to notice the lack of natural female lubrication. Hormone replacement therapy and SRS at a young age to prevent scarring of the fake vaginas and overtly male characteristics from showing. Brazilian buttlifts and other body fat displacement procedures to give the appearance of wide hips, rib removal for narrow waists, injections for big asses. Breast enhancement. Tons and tons of makeup. Plastic surgery.

Here's the kicker though: there are some male traits you *simply can't remove*. Look for these ALWAYS: wide shoulders, MAN JAWS, sloping back forehead, pronounced brow ridge, ring finger longer than index, long spindly arms, lack of a Q angle of the femur, "adonis belt" created by male hip structure, high cheek bones. When you actually study the physical anatomy of these porn "actresses", it becomes readily apparent that they are in fact biological males.

EXHIBIT A: Asa Akira https://s15.postimg.cc/80n721dmj/akira.png

LOOK AT THAT MAN JAW! Good god, how do ANY of you think this is a woman?!?! Look at the high cheek bones. This is a TRANNY! Look at his skin up close! https://s15.postimg.cc/g659084gb/makeskin.png That's MALE SKIN. He looks TOTALLY like a thai lady-boy in that pic. Can you see it? I hope you can fucking see that guy is a dude.

Exhibit B: Phoenix Marie https://s15.postimg.cc/3rigzw58b/phoenix_marie.png

HOLY FUCK! JUST FUCKING LOOK AT HIM!! If you can't see that that is a MAN with makeup on something is seriously wrong with you.

Exhibit C: Aletta Ocean https://s15.postimg.cc/h8ffir7u3/aletta.jpg

A pig with makeup on is still a pig! Notice the protruding male brow ridge, the sloping male forehead and the strong male jaw this guy has.

Exhibit D: Stoya https://s15.postimg.cc/nm4im050b/stoya.jpg

Holy crap! Look at that male face! The jaw, the brow ridge, the high cheek bones! THAT IS A DUDE. PERIOD. *That is just a straight up dude with long hair and makeup on*

So how many of you have been jerking off to these trannies your entire life without realizing they were men? I've never seen these before and only happened to stumble upon them by looking through a list of "the most beautiful porn stars" (isn't that fucking ironic? Basically a slap in the face). AT LEAST ONE OF YOU FUCKERS READING THIS HAS BEEN JERKING OFF TO MEN FUCKING OTHER MEN. YOU'VE BEEN LUSTING AFTER DUDES IN MAKEUP! WAKE UP!!!

This is only a tiny tiny sample of the hidden trannies pervading the porn industry. Make no mistake- ALL famous porn actresses are trannies! You simple can't climb the pyramid to fame and fortune without forwarding their sick agenda. That's right- Pamela Anderson, Jenna Jameson, all those big names are 100% trannies. Men with fake tits and makeup.

Open your eyes. Women don't have man-jaws. Even ugly women at least are still WOMEN. These AREN'T WOMEN. See the male features. SEE THEM. These are MEN sucking off and getting fucked by other MEN. NO they are not "hot". NO they are not "sexy". THEY ARE MEN WITH MAKEUP ON AND ITS DISGUSTING!

As if there wasn't enough reason to stay the fuck away from porn as it is? SMH

Scott Jonas #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

image
I love this picture to the right. I believe that every young lady should learn cooking, piano and etiquette. Sadly, girls today are learn how to have sex in public grade school, learning the nightclub lifestyle from Walt Disney and being taught by the toxic music industry that life's all about dating, selfish pride and rebellion.

I have read many great articles by Christian men and women regarding the participation of women in the workforce, politics, and in the military. These are activities that most women didn’t participate in until fifty years ago. However, I feel there is one other major activity these writers have not addressed. For some reason, they've overlooked women’s participation in sports.

For quite a long time, women resisted the feminist call to play sports, since they just weren’t interested like men were. But this didn't sit well with the feminists; they felt this was the fault of male oppression. In the name of “equality,” feminist leaders poked and prodded and pushed women to join the games, until women in droves finally succumbed to the pressure. I think this should give us strong reason to pause and consider the question, “Should women participate in sports?”

Over the years I’ve noticed that Christian parents, as much as any parents, encourage their daughters to participate in sports. This is all the rage in our public schools, especially since the passage of Title IX by the feminists. Since most Christian parents send their children to the public schools, it doesn’t surprise many of us that Christians are influenced more by the secular school culture than by the culture of the Church. Worse, the Church itself is being more heavily influenced by the culture instead of the other way around. One of the trends in schools is the participation in sports by women; therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that so many Christian daughters today participate in sports. But is this really all that bad?

For those of us who believe we should train our daughters according to Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, and other Biblical passages, my answer is “Yes, it is not good.” I propose that sports greatly hinders the development of godly, Biblical, feminine character. Parents today expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy taking their daughters from one sports event to another, week after week, even to the point where it exhausts the family and family resources. The fruits we see are that today’s Christian women are often ill-prepared to be Biblically obedient wives and mothers. This brings to mind a couple of questions: “Why do we spend so much time preparing our daughters to play sports?" and "What does it prepare them for in the future?” My answer is that sports prepare women to be more like men. Instead of spending all that time preparing our daughters as the Bible directs, we are training them to be like men so they can better compete with men in traditionally masculine roles - i.e., compete with them in the workforce, in politics, in the military, and in sports.

Actually, I don’t have a problem with women playing recreational sports on an occasional basis, just with them playing competitive sports on a regular day-to-day basis. This rigorous physical and mental training tends to make women more masculine. I think it is prudent to often ask ourselves “Can a woman do this activity and retain a Biblically feminine character?” With sports I think it will be difficult in most cases. Even some of the traditionally more feminine sports like gymnastics and ice skating are now influencing women to be more masculine.

[...]

Most men I know admire a woman who is reasonably healthy and fit; they are also attracted to a woman who is somewhat “soft” and cuddly. This does not mean she should be delicate like tissue paper; no, a woman should be reasonably strong, and the normal duties of life will make her that way. This is what we learn from the Proverbs 31 woman. However, if you look at pictures of female athletes who play sports or observe them on the playing fields, you will notice that many develop strong, muscular bodies. Female athletes also sneer, wince, push, and fight just like the men. I notice these things all the time in pictures in our hometown newspaper. The sneers are most obvious; they make young women very unfeminine. The masculine uniforms and sweaty bodies aren’t very attractive, either.

I also notice when driving by our public school grounds and sports fields another phenomenon taking place: the young girls are trained in sports right along with the boys. To me, this can only be degrading to the boys. In some cases, girls regularly participate on boys' sports teams, and therefore compete against the boys themselves. During the past decade, more and more girls participated in wrestling; since there were no girls' wrestling teams, they joined the boys' teams and competed against the boys. I read about one school where the boys refused to wrestle the girls and forfeited their matches; there could be no greater embarrassment to them than to lose to a girl, not to mention it likely violated their sense of masculine chivalry. So not only is female sports participation degrading the feminine nature of women, in many cases it degrades the developing masculinity in boys.

At the recent summer Olympics in Greece, women’s wrestling was a new sport. There were several female wrestlers on the U.S. Olympic team; most of them received their training by wrestling with men in college, since there were no women’s teams. If you saw their pictures, they looked just like men smashing each other into the mats. Women’s handball was another sport that I’d never seen before, and the pictures I saw of the women fighting each other were sometimes grotesque. Similarly aggressive sports are women’s hockey, boxing, football, rugby, and others where oftentimes the women pretty much look and act like men. But even the less aggressive but more common sports like soccer, basketball, and softball tend to make women masculine and manly.

Some Christians might say that women should not compete in professional sports, but any other level is okay. However, professional athletes get their start somewhere. They begin in local school and community sports leagues like everyone else, and sometimes move on to college and adult leagues. Eventually, they may end up as semi-professionals or amateurs competing around the world in a variety of sports; but nonetheless, the masculinization process begins when they are young girls. The longer they play, the more likely it is that their femininity will be degraded.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as inventing it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated, it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.

Larry Solomon #fundie #sexist biblicalsexology.com

(This is a follow-up to a previous post.)

What God Wants Women to Want From Sex

In Exodus 21:10-11 we read “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money”. The phrase “duty of marriage” refers to her conjugal rights or in other words, the husband’s duty to have sex with his wife.

So, in similar fashion to Proverbs 5:15’s comparison of sex for men to the human need for water, in Exodus 21:10-11 God compares sex for women to the human need for food and clothing. So, we can rightly say based on the Word of God that sex is a need for both men and women.

And it is because of this truth, that both men and women need sex that God gave these commands found in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4:

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife”.

But just because men and women both need sex does that mean they need it to the same degree?

If we look at the needs that the Bible compares a woman’s sexual need to and then look at the need it compares a man’s sexual need to, we can answer this question.

Which can the human body go longer without? Food and clothing or water? Under temperate climate conditions the human body can go for an extended and perhaps indefinite period of time without clothing. And while food is a more important need than clothing, the human body can go weeks without food. The human being can live 30 to 60 days without food. But most human beings cannot go more than 3 days without water or they will die.

So yes, men and women both need sex. The Bible makes this very clear. But it also shows in how it compares the need for sex in men and women that sex is a far greater need for man. And that is a realization that every Christian woman needs to come to.

Now that we have established that sex is a need for women, even if women do not typically need as often as men. We then have to look at the difference in reasons that men and women need sex. While men need sex primarily to fulfil their physical and psychological thirst for the female body, women need sex for two primary reasons.

The first is that just as God created man with insatiable thirst for woman’s body, God also created women with a strong desire to be desired by man. When a man takes his woman in the act of sex, it fulfills her need to feel beautiful to him, to feel desired by him and ultimately to feel loved by him.

In Psalm 45:11, in a prophecy concerning Christ and his Church, the Bible says “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”. When we remember that man’s created purpose is to image God with his life then we understand the strong desire of men toward the beauty of woman. Man’s desire for the beauty of woman’s body symbolizes Christ’s desire for the beauty of his church.

And when we understand that woman was created for man, then we understand why women have a strong need to feel beautiful and desired by men. Men desire the beauty of women, so God designed women to desire to be beautiful for men. Men desire to take and use a woman’s body for their sexual pleasure and to meet this desire in men God designed women to desire to taken by men sexually. It is sin that corrupts these desires in women or causes them to deny these desires they have toward men.

This is why we read from the wife in Song of Solomon 7:10 “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me”. The wife wants her man to desire her beauty. But not just her beauty. She wants her beloved to desire to take her body and use it for his pleasure. In Song of Solomon 4:16 the wife invites her husband to feast upon her body when she makes the following statement:

“Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits”.

And in the Song of Solomon 1:1 the wife says of her husband: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine”.

When we take all of these Scriptures together what do we see that women should want from sex? They should want their husband to desire their beauty and to take and use their body for his pleasure. They should would want him to embrace them and kiss them and by doing all this show his love and desire for them.

But the second reason for a woman’s need for sex, that God has placed in her nature, is her need to have children. This is a defining need of a woman.

Let me illustrate from my own life origin story. My aunt, my father’s brother’s wife, told me recently that when their son was born my mom and dad came over and my mom held their son in her arms. That same evening, when my mom went home, she jumped my dad’s bones and boom, she was pregnant with me.

But outside these two powerful needs that drive women to have sex with men there is another spiritual reason which should drive Christian women to want to have sex with their husbands. And that reason is that they fully realize they were made for him and specifically to meet his need in this area of sex. It pleases him and gives him passion toward them and toward everything else in his life. This should drive any Christian woman to want sex as often as she can have it with her husband.

Mack Major #fundie edendecoded.com

"The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons." 1 Corinthian 10:20

LADIES: make sure you pray over that hair weave before attaching it to your head! In fact I urge you to strongly reconsider if you should even wear it in the first place.

Most of the natural or real weave that's used by women today comes from Asia, where women and men are known to offer their hair as a sacrifice to demonic spirits. In return it's believed the demons will offer them favor and blessings. This practice is called tonsuring.

The hair is then collected and sold to wholesalers who wash, dye and repackage the hair to be sold in beauty stores throughout Europe and America. The longer hair from women sells for more money,and is primarily used as hair extensions and making wigs.

(As a side note: The tonsured hair from men is mostly used to extract a type of amino acid called I-cysteine. It is used in the pharmaceutical, food and vitamin industries; one of its biggest applications is to be used as a flavor enhancer in our food; mainly bread products and bagels.)

Putting it in plain English: many of you right now as you're reading this have hair attached to your head that has been offered as a sacrifice to other gods. You're basically wearing hair that belongs to demons!

Could this be the cause of some of those incubus/succubus/sleep paralysis encounters you've been having? Could this be the thing keeping many of you from a godly relationship? Don't write this off as nonsense!

THINK ABOUT IT: in scripture we are warned against eating food that's been sacrificed to idols:

"But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience." [1 Corinthians 10:28]

"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." [Acts 15:29]

"But I have a few things against you, because some of you hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the Israelites so they would eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality." [Revelation 2:14]

"But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads My servants to be sexually immoral and to eat food sacrificed to idols." [Revelation 2:20]

As we can see from the scriptures above. eating food sacrificed to idols coincided with sexual immorality, and was a serious matter for the early church. It was strictly forbidden by the apostles, and taught as prohibition doctrine throughout the whole Church world. But why?

SIMPLY PUT: pagans would practice a form of communion that involved eating meals dedicated to certain gods and deities. The Bible tells us those gods were really demons. But that part was only part of the communion. The other part consisted of sharing one's body with other people via sexual acts of fornication, mutual masturbation, homosexual activity. etc.

By eating and partaking in demonic communion, a person was allowing themselves to become one with the demons being worshiped, in essence allowing themselves to become a vassal for the demonic spirits to inhabit.

The followers of Jesus were told to avoid such meals, because one could not be a partaker of Christ while allowing themselves to be possessed by demons. [1 Corinthians 10:21] This brings us back to the subject of wearing hair that's been sacrificed to idols (demons).

When you purchase and wear hair that's been sacrificed to an idol, you are in essence making yourself one with the demons associated with that idol.

[...]

It is my belief that when you wear hair that's been sacrificed to a demon, you are in essence sacrificing your beauty and presenting yourself as a living sacrifice to the demon that the hair has been sacrificed to.

COULD THIS BE WHY so many women who attach this stuff to their own hair find themselves feeling and acting sexually seductive; and why many others will go crazy to obtain it?

• I've seen videos where women have risked their lives and freedoms just to have this hair.
• I've seen news reports where women all over the country have robbed stores just to steal this hair; where they went dumpster diving just to retrieve the hair that had been discarded in the trash.
• I've read reports of women being shot to death or beat up over this hair.

This causes one to wonder: what is it about this hair that makes a lot of women act a fool just to have it? Why do women act differently when this hair is attached to their own heads? What is in this hair???

I believe we've presented enough evidence to know the answer. For some of you reading this I know it can be disturbing. A lot of you are Christians.

And you're wondering if you have demon-empowered hair attached to your head right now. Or maybe you're wondering how to make what you've just read fit in with your relationship with Jesus Christ. You may even find a defensiveness setting in because I'm challenging one of your sacred cows - your hair.

But I want you to consider something: if women in India, Malaysia and other parts of the oriental world are willing to sacrifice their hair and beauty for gods, isn't your God worth that and more? In other words: are you willing to sacrifice not wearing hair extensions to have a greater walk with Jesus Christ?

I'm not saying you have to give up the hair. Nor am I saying it's mandatory. That is something you will have to allow the Holy Spirit to convince you of. But I am giving you something serious to think about and consider:

If that hair came from Asia, there's a 99% chance it was sacrificed to demons. And I don't know how a Christian can reconcile that without a serious conflict of conscious.

And just in case you thought you were in the clear because you wear Peruvian or Brazilian hair: I talk about the spirituality attached to that hair too, in my ebook DIVA GODDESS QUEEN: which you can download below.

This hair thing is serious! Besides: what's wrong with the hair that God gave you? Why not just go natural? The overwhelming majority of women look better and most confident wearing their own natural hair in my humble opinion. That's what I've always found to be most attractive about a woman's appearance.

One thing is certain: God is requiring that we give all ourselves to Him. He wants us to wholly sell out to Christ, holding nothing back in reserve.

"And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice--the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him." [Romans 12:1]

"Do not present the parts of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and present the parts of your body to Him as instruments of righteousness." [Romans 6:13]

I pray that the Holy Spirit will speak into your heart, bringing to life that much needed truth which can make you a stronger, more serious servant of Jesus Christ than you've ever been before. These are the days when the evil one is rolling out his very best. Therefore we need to give God our very best if we're going to make it. And we have to be alert.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

We find that greater exposure to “high-achieving” boys, as proxied by their parents’ education, decreases the likelihood that girls go on to complete a bachelor’s degree, substituting the latter with junior college degrees. It also affects negatively their math and science grades and, in the long term, decreases labor force participation and increases fertility.

“increases fertility”. The key phrase.

If you want to arrest low White fertility, keep young women away from college and in the company of alpha males.

Game can make White women fertility great again.

We explore possible mechanisms and find that greater exposure leads to lower self-confidence and aspirations and to more risky behavior (including having a child before age 18).

This is written, of course, from an indignant femcunt perspective, but a more honest analysis of the study results would describe the natural desire of women to submit to powerful men, or to men who seem to have the potential to be powerful later in life. Chicks dig dominant men, and the “lower self-confidence” evident in women who are around alpha males is a feature of the feminine template of vulnerable desire to submit to a powerful man, rather than a bug to be removed from the DNA code.

...

The alpha male is rarer than the young hottie. Women instinctively know this and grasp this reality of the sexual market, so their bodies and minds promptly reorient to “catch the alpha male’s attention and birth his champions before he finds someone younger, hotter, tighter, and more feminine than a shrewish, careerist shrike” when an alpha male lands in their social circle.

Chasing after college and credentials and a “good career” are only serious considerations for women who are surrounded by uninspiring beta males.

Beta male providers get it coming and going. Women aren’t inspired by beta providers to abjure the credentialist cubicle farm life, and beta providers are made less attractive by the economic self-sufficiency of the women who chose career over love&ovenbuns with a beta.

beginningCatholic #fundie beginningcatholic.com

The full Catholic teaching on masturbation seems to be a secret to most people.

It is a challenging teaching.

But because this teaching calls us to live in a fully human way, it’s good news!

“Is masturbation wrong?”

Yes. The Catholic teaching on masturbation says that masturbation is always morally wrong.

Sex is intended to be both an expression of love for your spouse, and a beautiful means of procreation.

Sex is so special, powerful, and valuable that it is properly used only within marriage. If you’re not married, you should abstain from sexual activity.

I know: this is all very counter-cultural.

The truth sometimes is!

Sex is the ultimate gift husbands and wives can give: a total gift of self, body and soul. Sex is how you fulfill your wedding vows to love totally, freely, and completely. As long as you both shall live. The secret of life is hidden in that intimate sharing.

The Catholic teaching on masturbation says that masturbation denies every aspect of that promise of sex — of that promise of your vows!

Masturbation is:

Focused on yourself
A withholding from your spouse
A statement that sex is only about pleasure — your own pleasure
Inherently sterile
Often accompanied by “adultery in your heart” through pornography and fantasy
Catholics don’t condemn masturbation just because of some lofty idea of what the natural purpose of sex is. We speak the truth about the harm it does to people.

That is the true reason for the Catholic teaching on masturbation: it denies the meaning of sex. It makes you less than fully human.

“But everyone else says masturbation is healthy!”

Yes, they do.

The world has a way of saying that a lot of disordered things are “good”.

Masturbation is radically self-centered, and radically un-Christian. That’s why the Catholic teaching on masturbation says it’s wrong. It turns us and our sexuality away from God and toward ourselves by:

Training our sexuality in the habit of self-indulgence, not self-giving
Divorcing the pleasure of orgasm from union with the “other”, your spouse
Turning away from the risks of loving another
Refusing fertility & the full responsibility of sex
I know — many educators and health professionals seem to be having a love affair with self-centered, self-indulgent sexuality. Why that is, I don’t know.

They’re wrong. They’re not telling you the truth about sex, about yourself, or about life.

You and your sexuality are worth more than you can imagine.

The Catholic teaching on masturbation is centered on a virtue called chastity. It means giving sexuality its proper place in our lives. Not snuffing it out, but not giving it free reign. A proper place. Chastity is one of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit. (See Catechism, 2337 - 2359)

The deep truth of the Catholic teaching on masturbation is confirmed by the enormous damage this so-called “private” act causes in people’s lives and marriages. Large numbers of men and women are starting to name their habit of masturbation for what it is: sexual addiction.

If we tell our teens that masturbation is normal and healthy, we’re setting them up with a habit that can yield a lifetime of difficulty. We’re telling them that self-indulgence and lack of self-control are positive things. This cannot form a strong foundation for mature, loving sexuality.

How is that either loving or healthy?

This talk of habit raises an important point: when is masturbation a sin? And how bad a sin is it?

The Catholic teaching on masturbation says that masturbation is a grave sin, what we call a mortal sin, by which we reject God’s offer of life.

However, Catholic morality also acknowledges that the force of habit can reduce or even eliminate our responsibility for our actions.

We have to freely consent in order to be fully responsible.
If a habit makes something less than a free choice, it also reduces our responsibility for our actions.
This does not give us free reign if we just call something a habit! Sinful actions still harm us greatly, even if we may not be fully charged with the guilt of committing them.

We have a responsibility to seek help and diligently strive to overcome our habits.

The Lord is patient & merciful. He desperately wants to free us from the slavery of sin. But we have to do our part, too.

If you think you’re trapped in the habit of masturbation or one of its close cousins (pornography, infidelity, prostitution, etc.), seek the competent help of a priest who supports the Church’s sexual morality, and specifically the Catholic teaching on masturbation. (Don’t be shy! They’ve heard it all before. Sadly, it’s quite common.)

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

stacy grooming a 13 year old chad.. still has millions of followers on youtube and insta validating her

image

(POOP_BLASTER)
Raping children and men in general is ok if youre a woman.

Patriarchy

(_MiscLegend)
LOL. With all of this so-called "male privilege" you hear from feminists, you'd think the exact opposite of this would be the reality.

Waiting for the day an 18 year old normie guy can do this and get away scot-free thanks to the supposed "male privilege" or "white privilege" or some other bullshit like that.

(UnkleReagan)
I disagree with the double standard and all, but can anyone seriously say that he's a victim here?? And to be honest I would actually apply this to both genders. Female high schoolers literally try to fuck their hot teachers all the time and I literally could not give a shit about that either. 13 year olds are not innocent prepubescent children. I was at least mostly done with puberty by that age, and wouldn't have minded the attention from a hot model. Plus the aoc in most countries is around 14 anyway so morally idgaf (I do think, however that she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just like a man would be tho)

(depressedshortteen)
Society is extremely pro-female.

They can do no wrong as a group.

Its perfectly acceptable to be critical of men as a group, but very frowned upon to do the same to women as a group.

When women have issues their problems are heard out, men are shamed and seen as weak.

Most people (all women and manginas) want to see women succeed more than men.

Most teachers in elementary school are female and likely favor girls and the way they learn best.

Boys face more corporal punishment.

Men are 80% of the victims of violent crime.

The criminal justice system obviously favors women, gives them lighter sentences than men for the same crimes.

Men walk around wearing clothes saying the "future is female".

80% of all suicides are males.

80% of homeless are men.

Women are always valued as human beings. Men are mostly valued and respected on the basis of our perceived convenience to women.

triedtoconvince #sexist #racist reddit.com

So, I am a very long time lurker. Someone once told me something about the gender divide issue. I believe that this is the solution for Asian men. It is a method that looks in the long term. Yes, improve ourselves in matters such as the physical (lift weights, play sports, train in the martial arts - mixed martial arts), and in the mental (stay mentally healthy, work on your intellect, do well in school). However, improving ourselves only goes so far.

There is what many people here are now doing - calling out Hollywood/western racism, beginning to support leaders such as Duterte who call out white supremacy, imperialism, white attacks on other races as what they are, and finally creation of anti-Propaganda such as Kulture, which is very respectable.

However, these two prongs of counterattack only solve part of the problem, because in the vast majority of cases from my experience, it is not entirely brainwashing or Asian men "not being masculine enough" that is the problem. (I have seen too many examples of masculine Asian men who also have charisma be considered as much more inferior than they really are compared to other men, simply because they are Asian, this is the females' fault, not Asian man's fault, this is society's fault, not our fault. Women are the ones who control the gates to relatinoships and sex, so whether we are chosen or not is not our fault, especially when all factors are against us, and our most attractive/masculine specimen are considered inferior to the lowest of other races of men).

You see, many Asian women are complicit. completely complicit. I would estimate that at least half of them or 75% are enamored with white men and have a much higher disposition than other races of women for stockholm syndrome. They truly hate anything to do with the Asian men. And another maybe 25% or 20% think the same way (love whites), but either have not acted yet on getting themselves a white/black/nonAsian male, or are quiet about it, or pretend to support Asian men but in reality sleep with the enemy (Constance Wu).

There are simply not enough Asian women who are truly loyal to Asian men for this not to become a major problem in the future for our race. Our race will die out if we do nothing. Do not be complacent like many stupid Asians or mainland Chinese who believe that China's size will simply absorb these things. Asian men are being cucked in their own countries now, even when they are the vast majority. Imagine what happens if there is some kind of immigration, and add onto this the fact that many Asian women look for foreign/non-Asian men and many refuse to have children with Asian men.

The solution is not to take Asian women back as bananarangs, nor is it to try to "convert them back." What is lost is lost.

Asian men must look to the future, look forward, and not backward. There is nothing to look back to except the smouldering ruins of a once great city that Asian men and women once built together. And the ones responsible for burning down the city were mostly Asian women, with the help and encouragement of white males, non-Asian males who dislike Asian men, and cuckold Asian men/eunuchs.

We the surviving Asian men can no longer afford to be distracted by Asian women. They only drag us down, or they cause us psychological pain. It is time to separate ourselves from them, as they chose to separate themselves from us and throw us under the train to be killed. They are not worth the effort in any way shape or form. It is a complete waste of time and mental energy to think about them or even to hate them. Simply all Asian men must forget about Asian women and act as if they do not exist. There is a world of women out there for us if we are aggressive enough, bold enough, confident enough.

The problem of the Asian population disappearing is actually not that big of a problem if Asian men take action. This action is the solution to the problem: as many Asian men as possible must pursue non-Asian women and have offspring with them. Then, ensure you have many daughters that you teach to love only Asian men (have them ONLY watch Asian TV shows with Asian male romantic leads, and also steer them toward more masculine Asian male portrayals such as those of Jang Hyuk or Lee Byung Hun or Oh Ji Ho or Toshiro Mifune or Huang Xiao Ming.... you get the picture, let them see the Chinese weightlifters and Japanese/Chinese/Korean male gymnastic team full of muscular, baddass, masculine Asian men, influence them to fall in love with Asian men only, sure throw in the flower/pretty boy drama once in a while, but keep things traditionally Asian masculine).

There will be many Asian men out there with very few options in the future, as this racism will only continue and get worse. So, when your half Asian daughters marry fully Asian men the next generation or half a generation down the line, we will have a huge population of 3/4ths Asians with Asian fathers and Asian grandfathers. This cycle can be repeated over and over again. We are essentially creating a bloodline..... no, a NATION of Asian male genetics and non-Asian female genetics, in which the Asian genetics and Asian phenotype will dominate and everyone is something like 3/4ths Asian with Asian patriarchal ancestry.

This is not unlike what happened in Central Asia after Genghis Khan swept into the west. Except that we will have this objective in mind as a way to preserve the Asian man's genetics, and to fight back against white supremacy and western imperialism. Genghis Khans descendants also often ended up very caucasoid, so that is another difference.

You might say "hey tridetoconvince this is a good plan of action, but I bet you are a loser who masturbates at home and doesnt even have a girlfriend."

Nope, I have a fiancee, and she is part Iranian, part eastern european, and very beautiful compared to the kind of American white woman or Asian woman I would be able to match up with if I were to try here in the states. You see, I realized that it does not matter how much Asian men try with racist Asian or white/American women, because even an 8/10 Asian guy like myself will be considered half his attractiveness rating due to all the factors, especially social proof and media-related, that are against us. This is why Asian men must forget about the vast majority of Asian women, and also only use the racist/racist-leaning white American women as nothing more than casuals. Those of us who live outside of the USA or anglo controlled areas should maximize our opportunities with women who are into Asian media and not as much influenced by western/Hollywood media, because these women are the ones that can really view us in a more objective manner, and I can attest that they are much more open and judge us as individuals as opposed to how we are treated in white/western/anglo heavy areas.

This doesn't mean a loser, ugly Asian guy who puts no effort into his looks or musculature will be able to do well. A loser is still a loser, so for those bros, they need to self improve first before taking action.

The most vital part of this plan is to make sure that our daughters are exclusively attracted to Asian men, and that will take a lot of effort making sure they completely avoid the toxic white/western media that dehumanizes all Asian men and paints us as losers, eunuchs, cuckolds, target practice, villains.

I will be doing my part in the future by making sure my daughters only like Asian men, and I will make sure to find fully Asian husbands for them.

And remember, this is what any tribe with sane male leaders would do. Whites were/are planning to do this with Asian women acting as "surrogate white women."

SusanM #fundie scifiwright.com

Maybe lack of self-esteem IS these women’s main problem. I think they sell themselves short here. Heck not only do women sin but, looking at the list, they are a major cause of men’s sins. Where would internet porn be without women? Would men be as inclined to Pride without women to show off for? Would they be as inclined to anger without wives to provoke them? Or lust without teens and twenty-somethings bouncing around in tank tops and short shorts? I think there is a special place in hell reserved for women who act like they are all innocent while at the same time contracting out to men to have their sinning done for them.

As my newly graduated from high school daughter once counseled her younger brother, “Remember, Stephen, money may be the root of all evil but girls are the stems and leaves.”

susannunes #sexist feministcurrent.com

Porn involves the dehumanization of others, mainly women, solely so men can masturbate. This is what it is in a nutshell, and it should not exist. It requires the exploitation of others, often trafficked women, just so men can masturbate to the images. It is poison and has no place in any society. It is not "free speech" but a human rights violation.

Some Pinkpillers #sexist #psycho reddit.com

RE: Is it something wrong with male children now too?

(Consider_The_Horses2)

There absolutely is something wrong with male children. And this something is not just caused by socialization but - at least partly - also by their male biology. Young boys very clearly exhibit the desire to fight, to dominate, and to destroy whom they consider beneath them. It is not uncommon for young boys to rape and abuse - their sisters, for instance. https://i.redd.it/mkwy8ufokm051.jpg Men have basically evolved to rape and kill and male children are already practicing. And these days, they start watching rape porn and calling women "sluts" and "thots" online when they are 10 or 11-years-old already, anyway...

Personally, I've come to hate male children just as much as I hate men: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillFeminism/comments/gnuqgl/ive_come_to_hate_boys_just_as_much_as_i_hate_men/

They should be thaugth to be more friendly

Women are always expected to "help" males and to sacrifice themselves in order to raise males. I am opposed to this. It hasn't worked out in the past, and it won't work out in the future. The only thing it has resulted in - the only thing this argument was designed for - was to make women responsible for the bad actions of men and make women sacrifice their time, their energy, their well-being to "help" the very males who want to oppress and rape them.

You adult men, you go ahead and teach boys not rape, not to objectify women, not to watch porn, not to glorify prostitution, not to oppress women, not to "slut-shame" them, etc.

You know most men in the world wont rape you. "Helping" boys is raising them. Do it right with other people. Give them a positive influence. Teach them about normal feminism and not radical. Let them know how they should be treated and how to treat women.

Normal feminism is nothing but misogyny. Men define "normal" feminism as a feminism that allows them to continue all the shit they've done for centuries - but this time using "woke" rather than Christian vocabulary to justify it.

No it's not misogyny. Normal feminism as that guy said is woman's rights, to become equal to males. Not to kill them all and become a species that will very quickly become extinct because females won't evolve without males. Feminists from the past are the people who got you the rights you have today. So don't dis them because you shouldn't deserve what they gave their life for.

The goal is female liberation from male oppression, not "equality" with rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and oppressors.

(censorshipment)

A chilling story about two 10 year old boys who kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered a 2 year old toddler for fun. One of them was arrested as an adult later due to possession of CP(shocker). [NSFW] - https://np.reddit.com/r/BlackPillFeminism/comments/h84ulp/a_chilling_story_about_two_10_year_old_boys_who/

I did not know that. I personally think not every 10yr old boy have the instinct to murder and torture young kids. But, What do i know. I can only speak of my experience when i was 10yrs old

The best way to prevent males from harming females is sex-based separation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kayla_Rolland

6 year old boy shot and killed a 6 year old girl at school because she rejected him. Could've been prevented if schools weren't integrated. Sure, you can say could've been prevented if his uncle didn't have guns in the house. But it's just better to separate females from males.

But doesnt females harm males aswell? Think about hoe much more boeing life would become without males. Basically forcing everyone to be lesbian.

Not at the same rate as males who harm females. Heterosexuality is a disease. Women need to evolve.

So you say avery woman on the planet is superior to men?

Fuck off.

(CloacaDiddler)

Boys 10-12 have higher rape statistics than every age of women. Just the preteens. I can barely even retell the story of Junko Furuta kidnapped by a few 14 year old boys and put through the worst torture imaginable for months until she finally died of her injuries. Not to mention little boys tend to be violent, unruly, and show affection by hitting.

You people are deranged. Fuck you and your campaign to feminize little boys. Boys are different than girls, they're not supposed to be these little quiet robots that you shove information into. They're learning machines, they're exploring their environment as all babies do. Just because they're more prone to being unruly (mostly due to the uneven distribution of ADHD among the two sexes), does not mean they are inherently evil.

Citing rare instances of boys doing horrible things is fucking nuts and you know it, I can easily find female equivalents. You people need to delete this sub or honestly just rope, there is no hope for leeches on society who sit on reddit and hate on men, deranged idiots.

Rare instances???

Yes dumbass. Are you really implying that all boys rape someone when they're a preteen?

Why is it all or nothing with you guys.

I’ve already stated that boys between 10-12 rape more people than all age categories of women do...that’s not all, but that’s not rare and it’s so hilarious when y’all try to refute this. Just like how men make up about 24% of teachers nationally but 78% of student sex crimes. Because y’all always love to say how “women rape students just as much as men” but no, they fucking don’t. Women don’t X anything as much as men, not all of them do horrible things but way more do than women do

That's because of the toxic culture that implies young boys should enjoy sex from older women. All the sex scandals from my highschool were exposed not because of reporting, but because someone else found out. Usually it's the parents.

The same way there used to be stigma around women reporting sexual assaults (which is now mitigated by all the awareness movements; sexual assault cases against men have skyrocketed), there is also a stigma against male victims. Once that is broken there will be a surge of reports on female rapists.

But you toxic fuckers make that impossible with your "male violent and bad, woman innocent and pretty amd good" mindset. What a bunch of narcissistic and uneducated jack-offs.

I couldn't count the amount of second-hand embarassment I got whilst reading posts/comments where "pink pilled" psychos were circle jerking about female superiority. And you know what's funny? Mens rights subs don't allow misogyny, yet misandry is the basis of all feminist subs. What an embarassment honestly...

Jesus Christ feminists are the ones against all rape, I’ve only ever heard men encourage students to get with adult teachers. Even had a coworker speak up unprompted to tell me how he believed men could never be raped unless the woman was ugly, and that students were lucky to get with a teacher. If you think it was “just one guy” and are blind to the massive culture of men especially online who feel this way, then obviously you must not believe that all women are the ones supporting this, isn’t that right?

Jean-Batave Poqueliche #sexist returnofkings.com

It is grim to realise that we have reached a point where our contemporary society is so sick, that it could be healthier for everyone if women were imposed the legal status of property instead of being free individuals. The fact that this absurd method could indeed create a safer society shows how cancerous our “progressive” Western world has become.

...

Women would keep the status of human beings even by becoming property. They would become the asset of a Senior Male Authority (SMA) from birth until his death or their own. In practice, the bond between man and female property would resemble the one between a legal guardian and a minor, incapacitated senior or mentally handicapped adult.

With women being children in adult bodies, the comparison is appropriate. But where the authority of the legal guardian expires in time, the right over female property would not be finite. All decisions would be taken by the SMA (father, older brother, then husband). The auction of a young woman from a father to a suitor of his choice would be agreed upon by setting a dowry.

Purchasing power would be in the hands of the SMA, preventing women to spend male income on frivolous and useless items like female “holidays” (the real sex tourism), designer clothes, drugs, club entrances and the like.

...

This measure would include the right of repudiation for the husband in case of serious misconduct. The decision would have to be studied and approved by a jury of adult all-male peers.

Repudiation would be efficient to keep women in line because they greatly fear being called out, held accountable, and losing resources or status because of self-inflicted behaviour, and this proposal would not deprive them from love. On the contrary, because of the affection that a man shows towards his property (added to the blood or family bound), the women he acquires will be safer. His “investment” has both a financial implication in addition to an emotional one.

To the triggered liberals, women are already property in Islam. But all I hear about it from the left on social media are crickets. Contrary to Shariah law, my theory does not include whipping, gang rape, honour killing, beheading or stoning when women are at fault.

...

10 societal benefits of declaring women legal property

1. No women in the military or police, so men and women would die less.

2. Divorce would plummet and single mommery would become a rarity.

3. No access to funds (under SMA supervision) for women would benefit the global economy.

4. Being a negotiable asset, women would be under constant male protection.

5. Women (and men) would die less of drug, tobacco, alcohol abuse and the heart diseases, cancers and violent or accidental deaths caused by it.

6. Due to heavy competition, women would have to be thinner, reducing the epidemic of obesity and the health risks that it involves.

7. Less child mortality and death during childbirth (women giving birth younger combined with better healthcare hence greater chances of survival).

8. No more left-leaning parties elected as women would be deprived of the right to vote.

9. Conservative governments elected by men would favour traditional families over leeches and degenerates.

10. Less domestic violence as women would avoid damaged men, having no personal resources (and hitting your woman would be like keying your own car: pointless).

...

7 ways this proposal would bring balance to the sexual market

1. No more welfare policies encouraging women to remain single or raise bastards. Welfare would be focused on those who need it the most, like veterans or the elderly.

2. No more inflated ego and instant gratification through attention whoring on social media. Its restricted access would create saner women. Promotion of degeneracy would be greatly reduced in the mainstream and social media.

3. No Instagram prostitution for wealthy sheikhs, being defiled for platform shoes and handbags with “stylish” patterns worthy of a child doodle.

4. Women would actively seek males based on their ability to provide, as they would have no alternative access to wealth.

5. Males would access a healthier sexual market, their hard work being rewarded by regular sexual intercourse, relative loyalty and children.

6. No more violent third world hordes imported by the votes of bitter women. No more homosexual agenda, gateway to the next great taboo, the pedophile-friendly agenda.

7. Professional advancement and success earned by women through sexual favours, like the one popular in Hollywood, would virtually disappear as adultery would be a valid reason for repudiation. “Promotion through horizontal refreshment” would only be used by already repudiated women, nothing of value would be lost.

...

It is not a panacea. The nature of women can’t be changed, but women-as-property would be finally held accountable after the “empowered” ones spent such a long time driving the Western world into the ground.

MariaDesu #sexist reddit.com

Before porn, I wanted to get married one day. Now I want nothing to do with men in a sexual way because of the way I see men treat women in porn. It just makes me wonder if all men are like this, especially since most men watch porn. I hate pornography so much that it makes me feel like exploding. - The way female pornographic actresses are treated -The way sex is portrait as a form of dominance. - The cursing -The perversion of it all I HATE IT. It scarred my teenage brain, and I can never go back in time to undo that.

A lot of women find it degrading and humiliating to them. Several studies have examined the violence against women in porn and all have come up with numbers in the 80% range of porn videos that show violence in some form against women. The other frightening end of that spectrum is that fewer than 5% of these videos show women responding negatively to violence, the overwhelming response by women to violence is neutrality or pleasure.

I do not know the situations of the people involved. I have heard too many stories (both first hand and not) from too many people about actors getting the raw end of the deal. Even supposedly female friendly suicide girls really screws the women in the contracts. One example is the Suicide Girls. Supposedly feminist-friendly porn, yet still screws the girls in the contracts. In addition to money problems, I do not know if these people consented to doing this pornography and then even if they did consent to a degree, how much further were they pushed? How were they treated? And I can't get off and think all that at the same time. That would be disgusting for me

And i will never date a man that watches porn. I look at it as i would look on any other relationship dealbreaker. if he thinks so much of his freedom to consume porn, and doesnt value my thoughts and opinons on the matter, he is free to choose porn and wave goodbye to me. i want to be in a relationship with a human being that has respect and sensitivity for other human beings. I dont consider porn consumption to be an indication of a caring, sensitive individual. I would never 'put up' with anything that went against my core values to make anyone else happy.

regardless of wether it makes it virtually impossible to find a man to be with. Some things are important enough to me to take a stand on. i canot love or respect a man who wants to be all nice and caring with me, then slink off to furtively watch some obnoxious objectifying, dehumanising depictions of women as sex toys. i find that kind of duplicity to be almost schizotypal,. a split between the mans brain where he displays caring, equanimitous behaviour to a partner, then shuts that off to 'enjoy' watching depictions of other women as toys, to be used for sexual gratification. I find that ability to split his mind, quite disturbing. And creepy in the extreme.

I do believe that most men, not all, in this world, hate women. Like probably 70% of the population. It really scares me, that's why I want to be alone instead and never be with one. Men around the world (mostly in Africa, Asia and the Middle East) dominate women, they rape them and stone them to death, mutilate their bodies. Women are not even allowed o go school in some parts of the world, not allowed to drive, vote, speak up but just be slaves for men. It may not be in developed countries but globally, I do believe most men hate women.

Parents would abort female babies because they are unwanted, Not that many women are in politics, business, science, engineering, it's mostly men. You could say men are better and intelligent than women,thanks for the discouragement and stuff but it's not scientifically proven men are more smarter than women. Even on the Internet almost every man I've met thinks "women" + "kitchen." Even after this, I think most of them will call me cunt, slut, bitch.?

My views on porn have been posted elsewhere,.its a frustrating subject, because if someone is pro porn, then they will be entrenched in that position, no matter what points you endevour to show them.

Admin #transphobia #kinkshaming feministwiki.org

Transgender ideology

Transgender ideology is a loose catch-all term referring to philosophies, world views, and dogmatic statements adhered to by political activists who see themselves as trying to uphold the human rights of transgender people. The political movement of furthering these ideologies is called the transgender movement. Feminists tend to use these terms critically when pointing out sexist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic aspects of the movement. Those who support the transgender movement tend to oppose the term transgender ideology, likening it to phrases such as homosexual agenda which is used to ascribe a sinister intent to gay/lesbian/bisexual rights activists.

The practice of supporting transgender ideology is called transgender activism (often shortened trans activism) and a person who follows this practice is called a transgender activist (often shortened trans activist). The word "transgender" in the phrase "transgender activist" is not to be understood as an adjective for the person in question (i.e. "an activist who happens to be transgender") but as a reference to the activism they practice (i.e. "an activist supporting transgender ideology"). Many trans activists are not transgender themselves.

The term trans rights activist (shortened TRA) is sometimes used for its similarity to men's rights activist (shortened MRA). Just like so-called MRAs claim to support men's human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism, TRAs claim to support transgender human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism.

Aspects

Trans women are women

One of the core dogmata of the transgender movement is the statement that trans women are women (and the less often repeated trans men are men). Under this view it's important to write trans woman as two words (adjective and noun) and not transwoman, to stress the fact that so-called trans women are literally a subtype of women, just like white women, black women, short women, tall women, and so on. The statement "trans women are women" is not meant as a vague slogan of moral support, but in a literal sense.
Since the statement contradicts the dictionary definition of the word "woman" (adult human female), it implies that a different definition would be better. When asked about this, transgender activists usually avoid providing an actual definition. Most attempts tend to revolve around a circular definition, such as "anyone who identifies as a woman, is a woman." As such, the statement "trans women are women" is probably best described as a dogma.
The idea that transwomen are literally women is taken as the basis for many problematic conclusions, such as: transwomen deserve to partake in women's sports, transwomen should be seen as part of the natural dating pool of lesbians (see also cotton ceiling), transwomen deserve to use all female facilities, enter female-only spaces and events, speak on women's rights as women, and so on.

Gender identity

The idea that "trans women are women" is usually backed by a belief in an essential, inborn, and immutable "gender identity" that every person supposedly possesses.[6] Transwomen are said to be real women on the grounds that they possess a "female gender identity" which they are said to share with women. Likewise for transmen and a "male gender identity" that is supposedly shared by all men.
Just like transgender activists refuse to provide an objective definition of womanhood, they tend to refuse defining gender identity on any objective terms. Usually, when explaining how a person has discovered their gender identity, one hears references to sexist stereotypes ascribed to womanhood and manhood. When confronted directly however, transgender activists refuse the notion that gender identity is based entirely on those stereotypes. Since no objective measure exists at all, they are effectively forced to accept the claims of anyone and everyone regarding what their gender identity is. Thus we see transwomen with full beards and intact male anatomy, who are said to be literally real women like any other.
Transgender children
Since gender identity is said to be inborn, it follows that some children would be transgender, and only need to find this out. Once it's found out, the only way forward is to support the child in its transgender identification. This leads to the transgender activist "affirm-only" approach towards youth, where for instance a boy who says "I wish I was a girl" or "I'm actually a girl" is from that point on treated as if the child is literally a girl. (Given a female name, referred to by female pronouns, asked to be considered a girl by others, and so on.) Likewise for girls who express that they wish they were a boy, or claim that they are internally a boy. Trans activists are opposed to the alternative "watchful waiting" approach.
The trans activist affirm-only approach has been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[7] Parents concerned over this model of treatment published a long criticism and launched a petition reaching 1,200 signatures.[8] Psychologist James Cantor also published a fact-check article criticizing the AAP's decision.
Trans activists usually support giving puberty blocking medication such as Lupron to children who think they are transgender.[7] These children may be as young as 10 years old.

Cisgender people oppress transgender people

Another core tenet of transgender ideology is the notion that cisgender people oppress transgender people, just like how men oppress women, white Americans oppress black Americans, or how straight people oppress gay men and lesbian women.[11][12] As such, when a man identifies as a transwoman, his position relative to that of a woman turns from being her oppressor to someone who is oppressed by her. His male privilege is denied as he is now considered a woman, and the fact that he is a transgender woman means that he is oppressed by so-called cisgender women. Further, being both a woman and transgender means he is considered to suffer under two axes of oppression, akin to how black women suffer both from racism and sexism. This way, a white man suddenly becomes comparable to a black woman with regards to oppressive power dynamics in society.
As per the principle of intersectionality (appropriated from black feminism), transgender activists often say that the feminist movement should not only include transwomen's concerns, but outright center them in many discussions, as otherwise the feminist movement might fail to sufficiently address their concerns.

Collusion with "sex work" activism

For reasons not entirely clear, many if not most transgender activists also seem to support the "sex work" movement.[13] Possible explanations for this collusion might be:
* Both movements stem from queer ideology, which is based on transgression of social norms without regard to ethical concerns
* The transgender movement being dominated by autogynephilic men who are interested in upholding a society in which women exist for male sexual pleasure
* Anti-feminists supporting both the transgender movement and the "sex work" movement, simply because they see both of them as weapons against women's liberation

Witchwind #sexist witchwind.wordpress.com

UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?

I haven’t been writing in a while, and it’s not because I don’t like writing any more but things have accelerated elsewhere in my life and I can’t be involved everywhere at once. As this isn’t paid work, obviously I can’t afford to put blogging first.

Anyway, there are still many posts waiting to be finished. In the meantime, I’ll start another one.

I often muse about all the things that we’d need to change about patriarchy if we abolished men’s rule over women and the earth. Everything and every single aspect of social organisation is so much the opposite of how it should be, it’s dizzying to even begin to think about all the things we should stop / change.

Mostly it’s about men stopping from doing harm. But stopping men isn’t enough because beyond that there is the entire world to relearn, to heal, and our entire society to rebuild. We would be faced with the immense task of replacing all the misogynist, genocidal, biocidal practices men have ordered our society with for eons. So many of us now are acculturated, cut from land, nature and from one another.

If we managed to overcome men’s tyranny over us, how would we rebuild our world? I just want to throw some ideas here that I often come across these days. I dream for concrete, down-to-earth, simple and easily applicable measures of stepping out of patriarchy into a female-loving, biophilic world. This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!

SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Men’s position in society

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Major serial killers, serial torturers, pimps, pornographers, severe domestic abusers, serial rapists, genocide planners, biocide planners and pedocriminals across the world will simply be euthanised: the decisions will be taken by women in a mass world tribunal for patriarchal crimes. This is by far the best solution, and is the most legitimate, ethical way of reducing male population to more reasonable levels. Such men would otherwise forever pose a threat to women, children, animals, the earth and society as a whole, and we know they have no chance of ceasing their violent behaviour after having reached such an advanced stage of sadism and sociopathy. It would be reckless to spend space, resources and energy in keeping them alive in prisons.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children. Obviously you know my opinion, but let’s say that’s up to the mother to decide what she wants to do before he turns of age to leave the female family circle.

In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus, pollution and toxic wastes men have littered and almost killed the world with. Much of the damage to the earth is irreversible, however with a great deal of effort and genius, women will find sustainable, natural and simple ways of healing a lot of the damage men have caused, and send men off to do the dirty work. No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Family, child-raising and reproduction

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth. Men will necessarily lose all and any power to dominate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

It’s the inalienable right of each woman to control every phase of her reproduction and life creation. Abortion will be possible at any stage of pregnancy, however there will hardly be such a thing as undesired pregnancy since there won’t be any men forcing pregnancies on us any more. Abortion will nonetheless be recognised for the trauma, mutilation and loss of life that it is. The number of children and human population will naturally decrease to sustainable levels, so will the number of males born. Women will be free to experiment parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs.

The nuclear family will be abolished, in particular the parent’s property rights and absolute power over her child. Children will be considered as persons in need for autonomy and all form of punishment, authority or educational manipulation over children will equally be abolished. Raising and caring for children will be a collective responsibility for women, and motherhood / childcare and especially capacity to be empathetic towards children will be taken very seriously, as something that needs to be (re)learned and studied over years before being fully competent for this immense task.

Schools as we know them as punitive reclusion centres for grooming into male domination and female subordination (as well as selection system for elite executors of patriarchal institutions) will be abolished. Boys would definitely not be around the girls, certainly not most of the time, and never beyond the age of puberty. And obviously no adult male would be allowed near children.

There will be no such thing as “teachers” with positions of authority over children. “Guiders” could learn also from the children or students as much the students from them. We’d learn anything we’d want from languages to sciences to art to music to medicine to building to witchcraft to swimming (etc) without restriction of age or time, as long as it’s adapted to our capacities, level and availability. Learning would be autonomous, with guidance when needed, instead of enforced and dictated. They’d be no need for external reward, marking or punishment because the process of learning in itself is so rewarding and fascinating that it’s self-sufficient. Anyway I could go on and on, non-patriarchal learning is truly riveting.

Social structures between women.

All relationships of authority, domination and subordination will be abolished between all women of all ages. We will be able to recognise each other’s strengths, expertise, guidance and capacities (or lack of) without it implying superiority, inferiority, veneration or lack of respect. We would find each other beautiful. We would live our friendships, love and affection for women unhindered.

MEN’S INSTITUTIONS

All oppressive male institutions will be abolished after men have been retrieved from them. We obviously won’t keep these institutions. They will return to the nothingness that they belong, just as a distant, bad memory.

Military:

No more military, no more army, no more wars! It would be illegal for men to hold weapons. Global peace would be the immediate consequence. Most weapons will be destroyed (or recycled into something else), such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines, tanks, machine guns, all manners of terrestrial, marine and air-bombers, and all the many disgusting things men have invented. For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

State:

States, borders, nations, laws would be abolished and totally dispensed with. Laws mentioning the number of prohibited acts will be kept for men only. Women do not need laws to contain ourselves. Laws were created by the male elite to protect their property from other men. Laws are rigid and static, that’s because their purpose is to hold existing patriarchal powers in place. Our own society would be in constant evolution, improvement, creative renewal, yet grounded in reality and adapted to our needs and circumstances.

Women would be able to move freely.

Societal structures and decision-making assemblies wouldn’t exceed roughly 300 women (representing no more than themselves). Keeping numbers low for cooperation is important because the greater the size of the unit, the more horizontal cooperation becomes difficult and requires vertical hierarchy. Possibilities for peaceful, cooperative organisation between women are infinite – as long as they respect the individual integrity of every female – the group should never weigh over the individual but be a source for support and efficient organisation of collective life and space. There could easily be associations of exchange between different groups and peoples in order for women to cooperate regionally and globally where necessary. There would be no limit in age of participation in decision-making for women and girls, which means adapting the format to different ages and capacities.

Medicine:

Men would be permanently banned from any kind of medical practice. All woman-hating, genocidal institutions such as gynecology, psychiatry, obstetrics, big pharma, the torture of living beings in the name of “scientific experimentation” will be banned. Men’s fragmented, objectifying, sadistic view the human body will be part of history, replaced by biophilic medicine. Medical science will no longer be monopolised by a small elite but available to all at any age where appropriate. The (female) doctor’s role will be to guide the patient in her own healing, never to exercise authority over her or take decisions at her expense. Special healing spaces (where surgery is necessary, etc) will be so nice, warm and welcoming that just being there will make you feel better. The soul and life conditions of a person will always be considered part of the body, and symptoms will always be understood in a holistic way. There will be no more chemical, synthetic and toxic products with often worse side effects than the illness itself it claims to heal.

Perfect health would be the normal state of women anyway, as we will learn by experience and observation what we should eat and do to stay healthy at all seasons and times. Most women will have rediscovered our healing, divination and extra-sensory communication powers.

Religion:

Patriarchal religions will crumble down with men’s oppressive system. Religious ideologies, along with its hierarchies and vacuous rituals will cease to exist. I believe a woman’s world would be spiritual. Spiritual connection isn’t based on faith but on critical observation and experience, on a real personal connection to the elements, beings and spirits that surround us, and on the real magnetic power of beings.

Economy (tied to ecology):

Obviously, Slavery, men’s exploitation of women, men’s capitalist systems will be abolished too. The most important aspect of male economy is that it’s based on men’s competitive accumulation of resources (by killing, destroying, commodifying, taking control over, extracting the greatest possible amount of life) and based on production of poisonous, addictive, programmed obsolescent goods — in order to win the patriarchal game of achieving greater domination over women and girls.

This necrophilic relationship to the world and the environment will be abolished, to be replaced by biophilic ecological and economic principles. This will encompass every single process of our life activities, from house building, to food consumption, to communication, travelling, furniture making, cooking, etc. They will have to be carefully designed and thought out in a way as to never endanger the survival of any species, never pollute any environment, never require the use of poisonous, non-recyclable materials, never to require indentured labour or exploitation in order to be maintained. This would obviously impact the nature and scale of our activities. “Work” (exploitation and division of labour) as we know it would disappear. It would be the responsibility of each individual or group to sustain herself more or less autonomously.

We should learn to observe our environment and deeply understand the interconnectedness of all beings around us, as well our own impact before deciding whether or how to transform it. Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone. For instance, if we pick leaves of some plants, it’s important not to rip the whole plant off, to take only parts of it so it can grow again. Or to only take a few plants (or seashells, whatever) where there are many, so to respect the survival of the species where it is settled. If we cut trees to build our house, replant them. There are also infinite ways of making the most of materials for energy, food or production while using it as efficiently as possible. Building houses in ways that don’t require heating in winter or cooling in the summer. It is now widely known that energy such as electricity can be infinitely renewable if we use wind power, magnetic power, water power… And everything can be made DIY.

We will learn to be autonomous again and make our own clothes, food, furniture, houses, soaps, detergent products – or maybe someone else will make them but most things can be handmade and it’s so much more rewarding.

In a biophilic world, nothing is garbage, nothing is pollution. Everything is conceived so as to be part of a life cycle. This doesn’t mean we should keep the same toothbrush for 50 years or never improve on our machines, technology and infrastructure, but there’s no such thing as a dump, or toxic spilling. All materials should be harmless, recyclable or biodegradable, given back the earth if we no longer need them.

Industrial agriculture and farming:

Genetic modification of plants, pesticides, monoculture, field ploughing and consequent aridification of the land will be considered criminal. Our right to self-sustenance would no more be confiscated by mega food corporations – as they will no longer exist.

Agriculture should always be small-scale, local, and as much as possible be modelled on wildlife, self-growing / self-renewing conditions (the less work and intervention, the better), and especially be conceived so as to nourish and sustain rather than deplete wildlife and environmental balance. Again, possibilities are infinite, we have so much to learn.

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely. Maybe after a few decades, after the human population has stalled, male population has decreased, and after we’ve made serious efforts for reforestation and restoration of wildlife on the earth, it would probably be fairer to hunt animals occasionally. Right now, given the extinction rate of animal species, I find it criminal to hunt or fish. We don’t need to eat that much meat anyway.

Holyheavens #sexist reddit.com

(Emphasis original)

We need a strict Patriarchy in order to put every single woman on a leash. They can not be allowed to have any sort of freedom outside of a man's influence because they can't handle it as we see in Western society.

Every modern western woman nowadays is no better than criminal scum.

When you don't coursely discipline and keep women under control, they go loose like wild beasts and spread their ass cheeks for every second Chad they encounter who then goes on to pump his load in their every hole. Governed by pure lust, as if they have no mind of their own they keep trying to satisfy these basic carnal desires through instant gratification.

There isn't a single shred of long term thinking in their primitive minds so when the time comes where they feel their biological clock is ticking, panic breaks out.

The sly filthy amoral foid then starts to look for a gullible weak man whom she can easily wrap around her finger. At that point, the disgusting used up cumrag who has devolved into a barbarian has lost all capacity for pair bonding. Don't even dream she's a type of person whom you can grow old with. No, she's long past that. Her primary incentive is to gain social points so she doesn't feel left out and also extracting resources from the stupid man.

While the poor husband is head over heels and mistakenly believes he's found a partner with whom he can build a relationship based on mutual understanding and Love, his wife is not sexually attracted to him in the slightest. Every 2 months when the man's been a good boy, he gets his dead starfish sex while she fantasises about her past sexploits with taller, more masculine and above all better looking men. They degraded her, treated her as nothing more than a meathole and she loved every second of it.

Children are conceived. A couple years later she files a divorce because "they grew apart" which really just means the foid has become bored of the bluepilled wimp, telling herself "I can do better than this". Loyalty is a totally foreign concept to woman. For a man with principles, being able to keep his word is akin to his lifeforce. Being scrupulous, consistent and reasonable is what makes a man feel actually human. Women lack all will towards this higher from of being and will strictly adopt whatever that won't ostracize them from society or their social environment. Another thing to note, women are not capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance because they only pay attention to how something feels for them in the present moment and that feeling justifies whether something is right or wrong. Whether it's immoral, deceptive or downright evil plays no part. Usually this is done through thorough applying self-deception and doublethink.

When she's gotten bored of the wimp, the woman turns into an incredibly demanding histrionic dramawhore. She's trying to rationalize everything into being the man's fault upon an impending divorce from her part.

The children then experience a breakdown of the family which brings with itself only detrimental consequences for their future in respect to their mental well-being, education and lifechoices. The profound effects of divorce is well documented in multiple academic studies with single-motherhood making things much much worse because single mothers are horrible and stupid parents.
__________________________________
Women are first of all innately morally deficient and alogical creatures who go loose like rabid bonobo's when not firmly curbed and put on their place by men.

They will degenerate everything that is intelligent and virtuous on their path of heedless destruction because they have no fucking idea what the fuck they're doing. They can not think matters through, they just can't. Woman's entire persona consists solely of the surface it reflects. You can not find anything beneath it, it's void. Her entire persona is an absorption from external influences she molds into what then consists as her core identity stemming from an extreme suggestibility. While women are mere empty individuals who can only act in accordance with the community, man is a higher form of life expressed as a differentiated individuality often referred to as the soul characterized by a strong will for greater truth and a deep connection with all that is. With the universe. It's for this reason that there has never been a single decent female philosopher nor will one ever emerge.

It also gives birth to originality and creativity which is characteristic to man. Woman can only reproduce it. Even among the poor and oppressed negro's of the USA, the blues, jazz, hip hop, rap all sprung out of young black men to draw an illustration. Let's not begin about science, classical music and ancient art. They speak for themselves. Women's achievements (always coming from the most masculine ones) bear no comparison.

Many men today are misled from what has been common knowledge since the dawn of humanity over all human societies ever surfaced. Emancipation of women isn't something enlightened or advanced from earlier patriarchal societies. It's pure stupidity and a product of capitalist policies in need for a larger wageslave force.

From a young age men are indoctrinated into a false idea of women. We are to believe women are capable of having agency, that they too are rational beings with whom we can have deep fulfilling conversations on worldly matters, that they are capable of unconditional love on the basis of who you are as a person instead of what you are, that they can breathe inspiration into your mind from insight on who you are, that women are all so different that there are certainly enough who fit these aforementioned criteria (not a single does). That a relationship where both parties stand on equal ground is possible. All these delusions are further exacerbated by media consumption with japanese animations in particular were the women are often a projection of the male producers their ideals.
__________________________________
A woman's natural inclination is submission and passivity.

She wants to be led, molded and derive her sense of identity of a man she considers to be in a dominant position. When a woman says she likes confidence, she means a man who's narcissism surpasses that of her for example. A woman can't respect a man who does not assert himself as the chief in a relationship. All of this comes easier when the male is taller because greater stature is directly imposing, hence their avid preference for this trait. This puts neatly in picture how primitive women actually are. These are her primal instincts she's incapable of sacrificing for the greater good of a society. If you let them go their own way, they will instinctively over the course of time aim primarily for apex men which will heavily skew the ratio of men and women with offspring. You see a similar instance with wild beasts such as gorilla's and even chimpanzees. In fact, this push can already be observed in "progressive" societies such as Norway where the gap between biological fathers and biological mothers has been steadily widening since female emancipation. Such a social order could never promote a civilised society as it would induce a perpetual competition between men barring them from cooperation.

A woman can not free herself from these impulses, only law and order pressed by men can guide an inherent amoral creature such as woman towards intelligent and virtuous behavior.

I thus propose extraordinary strict and harsh countermeasures for the revival of a full on Patriarchy. Beginning with a law that punishes any woman that engages in fornication through capital punishment. The capital punishment is preceded by stripping the prosecuted woman of her clothes on a public square where she is submitted to hundreds of flagellations. Once her body is covered in blood, salt is added for more pain. This form is public humiliation and inflicting of pain needs to act as a necessary deterrent for any woman who's daring to think of fornicating.

When this procedure has been completed, the woman is put out of her misery with public stoning. This helps with fostering a wider disgust and hatred towards criminals such as fornicators, so young children should be encouraged in participating to the stoning.

I'd like to emphasize once again that I'm advocating for lawful procedures enforced by the State.

We'd also need laws that would ban all women from education, holding public offices, choosing their own partners, participating in politics etc..

They should be banned from pretty much any institution where they can exercise their mindless opinions or choices that could bear an influence the societal structure. Be beautiful, take care of the family and shut up.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

A girlfriend or wife doesn’t have to have the looks of Giselle Bundchen, the homemaking skills of Martha Stewart or the bedroom skills of a professional call girl to make a man happy. All of these would be nice bonuses, but they are not nearly as important as the ability to make a man feel relaxed, content and appreciated. A woman who is mediocre in all of the former attributes can easily make up for it by being a sweet, pleasant person who takes the edge off at home. Men are surprisingly easygoing that way, but for some reason women can’t figure it out. Perhaps it isn’t in their nature. It may be that being pleasant goes against their instincts, and is impossible for them in our hyper-competitive society. Maybe seeing a man content and wanting for nothing is a disgusting sight to a woman, who prefers an ambitious, striving man. Or it could be that she feels as though his contentment suggests that he doesn’t appreciate her enough, and she has to agitate and badger him into making some display of devotion.

...

[When you contradict the rest of your ideology by admitting housework isn't a pressing matter that requires a partner to forego careerism]

What is most confounding about the refusal of American women to simply lighten up and stop going after their husbands is how they refuse to do so despite the fact that it would make their lives much easier. The chores issue is a perfect example. Rather than do battle with a man over how many hours are going into housework, why not just ease up on the housework themselves? Lots of women put in nearly twice as much work as necessary, and then expect husbands to do the same. Additionally, do women really need that brand new car? Do they need a mcmansion (with all the attendant extra housework) to be happy? The striving and consumerism in the US is driven mainly by women, who account for over 80% of discretionary spending, and it can turn them into very unpleasant people.

...

That ad is no exaggeration. Nor was Kate Gosselin’s treatment of her husband Jon. This is the norm in the US, and it’s driven in large part by our women’s status obsession (envy) and consumerism (greed). Perhaps the value placed on economic competition and consumerism is a major part of the problem with our women. Rather than domestic harmony and peace, that new car, new house or new shoes take priority. In days past, this kind of obsession with material wealth was frowned upon, so much so that those with money went out of their way not to make too much of a show of it (and in fact most wealthy people continue to do so), but today it’s about the only “virtue” we have left.

So, I’ll offer a theory as to why American women have become so downright unpleasant over the past few decades. Women’s liberation liberated them not only from restraints on fornication, hypergamy and other sexual impulses, but from the acquisitive and competitive impulses that were also kept in check by old-fashioned morality, and for women these may be stronger than lust. We have to recognize that Western capitalism and consumerism were largely driven by female spending, so perhaps this explains some of the support for feminism from above.

If women are constantly striving for more, bigger, better and shinier, they won’t have time to relax and enjoy life as it is. I suspect this plays a major role in the dissatisfaction wives feel, and explains why they cannot stop pushing their husbands harder and harder. It robs them of the ability to be pleasant, and suppresses their better nature, as they struggle and strive with the frenzied crowd for that next shiny bauble. Today, our women are truly possessed and ruled by the dark forces of greed and envy, which rob them and the men in their lives of peace and contentment.

TheIncelRepublic #sexist #wingnut #psycho incels.co

Anyone just want to live in a total utopia patriarchy?

Now for as long as humanity has existed we have never lived in a total patriarchy, women in history had some degree of rights.

But we ended up hypothetically take over society and put in extreme patricarcal laws.

So, we should only let women into the workforce making up 100% of workers with the exception of military, government, police, doctors and other high ranking jobs. Every male is given a government mandated wife/gf to breed with. All other men who aren't high IQ or don't want higher wages can become certified NEETs. Every male NEET will receive a free wife/gf , a free house, $3000 from the government each month, and a free education. Men can only be citizens, all other countries have to cooperate in the equal distribution of women as a source of labor and breeding

Women aren't allowed to go to school unless they need to use the education for their work. If she doesn't need it, she is not allowed to read or do any math.

Women aren't allowed to show any skin in public.

Women are not allowed to be near unneutered animals.

No abortions and birth control is only provided by their male leaders.

Women aren't allowed to vote or have a say in government.

Obey their male leaders whatever they say and adhere to their immediate commands, if the male demands sex, she has to give sex no matter what.

Women aren't allowed to chose their sex partners, but men are allowed to chose which women they want through government assisted selection process.

Tinder, porn and all other female degeneracy is banned. She has to have no male friends, and she has to not speak to anyone unless she is given permission too.

Any violation to these rules will result in extreme and harsh measures by the government to put these women back in line.

She is not entitled to food, shelter, water, affection, Chad or any basic human rights for that matter.

All men are entitled to human rights.

If there is an excess of men then we are to genetically create more eggs and sperm that will have a higher likely spawn rate of more women in the womb.

The wife/gf goes to work with the other women and makes a wage which is automatically transacted to your bank account and taxed by the government to fuel the welfare state. When she comes home from waging, she cooks dinner and cleans the house for the family and she has to feed you tendies and fries on your bed and have sex at the same time while you are watching a movie or playing a game. She also has to take care of your children when they come home from daycare. She is your property and you should do what you want with her as you wish. If you decide to get rid of her she is to be handed back to the government as "used goods" if she isn't virgin and essentially a slave to work without a wage as free labor.

But what if the women rebel against their male overlords?

Males will still be in the military, and I think you can put two and two together.

I think this my dream and comfy utopia right here.

francois #fundie sciforums.com

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

I’m not homophobic, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find many homosexuals to be obnoxious. I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others. Let me explain what I mean.

I don’t have a problem with women giving me the eye. What I mean by “the eye” is the look a person gives you when it’s clear that they’re interested in you, and they find you sexually appealing. When a person gives you the eye, a lot of communicated. When a woman gives a man the look, it means he can have sex with her if he puts in a little effort. It is unmistakable when it happens to you. Personally, I find it flattering, no matter who gives me the eye. Even if it’s an ugly chick, my ego gets a boost. If it’s a hot chick, it gets an even greater boost.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

However, when I get the eye from homosexuals, I am put off. I don’t know why this would ever need to be explained to homosexuals, but here it is: Don’t ever assume a random person is gay. Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual. Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them. It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it. It doesn’t just apply to being hit on. It also applies to compliments. If a homosexual man compliments me on my looks, I don’t take it the same way I would from a woman, or even a fat, ugly woman. I take it that he wants to violate my corn hole.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have. One of my brothers told me a story about him in a bar one time. There was this one guy who joined my brother and his friends at a table. He was a nice enough guy who just wanted to make friends. Then the guy started talking to one of my brother’s friends. My brother’s friend was very drunk and the two of them were hanging out, talking and having a good time. And then suddenly, the guy said to my brother’s friend, “How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for 10?” Needless to say, the friend was stunned and stalled — completely caught unaware, not knowing how to respond. My brother then stood up and told the guy that he had to leave immediately. He did. Now, let's ignore the homosexual's lack of social graces. Let's say he was just hitting on him and he didn't actually ask him for a blow job for 10?” It’s still wrong because he was assuming he was gay. It’s stupid for a least a few reasons. One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males. Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. So why do they do it?

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort? Do they think there’s a chance the heterosexual might turn into a homosexual? “Well, I’m not gay, but for you, I might make an exception.” No. Trust me, we don’t want your advances. We don’t appreciate your compliments. We don’t even like hearing you talking about sex in general.

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me. But don’t talk to me about it. I can assure you, I’m not interested. You’re not special, and I’m not going to make an exception for you. While you’re at it, don’t tell me I’m good looking either. Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.

Am I wrong here?

[ Maybe you ping as fag on the gaydar, francois. ]

Perhaps you're right. However, that doesn't matter. The point is, gays should be sure that the person they're hitting on, complimenting or making some kind of advance on, is also gay. So hitting on and flirting with another person of the same gender is fine if you're in a gay bar or in some gay place. That's fine. That's what those places are for. But hitting on somebody or making some kind of advance on a person in a regular bar or any not explicitly gay public place should be absolutely, positively sure that the person he/she is hitting on is also gay. They should bend over backwards. Even if I do look gay (which I don't), a homosexual shouldn't hit on me. Unless a homosexual is in a gay bar, they should ask the people around "Hey, do you know if that person is gay/available for some man-on-man action?" And then when they've talked to enough people to be confident that the person in question is in fact, gay, then that person can go ahead and flirt and camp it up with said person.

[ You seem to have double standards. You're quite ok with heterosexual men "hitting" on girls in bars, it seems, trying to pick them up. But when it comes to homosexual men hitting on men in bars to try to pick them up, then you get all offended. ]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals going to gay bars to pick up homosexuals. That's fine. That's what gay bars are for. Heterosexuals picking up heterosexuals at a non-gay bar is what non-gay bars are for.

[ I can only assume that you feel somehow threatened by homosexuals showing interest in you. ]

You can safely assume that.

[ Yet, at the same time, you can't comprehend that a woman might equally feel threatened by your uninvited interest in her. ]

I can comprehend that, completely. However, it's different, because heterosexuals are a majority. Not only is heterosexuality more common, but heterosexuality is generally deemed less disgusting. A boorish heterosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual girl is different from a boorish homosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual male. The difference is huge.

You can call it a double standard if it pleases you. But I really don't see it as such. In the third page of the thread I introduced an analogy with the floggers/fuckers and the tour bus driving driving his sick friends across the country.

I agree with you that some women are disgusted by some males who hit on them. But let's compare that to the tour bus analogy. Sure those few women may suffer from these stupid men hitting on them. But those women are like the three or four out of the 25 people on the bus who are sick from the bus driver who is driving fast. The boorish man who is hitting on the poor girls are the bus drivers.

The homosexuals who are hitting on the horrified heterosexuals are like the bus drivers when the bus is full of 25 sick people. And those people are sick because of the speeding. The bus driver continues speeding, ever merrily to his destination, without a care in the world about the 25 people in the bus who are doubling over in their vomit. It's very inconsiderate in my opinion.

If you were that bus driver wouldn't you slow the bus down for your sick friends if it would make them more comfortable? Even though the bus driver is a minority, he should still take his friends' into consideration. It's really simple utilitarianism. You do what makes the most people comfortable.

[ And yet, you seem quite willing to impose your sexuality on other people. And you also seem quite happy for others to impose their sexuality on you - provided that you welcome their advances. ]

Well, there is a huge difference between assuming that a given person is a heterosexual and assuming he is a homosexual. Huge difference. If homosexuals were a majority, I would probably still hate being hit on them, but I would probably get used to it and eventually learn to tolerate it out of simple necessity. However, they are not the majority. They should try to make the majority comfortable by inhibiting their sexualities in our presence because it sickens us. It's simple utilitarianism.

[ So, it seems to me that what you really want is for people to read your mind and magically deduce whether you want sexual attention or not. If they are a "hot chick", then bring it on. But if they are a "hot guy", they should somehow just know that you're not into that ]

Lol, no. That's not what I want. I already explained what I want. What I want is really quite reasonable. I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. That's what I want. Let me know if you're still confused. I don't know if I can make it any clearer to you. I have Skype. It might be easier to explain it that way.

[ If you're claiming that men never make sexual advances to girls - that it's always the other way around - you're living in a fantasyland. ]

Luckily, I never said or implied anything of that kind. Males are constantly throwing themselves at women in the hope of a favourable response - much moreso than vice versa.
It's called "trolling." It's a tried and true method.

[ But you're happy to "put the moves on" any women, I suppose. ]

Hold on now. You're being hasty and presumptuous. I'm not happy to put the moves on any woman. I'm not a prick. I only hit on women if they are receptive. I can usually tell very quickly in my interactions with women whether or not they are receptive. If they aren't, I don't waste my time or hers.

[ What if she is homosexual? Shouldn't you check, first, like you expect men to check your sexuality? Tell me - how do you propose that will work? "Hi, I'm Bernard." "Hi, I'm francois." "Just checking, francois - are you homosexual?" ]

Once again, I think you think it's a double standard. But it's really not. It's because homosexuals don't find heterosexuals nearly as disgusting has heterosexuals find homosexuals. That's reason number one. Reason number two is this: there are way more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. Simple utilitarianism. Are you familiar at all with hedonistic calculus?

[ Why? There's no "violation" between consenting adults. ]

You took that too literally. I was just writing colorfully. I try not to bore the shit out of my readers. I am courteous. I consider others. I wish some homosexuals were the same way.

[ And you think that there aren't equally audacious heterosexual men who go around propositioning every woman they see and think might be fair game? ]

Not really that many guys do that. And yes, those kinds of guys are obnoxious, especially if the attention is unwanted. However, it's not on par with that of homosexuals hitting on heterosexuals. It's really not. I think I've already explained my reasoning to you. I think you can anticipate what I would say to that. If you need it again, let me know.

[ How hard is it to say "Thanks, but I'm not interested"? ]

It's not hard at all. My real problem is homosexuals that give me the look or grope me. Or homosexuals that make out in public places. Homosexuals making out in a public place is not the same as heterosexuals making out in a public place. Once again, I don't give a shit about what people do in private. However, in public, I think homosexuals should still be courteous and yielding to the horrified majority.

Well, it might be a 7 to 1 ratio, or something like that. Not terrible odds. From what I've heard and read, it's more like 1 out of 20, or 5%. They are a minority.

[ Do the men who proposition women think the same thing? ]

Get real man. A homosexual man hitting on a heterosexual man is not the same thing as a heterosexual man hitting on a heterosexual woman. If you think it's the same thing, you need to get outside. Take a walk.

[ I don't think many homosexual men would have a problem with that. They would be quite happy to avoid you. ]

Once again, I don't want them to avoid me. I've had gay friends. I'm not a homophobe. I've made it clear what I want many times, but you keep ignoring it, because you know that what I want is actually quite reasonable. Let me reiterate: I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. They should be yielding to the horrified majority.

Still confused?

[ In fact, I wonder what francois's religious views are. ]

I have none. I'm an atheist. My disgust for homosexuals imposing their sexualities on non-homosexuals is natural and based on several bad experiences with homosexuals. It has nothing to do with Leviticus, as I'm sure you would love to think.

[ Do you think homosexuals have been accepted as a "norm"? I'll bet Prince_James and francois and Baron Max don't think homosexuality is "normal". ]

Then you would have lost money. That you would so flippantly assume that I would think that homosexuality is not natural or normal speaks volumes about you.

[ You rank people giving you the eye above people dry-humping you? Maybe you meant "and lastly"? ]

Strangely, yes. I've been groped, hit on, and stared at by homosexual men. And I think getting the eye is the worst.

Like this one time I got groped it was by this homosexual whom I know. It was at school. We weren't really friends, per se. But we were on a friendly basis with each other. He is openly gay and I knew he was gay. No problems.

However, one day, I was bending over to get a CD from my bag, and he couldn't resist apparently. He grabbed my ass. And I can completely understand my brother's friend at the bar, who was just completely shocked and stunned and didn't know what to do. I was just shocked and appalled for a good 20 seconds or so. After that, however, I composed myself and calmly told him to never do it again and that if he tried to do it again, I would likely beat the shit out of him. Overall, it was a pretty bad experience. But it wasn't the worst. The worst is getting stared at.

Like this one time I was working. And this homosexual who was buying something was staring at me, giving me the creepiest, depraved smile I've ever seen. Words can't describe how it made me feel. All I can say is that it made me feel really dirty. I felt like I needed to take a shower. I felt like I needed to peel off the first layer of skin cells that were infected by the treacherous photons which bounced off my pure, virgin skin and into this asshole's depraved pupils. Worst experience ever. This happened to me a few weeks ago in the bar. It wasn't quite as bad, but it still made me uncomfortable.

[ It's as wrong as being disgusted by heterosexuals, bisexuals, or asexuals.
It's a form of prejudice to be disgusted by a general group of people in that manner. You have to look at things on an individual basis.
]

I'm not disgusted by all homosexuals: just the ones that make it very apparent that they're sexually interested in me, and those who kiss their boyfriends in public and talk about their sexcapades in public. Normal homosexuals, I don't mind at all. Rude ones piss me off.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

Whitney Cummings once said, "Porn isn't bad. Men watching porn is like women watching The Food Network: we're both watching things we're never going to freaking do." Feminists led the efforts to ban child pornography in the late 1970s, and will continue trying to demonize men for indulging their curiosity in, or getting aroused by, "deviant" forms of sexuality, and for exploiting women, even as women (especially feminist women, who often are excited by rape fantasies — not that there's anything wrong with that) indulge in their own violent, sadomasochistic pornography by reading Fifty Shades of Grey. It's hypocritical and a double standard.

Feminists have even gotten porn involving 17-year-old girls declared "child pornography," despite the fact that these girls would, until very recently, have been considered nubile (i.e. of marriageable age), rather than children. It is just another way of shaming men for having normal sexual desires. Young women are at the peak of their fertile years, so it is natural for men to want to have sex with them, and understandable that some men would resort to pornography as a more easily obtainable substitute.

In a way, it shouldn't be all that surprising that some men want to have sex even with girls who haven't reached puberty. There are, after all, men who will have sex with women (e.g. the wife they've been married to for 30 years) who are so old as to be infertile, so why wouldn't there be men who would have sex with girls who are too young to be fertile? It's been theorized that sex serves a number of purposes besides reproduction (for example, giving couples another reason to stay together to raise their children). It doesn't seem all that farfetched that, in the race among men to be the first to get the youngest and freshest girls as they come on the market, some men would end up going so far as to go for prepubescent girls, erring on the side of too young rather than too old.

There's also Rule 34, "If it exists, there's porn of it"; for whatever reason, the human mind seems to have a limitless ability to fetishize anything. "Normal" people download videos of bukkake and Roman showers, yet somehow child porn is deviant? These distinctions are political, not scientific. As Darian Meacham's Medicine and Society, New Perspectives in Continental Philosophy notes, "Immediately after the APA board's decision to delete homosexuality from their manual, Irving Bieber publicly asked Spitzer whether he would consider deleting other sexual deviations from DSM, too. Spitzer answered: 'I haven't given much thought to [these problems] and perhaps that is because the voyeurs and the fetishists have not yet organized themselves and forced us to do that'."

It also shouldn't be too surprising that some men are attracted to young boys. According to the Super Gay Uncles Theory, one reason for homosexuality's existence might be so that there are extra men around to provide nurturance to children in their extended families. Wouldn't pedophilic desires for boys tend to create an incentive to provide even more nurturance, as a form of child grooming (which some pederasts have likened to heterosexual dating, in which the wealthier older man pays for the dates)? This is the basic thrust of the classic essay, The Descent of Chester.

F. Roger Devlin #fundie amren.com

The problem lies elsewhere, mainly in what is known as feminism. It is this, I believe, that mainly explains collapsing white birthrates. For several decades, white women have been reared in an unprecedented manner: They have been encouraged to do almost anything but marry and have children. It is extremely difficult for any society to make its young women unattractive to its own young men, but the West now appears close to succeeding (an achievement attributable, no doubt, to our high IQs).

...

Feminism has encouraged the erosion of traditional Christian and European standards of conduct and has replaced them with a polygamous mating pattern in which women compete for the most attractive men. This is something we see in primate packs, but even among humans, polygamous societies are nothing new, and a great deal is known about how they operate. It so happens that the most polygamous part of the world is West Africa, the ancestral homeland of America’s own black population. A look at these societies may shed light on what is happening in the West today under the influence of “women’s liberation.”

...

This is not a universal human pattern. On average, Africans appear to make the tradeoff between mating effort and parenting effort differently, with the result that sex assumes greater importance over a longer period of time. White writers of earlier days frequently noted the prominence of sex in the black man’s thoughts; when recalled now, these observations are cited with horror. In fact, early observers were reporting what they found, and what is still noted by professional anthropologists today.

As monogamy decays in the West, our mating system increasingly comes to resemble the more competitive African model, and with similar results. Young women devote more effort to maximizing their allure in order to snag high-status men, and men compete for status in order to attract these women. This comes at the expense of childrearing and family life.

At the same time, the feminist program of cajoling women into the workplace means they become self-supporting, as are the female farmers of West Africa. The Dilbert world of work cubicles may not resemble the farming plots of Africa, but both stand in marked contrast to the male-breadwinner tradition of the West, in which childrearing was a woman’s most important duty. Indeed, the modern workplace, optimized for risk-free, repetitious, sedentary work is probably the best environment for eliminating women’s economic dependence upon men. By the same token, it discourages the moderately large families of well-brought-up children that are the indispensable preconditions of Western Civilization. If enough women fail or refuse to marry and become mothers of such families, our way of life cannot be sustained.

...

The most important effect of economic autonomy upon women is that it reduces the benefits to them of monogamous marriage. They can mate as they please, in competition for the most attractive men. That is what the college “hook-up” scene is really about — it is not callous men preying upon wide-eyed virgins. Later, women use affluent men for their resources (either not marrying or marrying and then divorcing them). In any case, economic independence means they do not need a man in the same way previous generations of women did.

A second economic factor influencing female family behavior is easy consumer credit. Using a credit card is a little like providing for African children through fosterage. It shields young, present-oriented women from the need for frugality.

The American economy is fueled to a great extent by massive consumer debt. How much of this spending is by married men with children to support? Feminists complain that men continue to earn more than women, but they say little about which sex spends more. And, of course, the more time and effort women devote to careers and personal consumption, the less they have for the children they do manage to bear. The problem of “latchkey children,” raised by television sets and peer groups, was a predictable result of feminism.

To summarize, the contemporary West resembles traditional West African society in:

female economic self-support;
polygamous and unstable mating patterns;
absence of long-term planning;
low-investment parenting.

...

Sociobiologists speak of high-investment versus high-fertility reproductive strategies, but it is clear the contemporary West does not fall into either category. We are practicing both low fertility and low parental investment. It is uncanny how many of the “progressive” causes being pushed among us involve thwarting procreation: female careerism, unrestricted abortion, so-called safe sex, and special political protections for homosexuality. A society that makes these things its priorities can only have a death wish.

...

In contrast to European nationalists, American race realists have not yet had political success. When we do gain influence, we will have many more important things to worry about than mixed-race marriages or men who seek Venezuelan brides: things such as how to dismantle 50 years of “civil rights” legislation, the repatriation of millions of aliens, and ending anti-white indoctrination in our schools.

Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children.

Pomidor Quixote #sexist dailystormer.name

Mothers Furious After Watching Rape Porn Make a Porn Film to Show to Their Kids

Some mothers will make their own porn films to educate their kids about what sex is really about.

This isn’t even peak degeneracy yet.

Daily Mail:

A group of five mothers are making a porn film they would be happy to show their children after being disgusted by watched X-rated videos online.

One mother was so horrified by online porn that she threw up and one was so traumatised that she quit the whole process.

Sarah, 40, from North Wales, cried while watching rape-based content during the mothers’ research portion of the show.

According to The Mirror, she said: ‘If that was the first time I’d seen anything about sex I’d be petrified. I just thought all of a sudden that I was going to throw up.

‘We need to show kids that there’s something else than this horrible sh*t we see on the internet.

‘If my son treated a woman like that I would kick his a*** to kingdom come.

She added: ‘Porn doesn’t represent normal women, the actors and actresses they use mislead kids. They need to realise it’s not normal.’

The mothers are making their own porn film as part of a Channel 4 TV show called Mums Make Porn.

The three-part series will see a group of mothers create a film with sex in it that they would be happy to let their children watch.

Their mission was to create a porn film which promoted positive attitudes towards sex and realistic expectations of what it involves.

They worked with industry experts and were given all the tools they would need to make the film.

At the end of the series, the mothers reveal their X-rated film to their friends and family, including their children.

That’s right, kids. Mommy will teach you how to fuck women now.

How about not letting kids watch porn instead?

They’ll likely say that that’s just not realistic, but if that’s the case, how can making them watch more porn — even if homemade — be the solution?

Because this isn’t even about porn. It’s about women policing men’s sexuality.

One of the mothers literally said “If my son treated a woman like that I would kick his arse to kingdom come” and that is the perfect synthesis of what all of this depravity is really about; women not approving of how men experience their sexuality.

Old story, really.

Don’t let front-holes tell you how to fuck. You are the one doing the fucking. These bitches do nothing but lay there anyway, so what say should they have in the activity?

If they don’t like it, they can go get themselves fucked and beheaded by niggers.

Besides, women really enjoy when you’re not concerned about their enjoyment of sex. They actually want you to take control over their bodies for your own pleasure, without worrying about their pleasure.

It’s all just a gargantuan shit-test.

DrunkWiseman #fundie reddit.com

Monogamous relationships in a lot of ways lessened the burden of becoming the alpha. Now every man that could find a woman could become an alpha of his own family, providing he could amass some reasonable resources. To achieve this, women were conditioned to respect a man and to welcome his advances, or sometimes couples were wed based on the decisions of their families that they thought would be a good fit. Women were taught that their role was to support the man, and relationships could potentially thrive. And you would get satisfaction from love and from being the "alpha" of your family tribe, by having unlimited access to sex (it was a marital duty at some point by the wife), so it was simultaneously playing into evolutionary traits, but also relaxing the requirements on being the "alpha male". It was a sure way to make both sexes happy (betas wouldn't stress out, and women wouldn't be abandoned after they passed their prime years).

Then women's rights and feminism came along and disrupted this. From a human ethics and equality of "human beings", this was probably a good thing. From the "let's try to work with what evolution created" point of view, it would inevitably end in disaster. Essentially, now we are going back to the alpha/beta scenario, where most of the attractive women belong to the top males as women have inflated sense of worth (online dating, protection by government, feminism, take your pic). Except with one major difference in that men of our generation draw on experience of previous generations and think the old system is still in place. Then they go out, get a nice job, become decent human being, they ticked off all the boxes, and then they are faced with the grim reality that the only thing waiting for them is a beached whale (feminism promotes "big is beautiful", right?). So these men then go back to the drawing board and keep "bettering" themselves. Keep investing and investing only to realize their intellect and ability is growing, while women are degrading and becoming more complacent. Eventually these men become so intelligent that they stop blaming themselves (despite what everyone else tells them), and see things for what they are. So I can totally see how you would have BIG plans on the verge of finding out about TRP that are in dire need of motivation. I have exactly the same problem, and feel like I am about to abandon a lot of what I've worked towards because a woman and a family was at the center of that.

The reality is, there are reasonable women out there. They are very hard to find, and they are usually partially (but not fully) spoiled and influenced by their social circles anyhow. At this point I would say without too much of doubt that in North America, AWALT, with the exception of you finding a smart AWALT that instead of destroying you would want to support you to meet her own goals. You would have to manipulate this woman likewise, and basically your entire relationship would consist of a constant tug-of-war, but you could be happy and have a fulfilling life. The problem with most men is they think a woman should be caring and supportive altruistically, but evolutionarily, they have their own agenda and once in a while you need to be a strong alpha and put her in her place. So in summary, things are not as simple as MGTOW or TRP would have you believe, but in North America (or West in general), these ways of thinking are VERY smart approaches to not getting severely burned in life if you don't know how to manage a woman (it's like a bee colony, you'll get sweet honey but you will also get stung if you're not careful). In Japan society is completely broken because of blatant disregard for evolutionary biology and the relations between men and women. I am guessing the West is not too far behind. Sorry this got long, I think I wrote it more for myself to put down my thought haha, hope it's useful.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

The 3 Purposes Of Women

When it comes to women, nature bestowed only three roles upon them: reproductive sex, child rearing, and homemaking. A woman who engages in behaviors outside of those three roles is going against her biology and will experience suffering as a result.

Reproductive sex

The primary function of sex is to reproduce. The secondary function of sex is to experience pleasure. Through universal abortion and birth control, we have demoted the function of sex to one solely of pleasure. Sex is now a sterile act between two individuals who are often under the influence of alcohol or drugs and who were paired based on emotional short-term reasons that often come down to entertainment or boredom.

Child rearing

The reason that women excel in child rearing is because their brains are similar to that of a young child. For proof of this, you only need to witness an adult woman interacting with children. While a man may be stiff and awkward with the creature, a woman instantly adopts a child-like personality and voice to create a genuine bond. It’s through this bond that a woman can better sense a child’s needs and communicate with it.

Homemaking

Women have a unique taste and aesthetic that transforms any dwelling from a functional unit to a “home.” They add comfort, warmth, and cleanliness while men tend to focus on more utilitarian and practical aspects of living. A family home that has been touched by feminine hands is one where its occupants will be more comfortable.

A woman who is engaging in sex with a multitude of partners without any concern for reproduction, and who has less interest in child rearing than in surrogate activities like working in an office, dancing in nightclubs, or playing trivia games on her electronic device, and who is unwilling or unable to make a home comfortable for her family is going against her purpose. This may remind you of women you know.

Can happiness be achieved by going against your biology?

The easiest way to answer that question is to examine the mental health of those individuals who have firmly denied their biology: homosexuals and transsexuals. Studies clearly show that these groups are the most mentally ill and suicidal out of the population (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Denying your genetic makeup entails the highest risk of being a loon.

A woman cannot be happy or even content with life if she elects not to reproduce, raise children, or be a homemaker. Is it a coincidence that modern civilization is actively encouraging women to stray far from these three biological roles? Our current society is inverted, as those who rule over us have determined that it’s better to redirect feminine energy into something that benefits their own selfish ends.

Not only are women suffering more than in the past but men are suffering too, because they are forced to interact with broken women who deny their biology. Until we have women embracing their biological roles, this needless suffering will continue.

C. Maria #sexist feminist-reprise.org

Many feminists do not want to acknowledge how comfortable they have become with their heterosexual privilege within the oppressive system that many other women want to leave behind. They continue to ask for a few privileges for themselves, while conditions for most women remain unchanged. Few feminists any longer propose the abolition of racist heteropatriarchy, because to do so they would have to confront their own complicity and the painful subordination men have forced upon women through terrorism, indoctrination, deprivation, and lies.

We can start, even in modest ways, to disrupt the male economy. Lesbian Separatists and Radical feminists have already begun, by refusing to be with men, or to cater to their needs, desires, and whims in our personal/political lives. Although heterosexual women can also contribute to this disruption, through sabotage, it is unlikely they will place themselves and other women above male priorities.

Lesbian Separatists can do much more:

We can disrupt patriarchal heteroeconomy through the barter system, where goods and services are exchanged directly for each other rather than for money. For example, if I need to have my broken window replaced, I would have a friend who is an expert glazier replace my window in exchange for my fixing her car when needed, in the present or the future. We both obtain what we need without the exchange of money. We can also create our own monetary system through the use of a voucher system only Dykes networking together would recognize. These vouchers could be used to obtain basic necessities and services from Dykes with specialized skills.

A similar form of disruption is to refuse to pay taxes. Most of the tax money paid goes directly to the phallo-military waste machine to invent more weapons to annihilate sentient life. The rest is used to keep so-called elected and appointed “officials” and corporate “officers” in the death-dealing, white, heterosexual male system wealthy. The two most recent, blatant examples are the theft of millions of dollars of federal housing money and the theft of billions of dollars by savings and loan executives. The system of taxes is another form of male parasitism, draining women’s energy through degrading work to feed their insatiable greed and hatred for life.

There are “illegal” methods that can be pursued, such as counterfeiting money, tapping into the money supply, which is regulated by computers, disrupting business on Wall Street and other financial centers where the business of patriarchal heteroeconomics is conducted each day.

We can organize ourselves into cadres of thieves and shoplifters to steal basic necessities and money for our daily living. With increased skill, we can also teach other Dykes how to steal.

We can squat in abandoned buildings and renovate them for living and/or political action purposes. Lesbians are often denied space, even by feminists. Renovating buildings would be a good way to re/claim our much needed space to think and act toward our well-being.

For those who have female children, we can refuse to send them to public and so-called private schools. We can instead create our own Radical Lesbian schools. Some fundamentalist christians have resisted sending their children to public schools, because, in their opinion, racist heteropatriarchal values are not promoted enough.

They actually want to take control of the public school system by taking away the few “reforms” education has been allowed to make. Christians notwithstanding, most schools continue to teach racist heteropatriarchal values and to promote “great” white men, while women are ignored or shown only in stereotypically “supporting” roles.

The agents of the monetary tax system are running a protection racket on the educational system, so that it will accept money on the agents’ terms. A Radical Lesbian education would be based on values that maintain our moral intelligence and integrity. We can learn about our foresisters’ lives, struggle, and achievements and about what is being done in the present.

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

Bolded emphasis mine. Male dominance is the yang to female submissiveness. And male dominance hierarchies are a natural and healthy self-organizing behavior among young and old men. Hierarchies keep the peace and enable male cooperation for the greater good. Women and male shitlibs of womanly disposition don’t understand this inherent property of manhood because the former don’t compete to establish useful hierarchies and the latter are always on the bottom of male hierarchies and so seek to destroy them and the need for them.

...

Victimhood culture is the outgrowth of a feminizing (and feministing) nation. As our institutions have caved to the deluge of the Great Menstruation, boys have been severed from their innate biological predispositions, with no outlet of expressing their inborn male-ness. The result has been a massive retreat of boys from school and of men from public life, and a terrible overrun of our institutions by women, particularly women who harbor deep wells of spiteful man-hatred.

...

[Right here he's talking about bullying crackdowns restricting schoolyard fighting]

Great insight. The protection of the feminized State protects the tyrants from their deserved humblings at the hands of boys who are proud to be boys and not some twisted tranny genderfluid simulacrum of a male-thing. We’ve created a real monster in our zeal to defeat an imaginary monster.

...

This aligns with Jon Haidt’s moral foundations research which uncovered that liberals stress fairness and harm in their moral calculations, while conservatives place equal emphasis on all six moral dimensions (fairness, harm, liberty, authority, purity, and loyalty). What this means is that shitlibs are constricted in their world views, seeing all violence as against their notions of harm-based morality, instead of having the more nuanced moral view of conservatives who better understand that some violence is necessary to preserve societal health.

...

Social norms exist for a reason, even if liberaltardians don’t have the mental capacity to see those reasons beyond “Ugh, stop harshing my buttplug mellow, man!”. As we add more Diversity, we add more competing norms, and we take away more of the national cohesion that makes America a real country and not a bus depot for international frugalists and their buffer zone third world pets.

...

Liberals may be slightly better than conservatives on tests of abstraction, but I’ve normally found that conservatives are much better “big picture” thinkers than are liberals who are hidebound by their pinched individualistic morality to focus exclusively on short-term affronts to their lifestyles.

...

Conservatives rely more on their gut instinct, which is why they tend to lose media-framed sophistic shitlib “debates”, but also why they are smarter about foreseeing the downstream effects of social policies favored by liberals.

...

A rootless nation substitutes one form of social pressure — family and neighbors — with another form that accommodates the atomized existence — pressure from fake news media, entertainment, social media, and BIGCORP. It’s a malignant trade-off in the long run.

Diversity™ of course exacerbates rootlessness and the problems that come from population churn. White people constantly fleeing encroaching Diversity can turn an entire nation into a rootless mob of psychologically frayed zombies doped up on SSRIs and opioids.

It’s not a shock to learn that almost all the school shooters were taking anti-anxiety drugs. Cause and effect are hard to disentangle — it probably goes both ways in a vicious feedback loop of degenerating evil: rootlessness brings on the anxiety which is prescribed BIGPHARMA drugs which with chronic use mentally destabilizes the user and makes him more susceptible to the problems arising from rootlessness and social isolation.

We’ve got a long way to go to make America great again. Trump was only the opening salvo.

Graham Linehan #transphobia #sexist dailymail.co.uk

Today I am one of the most loathed figures on the internet. My speaking events have been cancelled. I have been sued. The police have visited my home and former friends have turned their backs on me.

Yet I’m the man who wrote the much-loved Father Ted! Why is it that I’ve become so suddenly unpopular? The thought crime for which I have been tried and found guilty is that I believe biological reality exists.

I believe women are females. I believe everyone should be able to present themselves as they wish but that women’s hard-won rights must not be compromised for the benefit of men suffering body dysphoria – which is to say men who feel they are stuck in the wrong body.

Most of all, I believe that gender ideology, in its currently fashionable form, is dangerous, incoherent nonsense.

I believe trans people –those unfortunate enough to suffer body dysphoria – are having their condition exploited and trivialised by abusive, controlling and authoritarian trans rights activists. And I think women and children are suffering because of it.

Worst of all, I say so, loudly. This makes me Public Enemy No 1.

I make my arguments forcefully because I’m concerned, sometimes with humour because I’m a comedy writer and often while cursing, because I’m Irish. It’s the humour they hate most. It’s kryptonite to these activists.

I’m 51 and I’ve never seen anything like the authoritarianism on display, the desperate desire to shut down the conversation. No genuine civil-rights movement advances in secret but this one has as one of its mantras ‘NO DEBATE’.

So, while we are in a world where male sexual offenders in bad wigs assault female prisoners, where rape crisis centres are defunded because they won’t admit men and where a bloke in a full beard tells schoolchildren that he’s a lesbian, we’re informed with venomous aggression that we may not talk about any of it.

No debate? Oh, there’s going to be a debate all right.

The popular opinion among my detractors is that I’m cherry-picking negative stories to mask a hatred of trans people. In fact, I first came to this debate because I saw women being bullied, losing their jobs and suffering the most intense online harassment I’d ever seen, and I wanted to stand beside them.

Also, as a writer, I couldn’t watch as one of the most important words in the English language, the word ‘woman’, was being changed against the will of those whom it defined.

Suddenly, everywhere you looked, women were being erased, insulted or endangered. Amnesty referring to pregnant women as ‘pregnant people’. Productions of The Vagina Monologues closing because they excluded ‘women who don’t have vaginas’. Women’s toilets disappearing from public life – even though they were introduced to ensure that women could have a public life.

Worst of all, I saw the lack of compassion or empathy for the vulnerable women who are often at the sharp end of the new Gender Theocracy.

The four women attacked in prison by a male sex offender in 2018 (who everyone had to call ‘Karen’ or they were committing a hate crime) are four women too many.

Women in prison often have a history of abuse at the hands of men. Whatever they’ve done, they are entitled to safety from the type of men who helped put them there.

Rational people – and that includes rational trans people – are dismayed by those who have now taken over trans activism.

Body dysphoria is no longer seen as central or even necessary for those who decide to adopt a so-called trans identity.

To see just how elastic and meaningless the word ‘trans’ has become, one only has to look at the definition adopted by the Stonewall lobby group: ‘Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.’

Neutrois, I discovered, literally just means ‘androgynous’. So androgynous people are trans. That’ll be news to Bake Off presenter Noel Fielding.

Under Stonewall’s definition, everyone is trans, and no one is. A cross-dresser such as banker Philip Bunce, who adopts the female persona ‘Pippa’ for only a few days every week, nevertheless receives the honour of being named by the Financial Times as one of its top 100 women in business.

This was seen as progress, a step forward for women. In fact, it is an insult to women and to those suffering from body dysphoria.

In order to maintain the fantasy that our sex is unconnected to our bodies, the truth must be bent and beaten in the fire of academic language. That is why trans activists talk about sex being ‘assigned at birth’ – an abuse of language, if ever I heard one.

Is the sex of a newborn ‘assigned’ by a capricious midwife? Of course not. Rather it is observed and recorded as a matter of fact.

‘Assigned’ is one of the more successful hijackings of English achieved by gender ideologues, yet you will hear it parroted across many organisations from the NHS to the BBC – the sort of institution where you really would expect people to know better.

Before I knew how toxic trans rights activism was, I wrote an episode of my Channel 4 sitcom The IT Crowd with a trans character. The response was more venomous than I was used to, but as bad as it was, at least I was allowed to write it. That was in 2013.

In 2020, such an episode would never air. And that is because the first generation who didn’t go out to play have grown up to become clones of Mary Whitehouse. The new puritans.

I am not new to outrage. There was fury on the part of some when we first released Father Ted but the executives we had were made of strong stuff and ignored the attacks. The same goes for The IT Crowd, Brass Eye, Black Books, and I guess a few comedies I haven’t worked on.

I’m worried we’re entering an era of pre-chewed, prissy art that offends no one. But it’s not comedy writers who are the victims of all this: it is women who are the real casualties.

Gender ideology is a disaster for women. They are expected to make room for men in their changing rooms and their safe spaces.

They are being robbed of the language to describe their reality by unintelligible academic ‘gender experts’, by teenagers encouraging each other online, by parents who are profoundly mistaken, and by well-meaning people who, confused by the ever-changing terminology, still believe they are defending what used to be called transsexuals.

All these forces working together are, whether they know it or not, providing a smokescreen for fetishists, conmen and misogynists to pursue their own agenda.

In years to come, we will look back at this scandal, at the ruined bodies, the confused crime statistics, the weakening of safeguarding and the rollback of women’s rights and wonder how it was left to go on for so long.

Marina Orwell #fundie orwellsdaughter.wordpress.com

Porn for White Women
Sorry to disappoint porn-addled males who clicked here to make their 1.5 oz. of weakling flesh hard. See The Cure for Porn Addiction

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not surprisingly, what turns on White women is justice — and boy, after centuries of putting up with y’all’s abuse, have we been saving up a lot of it ;o)
All rapists: Castration (of both turkey neck & gizzards). They will then be publicly raped every day for a year; these will be shown on pay-per-view. Rapists participating in gang rape (e.g. “white” frat boys, roaming troops of semi-human blacks, hate-filled little amerind fags, ALL of the jew boys who perpetrate rape via their vile pornography) will be publicly gang-raped for several hours each day — by each other. After a year of this, their turkey neck n’ gizzards will be publically removed & they will be tortured until death.
Home terrorists (AKA those violent apes who commit domestic violence): daily public scourging — also on pay per view.
No, White female taxpayers will no longer pay for the upkeep of male animals in “prisons.” Male animals will be penned up & will have to forage for themselves — until “showtime,” that is ;o)

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Meanwhile in parallel universe

image

(LactoseSupremacist)
THIS IS WHAT NORMIES ACTUALLY BELIEVE

(-TheWhitePill-)
I think they larp because they don't actually believe it, but they need to try and make it true, other wise their reality comes crashing down.

We didn't create theblackpill, it was always there, we just accepted it

(Crazylikethatglue)
Yep. They believe sexual attraction is about personality. Friggin dicktwats..

(Its_Lucid)
Porn sites are specifically catered to males because it’s so easy for females to get sex, so they rarely watch it.

(VirtueSignalling101)

Men watch more porn because men are evolutionarily inclined towards promiscuity. More women = more babies. More men =/= more babies.

Yet women watch the most hardcore porns in much higher percentages. Brutal gangbang, rape, forced, etc.. those are all the most searched female porn searches. You won't find females searching for 'sweet looking guy' or 'sensual blowjob'. For females, sex is literally all about the biggest framed high-T bone structure male with the biggest dick who has no facial abnormalities. It's evolution instinct. The fucked up part of evolution is only making less than 10% of males the type females truly desire while making males able to desire 90% of women in some way.

(itsfunnyeventootherm)
Just because women all watch the same porn, and makes the same comments IRL about mens bodies doesn't mean that's what they prefer, they're all unique snowflakes!

mangosplumsgrapes #sexist reddit.com

Damn, I realize that this is so much longer than I intended it to be. Sorry! So I used to be someone in support of trans people, I actually found it inspiring that trans people were willing to flout convention and be whoever they wanted to be despite what society says they should be. To me it represented the dawn of a future of acceptance and freedom. I fully bought into the idea that they are trapped in the wrong body and that they are the gender that they believe they are. The very first thing that popped that naive bubble was when I realized that the only trans people that you see in the media, the only ones who are getting support and respect, are trans women.

I thought to myself, why, since men are the ones with power in society, is it not trans men who are visible, leading the movement? I asked this question on another internet forum, and someone answered simply, the reason trans women are getting respect is because they are actually men, and the reason trans men are virtually invisible is because they are actually women. At that moment I had the uncomfortable realization that despite having transitioned, trans people are still afforded the amount of privilege and respect, or lack thereof, that the sex they were born with accrues. That was the first small puncturing of the rosy bubble.

Then I became friends with a guy who had previously identified as trans. He was no longer trans when I met him, but there was still so much cognitive dissonance going on. The following is going to be a rant about him that I need to get off my chest. He told me when we met that he was in depression in his teens and 20s because he wanted to be a girl and that he almost transitioned in his mid 20s, but didn’t go through with it because he realized that he wouldn’t pass as female transitioning this late in life. At first, I found the story interesting and felt bad that he had felt trapped in the wrong body for so long and had hated himself.

But… then I realized that a lot of things didn’t add up. I had always thought that most TIM are trans because they have typically feminine interests, feminine mannerisms, are often gay etc…. but he had none of this whatsoever. He is masculine, there is NOTHING feminine about him. Had he actually transitioned he would have been the butchest woman alive. I asked him about this and he said, “well, I thought I’d just be a tomboy girl.” His interests, way of moving and speaking, way of communicating and relating to the world, to women, EVERYTHING about him was stereotypically nerdy heterosexual male. He told me that he didn’t start to desire to be a girl till he was 11 or 12.

I also found it odd that he watches almost exclusively typical straight male sci-fi and superhero movies. For example he loved the creepy male fantasy film Passengers. If he actually feels like a woman, shouldn’t he be identifying with the female characters in movies, not the male characters? If so, why does he only watch movies that are from male perspectives, where the women aren’t fully fleshed out and are viewed as romantic/sex objects? Despite being a typical guy, he viewed himself as feminine. He would ask me, am I feminine, is my face feminine? When I would tell him, no, there’s nothing feminine about you, you are masculine. No, you’re face isn’t feminine, he’d become offended.

I went to a ladies night at a club with him, and I realized that it was inappropriate for him to be there and I told him this. His response was, “you don’t get it, I don’t feel like a man, and maybe there are some bisexual women at the club” I said very firmly to him, that it doesn’t matter how HE feels, he IS a man, and therefore it’s not appropriate for him to be there and even if there are bisexual women there, they didn’t go to a ladies night to meet men. I tried to explain to him that sometimes women just want to be with other women and away from men. He protested that it was unfair to exclude him and that he didn’t believe in gender anyway. Then the whole controversy over the female-only screenings of Wonder Woman came up. I chatted with him about it and he said, “when you’re othered by a group, you suddenly feel very disconnected and isolated from them.” This just astounded me that he is protesting about being othered by a group that he IS other to! You’re not a woman!

When I met him, I thought that the fact that he had considered himself a woman for so long would make him more sensitive and understanding of women, I was wrong. His so-called feeling like he’s a woman had NOTHING to do with identifying with actual women. If it did, he would watch movies with female protagonists, he’d have female friends etc. He would have felt himself a girl pre-puberty. Instead his desire to be a woman came from sexual fantasies, he told me how he would watch porn and imagine himself as the woman.

His insistence that female-only places are discriminatory comes from a complete lack of understanding of what it’s like to be a woman in the world. It is not discriminatory for women to want spaces where we can actually feel free, because like it or not, we are always restricted when around men because they are stronger and more aggressive than women, and are often looking for sex from women. Even a town with only females, or a business that hired only women, would not be discriminatory, because women are placed at that much of a disadvantage to men, just because of our biology. He didn’t understand any of this.

His insistence to be included in something he doesn’t belong in shows a lack of respect for women and our experiences. His belief that he’s feminine comes from a denial of actual women, who are the ones who are actually feminine. There are some men who are feminine, but he was not one of them. If he had knowledge of the way women relate to others, move around the world, engage in conversation, he would realize he isn’t feminine, but I guess he had never observed women closely enough to realize he isn’t like the majority of them. His trans-ness didn’t come from feeling like a woman in any way. That was all bullshit. It came from his own narcissistic desire, with a total lack of acknowledgement of actual women and that we are in fact different from him.

This made me realize how dangerous denying gender/sex is. Gender/sex affects all of us. With small exceptions, there are two kinds of humans, and the experience of being the two kinds are very different. His denial of this is childish and self-serving. He was a pretty cool guy in many ways, but this was a wedge that couldn’t be surmounted. This friendship made me realize that a denial of gender also means a denial of feminist issues. At the women’s march, there was a group of girls holding up a sign saying, “men are afraid that women will laugh at them, women are afraid that men will kill them”. I pointed to the sign and said it was true. He became offended. I told him I wasn’t talking about him at all, but that it IS a reality of being a woman. He just wouldn’t have it, he thought I was trying to make him feel bad about being male by pointing out that sign. I wasn’t trying to make him feel bad, I was just pointing out a sign that was true, should I have held back because he’s a guy and his feelings might get hurt? How are we supposed to have a conversation as a society about rape, sexual harassment, and violence, when men whine that their feelings are hurt when you point out that men do the majority of these things?

Since then I have also come to realize that a lot of people who transition do so because they don’t feel accepted as a gay person. For example, the singer Charice who has transitioned to being a man. When she first transitioned, I felt happy for her, because I thought she was finally getting to be her true self. Then someone pointed out the amount of abuse she got when she came out as a butch lesbian, and that transitioning to male was probably her attempt to escape that abuse. I am not inside Charice’s head, so I can’t say with certainty what is motivating her, but I think that person was probably right and that makes me very sad. So all of this combined with recent attempts to erase the word woman to say “person’s with uteruses” and the push to get anyone who identifies as trans on female sports teams etc etc, has made me realize this trans/ a-gender movement is erasing women, erasing us a category, erasing the protections we have, erasing gay people. I have realized that it is not a progressive movement at all, but another form of males getting to do whatever the hell they want at the expense of women.

Ethan Huff #wingnut #transphobia #homophobia #conspiracy naturalnews.com

As part of the trendy obsession with going “trans” these days, the LGBTQ Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has launched a “Safer Sex for Trans Bodies” primer that instructs the next generation of youth into the “proper” use of LGBTQ-approved names for trans people’s genitalia.

A “strapless,” the guide explains, is a term used to describe “the genitals of trans women who have not had genital reconstruction (or ‘bottom surgery’), sometimes referred to as a penis.” And a “vagina,” it further explains, isn’t something that a biological woman is born with, but is rather a “word to talk about the genitals of trans women who have had bottom surgery.”

So, what is a vagina now called on a biological woman? According to the primer, the proper terminology is front hole, which the guide explains “may self-lubricate, depending on age and hormones.” And as far as who has a dick, the guide says “people of all genders” may have one, as a dick is a “word to describe external genitals,” which can “come in all shapes and sizes.”

There’s also a section of the guide that offers tips about masturbation, including a section entitled, “SCREWING, SHAGGING OR MATTRESS DANCING,” which explains how this “safe” form of self-pleasure offers trans bodies the opportunity to engage in sex “without barriers.”

For more related news about LGBTQ perversion, be sure to check out Gender.news.

Transgenderism is a mental disorder, not an identity
As you might expect, Twitter was quick to condemn this Orwellian, and quite frankly disgusting, trans manifesto for basically hijacking the English language. One actual female user called out HRC for stealing the word vagina from real women, and giving them front hole instead.

“Wow, so trans women have a vagina, but us biological women have a ‘front hole,'” this user tweeted. “LOL these people are insane,” she added, referring to Amir Sariaslan, the guy from the HRC who first tweeted about his organization’s language guide.

“What in the fresh politically correct dystopian 1984 language control hell is this?” asked another Twitter user about the HRC’s attempted theft of common vernacular to suit a special interest LGBTQ cause that 99 percent of society would prefer not to have to hear about or deal with ever.

“Um, what point is there in downgrading the correct anatomical name for a born female’s genitalia to ‘front hole.’ I can’t even,” commented another disgusted Twitter user in response to the HRC tweet.

“I’m pretty sure we’ve arrived at the Singularity now,” joked another. Enlightenment has been a total black hole.”

Perhaps the most declarative tweet of all was one guy’s chastisement about how the HRC foundation “does not own language, fortunately.” He concluded this tweet by stating simply, “I have two specific words for them,” which you can figure out on your own.”

Theantifeminist #fundie emmatheemo.wordpress.com

Putting on make-up is the costly and laborious attempt by women to deceive men through means of false sexual signals the fake message that they are still ripe and pretty young girls.

Male masturbation is the simple, cost free, and extremely pleasurable relief of a primitive sexual urge in order that one can go about the day focused upon more important matters than the opposite sex.

A man can log onto a free tube site, and get instant sexual satisfaction through 10 minutes jerking off to good quality porn, yet the average woman spends a whole year of her life putting on makeup, spends over 100,000 euros during her lifetime on buying makeup in the knowledge that she won’t be able to attract a mate (i.e. have sexual satisfaction) otherwise.

Femitheist Divine #sexist thefemitheist.blogspot.com

Gender-based Abortion - Abort the Males

Gender-based abortion continues to exist for females all around the world. This female gendercide is based on the notion that females are innately inferior, or socially unworthy and or lacking of the potential for profitable intake.

The abortion of females based on gender all around the world, and even in America, effectively exemplifies the fact that many women are still indoctrinated, and many men are still pushing misogynistic agendas, both politically and culturally. These things must end if we are ever to achieve True Equality.

Now, the U.S. House has rejected a bill which would preclude gender-based abortion if doctors were to come across information regarding the person’s intent for the abortion. And, while I am pro-choice, I feel that the purpose of this bill was slightly misguided. It should be revised and legalized, and I will explain the reasoning for this.

The bill should be revised to include only abortions against female fetuses. Meaning, anyone who seeks an abortion because the gender of their fetus is female should be barred from having said abortion, and perhaps even criminally punished, depending on which half of the party came to this conclusion, assuming there are two present halves, for said desire. And, any doctor who performs an abortion for someone who wishes to dispose of a fetus due to the gender being female should receive criminal punishment.

On the other hand, anyone who desires to abort a fetus based on the gender because the fetus is male should be excluded from the bill entirely. This should be allowed. It is justified because women have proven to be the most profitable sex. They outperform men academically and in the workplace, and this is a trend which will continue to rise. Likewise, women are the greater minority when it comes to the committing of violent acts and crime.

[...]

Men, for many centuries, feared the education of women, and even stated that women were incapable of being educated, saying that they were “creatures of emotion without the ability to reason”. If this were the case, however, they would have at least tried to educate women to see if they had a potential for reasoning. They didn’t do this, because they feared that very potential. They knew all along that women could surpass them if they were given the opportunity, and they oppressed women for this very reason.

And, when women finally did achieve these opportunities, thanks to Patriarchal Manipulation for fear of a true awakening, women, overtime, did surpass men, are surpassing men, and will continue to surpass men until the true balance is overwhelmingly clear.

Save the females. Abort the males.

It is justified, it is necessary, and its premise is Undeniably True.

Thank you for your consideration!

Some TERFs #transphobia #sexist reddit.com

@VAPORMACHINESLTD2001

Why don't we see FTMs with AGP?
I don't see as many women fetishizing how much they want to have a big fat cock compared to males with AAP.

@hopefull21

I'd say they don't exist, I think the ones trying to become yaoi characters just don't like the idea of dating a straight man because of how they treat women, so they escape through a fantasy where all gay men are cute harmless boys. Some of those get grindr then complain, in their own spaces, that gay men won't have sex with them. They tend to stay in their communities because they aren't predatory and living out a fetish like men.

@Swarlolz

The devils best trick was convincing people he didn’t exist.

@hailcapital

Men and women are physically and biologically different, so there's no reason to expect that the underlying root causes for conditions like these or how the conditions operate are anything alike.

FTMs are also a lot less common than MTFs, I think the ratio is something like 1:3.

There do seem to be paraphilic reasons for transition, tho- in addition to fujoshis / fetishizing gay men, there are places like the subreddit FTMsPunished (don't go there), show paraphilic motivation.

@AcceptableTourist_

Same reason you don't see female transvestites, pedophile rings, etc. - paraphilias are very rare in women, some hypothesize that they do not exist in women at all.

@mushroomyakuza

Judging by r/detrans they also detransition and experience more regret.

@trmta

(For clarity, I’m female + lesbian) i think its due to porn, and i dont really like it, but i have had a gender shift fantasy for years. For a while the only way i could reliably get excited/get off was thinking of myself...not becoming male, but having the male experience i was watching (principally receiving oral)—but only ever with a ridiculously large dick. That in itself would turn me on.

this did make me wonder if i was trans, on top of some other things from growing up.

thankfully though i get that it’s...well, it’s just a fetish.

Edit: I’ll also add that yeah, this seems pretty rare. Ive asked about it and some amount of gay women also project themselves onto the male in straight porn, but i think it was/is deeper for me. Otherwise it very very rarely has come up even through looking. This is actually how i came to learn about AGP kind of organically, rather than through trans discourse. There were AGP forums so i started looking for AAP stuff. Not much out there, iirc.

@FlatCommunication5

“MtF people who transition because of intractable dysphoria but don't invade women's spaces or publicly engage in fetishistic behavior”

Where are they?

“Second, if we can't extend compassion to AGP males, then we drive them straight into the arms of the TRA”

When we aren't looking, they admit they're terrified of liberal women turning on them.

“(Yeah, I get that for any A*P person, transitioning is in some way publicly engaging in fetishistic behavior full-time, but let's acknowledge that there's a difference—in degree if not of kind—between the MtF person who dresses like a normal adult woman and doesn't bother anyone and the MtF person who dresses like a loli streetwalker and bothers incredibly uncomfortable shop attendants for help with bra fittings.)”

What about their wives?

"It's a matter of degrees" meh...

It's just a way to divide women in good & accepting vs bad. What if I don't want this normalized?

This attitude will drive more agps to transition, & not as a last resort. After all, they can rely on the good, welcoming women to tell the hysterical witches to calm down.

good luck expecting a man who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to transition to not become entitled. After all, if a dysphoric agp shows up in the women's bathroom, the good, accomodating women will tell the others it's better not to make a fuss. Remember, we went from "it's just a poor soul with gender dysphoria" to 9yo on puberty blockers in a nanosecond.

Considering how profitable transitioning is and how accomodating women are - and how diligent they are at disciplining unruly women - what is the incentive for the medical profs to research a treatment for AGP besides transition? There isn't.

@mhd0419

“do you really expect AGP males to care about anything we say”

They don't care about anything we say already.

I respect your moderate, compassionate tone, and practical attitude. It's possible that there is a minority who don't get a kick out of insulting and overly-sexualised porn-fuelled misconceptions about women, but from what I've seen they are a minority. The majority of them are freakish and pornsick, and lack humanity because they cannot see how insulting and harmful everything about their movement is to women.

I am not going to respect ANY of them until they start treating women with respect and advocating for us. Which they have never done and never will do.

commander_zoidberg & jeremyjimmy #sexist reddit.com

Things are only going to get worse. We're moving from a monogamous society to a polygamous one. Things will become more unstable going forward. Polygamous society's are inherently violent. Not only because completely untethered bored young men are a dangerous demographic but also because in a technological society beta rampages can become extremely bloody. Beta rampages such as those seen in Isla Vista and Toronto are becoming a pattern just like mass school shootings have since Columbine.

What happens when a highly intelligent and motivated sociopath decides to go on a beta rampage? A Brevik or a McVeigh character who is intelligent and motivated enough to do some real damage. So far the body count has been mercifully low.

Nor is society doing the right thing to try and placate and control these men.

These men are subject to dishonest advice and extremely condescending attitudes and in some cases are harassed and are having what few things they enjoy infringed on and destroyed by women. Many of those guys active on here if outed would likely be targeted by the outage mob and be fired from our jobs. In many countries men can not legally purchase sex to control their desires either. Meanwhile normies and feminists just drink from mugs saying male tears and complain about muh rape culture and objectifcation and other meaningless feminist buzz words.

I agree completely. Especially with being outed. Any time I write on here it's from behind around a VPN, 8 proxies, custom DNS servers and the Tor network. It's ridiculous that in a society built on free speech that a certain demographic can't express themselves. (The value of free speech to any crazy far leftists (I'm a liberal myself, not conservative) is for the poor to be able to escape poverty and shape the world to benefit themselves and to share their opinion on ANYTHING with others. Without that what else do they have? So keep fighting it because you're basically fucking yourselves in the long run. Oh wait, I forgot, most of your fathers are CEOs so you'll be fine.) Especially when one of the critiques of men is that they don't express themselves. "Only express yourself honestly if it's what we want to hear otherwise we'll literally ruin your life."

All the stuff you've written is dead on and used to be well known but everyone is behaving as if it's crazy. Usually governments start to shit themselves when young men start to become dissatisfied and start looking for solutions. It seems now that they just say "ew, those guys are just creeps and losers" thinking it'll socially shame others from becoming like that. Shame from females only works if guys have chances with the women doing the shaming. They've literally created a situation where these guys have nothing to lose. I'm trying to think of ways we can fix this without violating anyone's rights, mentioned it on another sub and just started getting sarcastic comments about sexism in return from so called liberals. They don't want to fix anything, they just want to dig a hole, throw their enemy into it and yell "NOW I'M TALLER THAN YOU! YOU'RE IN A HOLE!" No, shit for brains, nothing changed, you're still a bag of shit, just because you invented a reason to think someone else is a slightly smellier bag of shit doesn't suddenly make you desirable.

It'll all have to collapse at some point. There are too many of these young male groups getting together and just banning websites or blocking via the ISP isn't a solution. I think part of the root of this is the conflation between machismo and masculinity. There are basically zero healthy masculine role models in the mainstream. None. They can only be found online. It's because everyone seems to think that being masculine is the same as being macho, that it's a bad thing. (I think I remember some poll that found that really young boys feel ashamed to be masculine and male. What fucking kind of evil culture does that?) So it leaves half of the population in a weird, messed up position. Most guys are extremely unmanly which leaves women only seeing the hottest manly (inb4 "WHAT DOES "MANLY" MEAN? REEE") guys as attractive. I mean imagine a world where most women were pressured to act like guys and to only value masculine traits and hate femininity. You'd stop finding most of them attractive. That's the position a lot of women are in because of this anti-masculinity horse shit. Every single woman I know says they want a traditional life "eventually" but are scared to admit it in public "because it's sexist". Society is a complete mess of people behaving like animals while preaching to each other like (pseudo)intellectuals. The main problem with the left is that they like to pretend we're 100% rational yet they act in the exact opposite manner.

Out

Can't I discuss these issues? I did experience them, you guys are completely right. I want to try to help to end this shit. People lying to little boys about "romance" is causing a stupid amount of anger and suffering. Girls get taught the truth about male sexuality so boys should be taught the truth about female sexuality.

Epilepsy #sexist #crackpot incels.co

Foids don't feel fear and pain in the same way that we do.
They are aroused and excited by it.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

You underestimate how stupidly the foid brain has evolved to enjoy domination, fear, and submission.

Positron emission tomography has shown that reward pathways become activated in foids in response to pain and fear stimuli, whereas only logical areas of the brain activate for males.
Carfentanil is released in far greater amounts in the foid brain to negative sensations and pain, and their mu-opioid receptors activate to a far greater extent than male, creating a rush of pleasure like heroin.

Foids love feeling outrage, sadness, and anger. They love feeling pain, fear, and domination. They experience orgasms while giving birth and being fucked by large objects, both things that damage the body.

The foid brain is very maladapted and strange. It's irrational in the realm of pain and pleasure.
It's very possible that a foid may enjoy being killed violently.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Pain actually activates mu-opioid receptors in the human brain and releases carfentinil, but it does so in different areas for the male and female's brain. In the female, it is more connected with the reward pathways than the male's, where the receptors are activated in the logic-processing centers.

The beta endorphins released by pain are also regulated by estrogen, which magnifies its effect, whereas testosterone has no such effect. This acts like a heroin high.

A good percentage of women have experienced orgasm while under great pain, such as during childbirth. Also, when they are being fucked by horses, which damages their body to a great extent. So there is a real (maladaptive) connection between pain and pleasure for them.

It's not like the male where pain is just a net negative.

For the foid being murdered, it would be "painful" in a sense, but feelings of pleasure may overtake the pain to the point of orgasm.

Critical-Rationalist #sexist reddit.com

When no self-actualization process, no higher value and no collective achievements exist anymore because of the collapse of cultural norms, individuals tend to base their whole existence and build their ego around the fulfillment of their animalistic needs. On a biological level, this is what happens when the stress factor is removed from a species; individuals tend to excessively act on their animalistic urges (namely their two fundamental imperatives: sex and eating) and will discard anything that would prevent them from reaching these goals. It's precisely what happened in the mouse utopia experiment. It led mice in the experiment to become violent among males in order to have sex, and led females to have sex all the time, killing their babies, eating other mice and developing deviant sexual practices. In 2018 humans, this leads to abortions on a massive scale, cuckolding and pegging, as well as the end of every cultural norm that would hinder women's ability to act on their animalistic urges. This is why fat acceptance and female sex positivity are a sociocultural necessity for modern females.

The comment of this post is a symptom of this phenomenon. These people deny every cultural norm that allowed every advanced civilization, throughout the world and history, to exist. Virginity is an imperative in order to have proper pair-bonding, and thus a strong family unit that is the basis of human societies. But these people don't think of such things, they just constantly think about their animalistic needs and build their egos and their new culture around them in order to avoid becoming totally insane.

What they don't understand is that incels who post on this subreddit are, for a good part at least, aiming for self- actualization and fulfilled lives. They rightly consider that sex in itself with a whore (be it a prostitute or a modern female that starts to become Chads cumdumps in high school for validation and attention) would not help them achieving what civilized men strive for: self-realization through family construction. Self-actualization through discovering their ability to be a proper provider for a woman who they love and that respects them. An incel resents society because his "looks counterpart" of today will never be able to be such a woman precisely because of their lack of virginity and hence of pair-bonding.

By pushing this sex-positivity and denying the inherent virtue of virginity denying men and women a fulfilled life, degrading everyone in the process, these people destroy lives for selfish and animalistic reasons. They will shame incels for their current subhuman status, but it is them who are leaving humanity.

Critical-Rationalist #sexist reddit.com

image

When no self-actualization process, no higher value and no collective achievements exist anymore because of the collapse of cultural norms, individuals tend to base their whole existence and build their ego around the fulfillment of their animalistic needs. On a biological level, this is what happens when the stress factor is removed from a species; individuals tend to excessively act on their animalistic urges (namely their two fundamental imperatives: sex and eating) and will discard anything that would prevent them from reaching these goals. It's precisely what happened in the mouse utopia experiment. It led mice in the experiment to become violent among males in order to have sex, and led females to have sex all the time, killing their babies, eating other mice and developing deviant sexual practices. In 2018 humans, this leads to abortions on a massive scale, cuckolding and pegging, as well as the end of every cultural norm that would hinder women's ability to act on their animalistic urges. This is why fat acceptance and female sex positivity are a sociocultural necessity for modern females.

The comment of this post is a symptom of this phenomenon. These people deny every cultural norm that allowed every advanced civilization, throughout the world and history, to exist. Virginity is an imperative in order to have proper pair-bonding, and thus a strong family unit that is the basis of human societies. But these people don't think of such things, they just constantly think about their animalistic needs and build their egos and their new culture around them in order to avoid becoming totally insane.

What they don't understand is that incels who post on this subreddit are, for a good part at least, aiming for self-actualization and fulfilled lives. They rightly consider that sex in itself with a whore (be it a prostitute or a modern female that starts to become Chads cumdumps in high school for validation and attention) would not help them achieving what civilized men strive for: self-realization through family construction. Self-actualization through discovering their ability to be a proper provider for a woman who they love and that respects them. An incel resents society because his "looks counterpart" of today will never be able to be such a woman precisely because of their lack of virginity and hence of pair-bonding.

By pushing this sex-positivity and denying the inherent virtue of virginity denying men and women a fulfilled life, degrading everyone in the process, these people destroy lives for selfish and animalistic reasons. They will shame incels for their current subhuman status, but it is them who are leaving humanity.

komentajaleska #fundie komentajaleksa.tumblr.com

danfreefall asked: Question, because I'm woefully ignorant and honestly curious. If a woman wants to do porn is that bad? I understand that the porn industry itself is very insidious but I'm curious about what if a female of sound mind wishes to do it?

I really hate this question because what it does is ask me to participate in some exercise of imaginative pondering about a purely hypothetical situation, a situation that does not exist and upon which it would be a massive waste of time to dwell. People don’t often ask anti-capitalists (who are also anti-porn) “Well, what if some people want to work in sweatshops?” or “What if some people want to work in this exploitative industry or that exploitative industry for minimum wage?” Whether a few individuals working for a capitalist industry are doing fairly well, enjoy what they’re doing, are free to go whenever they want, etc. is irrelevant to class-based analysis, which must be applied when assessing the social, economic, and political harms of something.

Listen–go to my pornography, anti porn, and/or porn actresses tags and what you will read about is an industry so violent, abusive, greedy, and life-destroying that it will hopefully make you question whether such an industry is worth being salvaged. The porn industry uses “consent contracts” to avoid being prosecuted, lies and misleads about what they will have the performers do and how much they will pay, and gives the performers drugs and alcohol to get through scenes. Coercive conditions make consent impossible.

What happens is something like this: A woman signs a consent contract before she does her first scene. She can, theoretically, make a “no list” of acts she won’t perform or performers she won’t work with, but in practice she is really signing away her right to pursue legal action against the company she’s working for should she be violated in some way. When she arrives on the porn set, she expects to do a standard man/woman scene because that’s what her agent told her. However, there are 5 men on the set when she gets there, and the director tells her she has to have sex with all 5 men or she is not getting paid. She is also expected to do anal, and reminded that she signed a contract. She doesn’t feel like she can refuse, and most of all, she needs the money, so she does the scene.

This is rape, plain and simple.

Amateur, alternative, and """feminist""" porn companies all have the same problems as the mainstream companies. They are all driven by profit, the content they produce is often just as violent/hardcore because they have to compete with male supremacist, male-dominated markets, and the directors and producers do not care about the women who work for them.

You cannot buy enthusiastic consent. Even if you want to propose the best conditions, where the performers are treated well, paid well, not pressured to do anything they don’t want to do–conditions that absolutely no porn company on earth adheres to–the notion that women’s bodies and sexuality should be something men can buy, that it is acceptable to obtain a woman’s sexual consent that you would not get from her if you were on equal financial footing, is profoundly misogynistic and unethical.

This post sums up the problem with consent being something you can purchase:

on an economic level, if you pay women to have sex, there will be women who have sex not cos they want to but cos they need money. i don’t care if however many percent are supposedly economically stable women there by choice, if there is just one woman who isn’t then that is too many

on a social level, if you commodify sex, the resulting demands of the consumer will create standards based on what they want, and in a patriarchy those who make the demands are men, and so men control the sexual culture and women become and remain secondary participants

The sex industry cannot exist without rape, abuse, and human trafficking. There are simply not enough women who enter the sex industry “willingly” (as I’ve already highlighted that economic coercion is not consent, I use the word “willingly” loosely) to meet the demand that exists from male consumers, so pimps and traffickers find vulnerable women and children to help supply the demand.

Consider, for example, the case from a few months ago of Western porn sites buying videos of the rapes and sexual tortures committed against 280 Pakistani children. It’s easy for someone who knows absolutely nothing about the porn industry to dismiss this as a one-time occurrence of something really bad happening, but as a matter of fact, men upload filmed rapes and sexual abuse onto porn sites all the time. (See: revenge porn.) Since the rapes of trafficked women and children are sold to porn companies and the scenes that go on in “professional” porn studios are coerced and forced, there is no way around this fact: Porn is rape.

Filippovna #fundie therightstuff.biz

Be the Chad You Wish To See in the World

Marrying and having kids is one of the most arduous challenges our generation must face. Women are rushing to the edge of the cliff of their youth in droves, and falling to their ruin with a splatter at the bottom of their thirties, covered in bodily fluids, cellulite, and tattoos. Young men are seriously contemplating whether cartoons can be girlfriends, while the abandonment of monogamy and the tremendous risks of dating and marriage keep all but the top stratum of men, the Chads, from even chancing a relationship.

It is no wonder the word cuck hits such a nerve for so many. With divorce being initiated three times as often by women, resulting in her being awarded the children, and most of his income and his assets going towards her new family, the similarities are staggering. Even finding a marriageable woman comes with the high likelihood of her having a plethora of previous partners, men she bedded for passion and for fun, and having settled when she realized she needed to cash in her assets before it was too late.

Add to that the impending threat of demographic displacement, where White men have been granted the privilege of supporting other men’s families, as they are systematically bred out of existence, and it paints a picture of utter defeat to anyone who wishes to have a family of his own.

This is also why Chad receives so much bitterness and envy from the everyman. The highest caste of sexual fitness, Chad is a symbol of what most cannot have: access to the best women. Chad is stronger, cooler, more interesting, and most importantly, the only type of person impervious to many of the pitfalls of the sexual marketplace.

There have been varied approaches to this problem. One is for a man to go his own way, rejecting women altogether, and deciding to not play the game if the outcome is likely losing. The problem with that is he does not get to reproduce. Another approach is to look toward a certain uprising, hoping that sexual disenfranchisement reaches maximum capacity within one’s lifetime, with the multitudes of six-and-unders overhauling the status quo entirely, and sending women back in time, back to the kitchen, while raising monuments and statues which read: THE INSIDIOUS VAGINAL JEW - NEVER FORGET.

The problem, again, is that they will likely not get to reproduce. And even if they do, the minefield of modern marriage is a gamble that makes shooting up a sorority house look like an appealing way to leave the world in comparison. The only way to win, it seems, is to become Chad.

Chad is not an individual, but an archetype latent within all men, not any specific mould or make, but rather characterized by how victorious he is in winning the attention of women. He is the superman of the principal imperative in life, and our relationship to him is like a Rorschach test for how close one is to realizing his potential--anything from jealousy, to disdain, to ambition. He is the sexual Volksgeist of our generation, and much like the literary hero, represents the psychological and physical battle of the most rudimentary of life’s quests.

There is no anguish and resentment reserved for any type of man as there is to Chad. Few Wojaks cry bitterly when contemplating the disheveled genius or the legacy of the celibate inventor. As comforting as denial would be, having access to women of the highest quality and quantity is supremely important.

This means that in order to be a Chad, a man must be appealing to the nature of women. The same creatures who wear fishnets and lingerie in public holding signs that say, “STILL NOT ASKING FOR IT“ are the ones qualifying a man’s SMV, not other men. If the majority of women consider a man a 4 out of 10, a 4 he is. This is a pill so black it burns down its own neighbourhood for a new pair of Jordans.

What women want in a man is difficult to discern, as what women say they want and what women actually want are not just different but contradictory, but it can easily be defined as masculine, or in other words, useful to women.

To men, women are primarily sexual objects. An ideal woman is beautiful, fertile, sensual, and pleasant. This is for good reason, as the other qualities of a woman are generally unexceptional. She is physically weak, her intelligence tends towards the mean, and in most cases anything aside from giving birth, men can do better. A woman has little else to bring to the table on a reproductive level than her looks and fecundity. Men must fulfill a much greater range of qualifications in order to impress a woman.

To women, men are kind of like tools. This is why one of their most commonly used phrases in online dating in 'Looking For' is “can fix anything”. Women are social cultivators of the male ability to subvert the material world, and can rarely advance their social standing in life without riding on the back of a capable man. Women coast on the status and power of men, men do all the work, and women reward men with what they do as sex objects, mainly acquiesce, sometimes enthusiastically.

Chad is, in a way, a multi-purpose tool. He may be funny, goal-oriented, successful, wealthy, or even under 6’2. But he is some combination of traits that women find useful, and carry the potential to help propel her social standing in some way. The antithesis to Chad, then, is a man who is useless. Look to the behaviour of teenage girls for a demonstration of the uncivilized, uncensored reaction to a man who is seen as useless--revulsion, cruelty, or fear, sometimes even at a simple hello. To women, these men aren’t just undesirable people, they may not even be men, or even human.

An interesting study to highlight this point is "Rape From Afar: Men Exposing to Women and Children," in which an unwanted display from a man even in the form of flashing can "have a significant impact on their lives and can be interpreted...he could also rape or murder them." A lesser man even showing arousal in a woman’s general vicinity can make a woman perceive the threat of rape or death.

There are very few perks of being merely a mediocre man, either. He may get to marry and reproduce if he is lucky. He will spend the entire relationship being tested ruthlessly, on the off chance he will lose his grip and give her an excuse to find someone else who is more useful. Many women will not hesitate to climb onto the back of a great man, only to stand on his shoulders and climb higher once the opportunity arises. This is not a comforting idea, but such is the fate of the average man.

Feminist influence in government has proven nothing more than the fact that women will act like women even in circumstances where they are permitted to act like men. Social degeneration leading up to and caused by female-led policy, just like the dating scene, has become much like a harem, as big daddy government coerces resources from men and families and makes it rain on his loyal voter base.

Being an accomplished or honourable man by the standards of men has little real bearing on the realities of the current year’s sexual marketplace. We are in a dysgenic age in which the same demographic of people taking the feel-good flamethrower of uncontrolled third world immigration to Europe are the ones arbitrating who gets to reproduce. Men with valuable things to offer the next generation are being pushed out of the gene pool, or out of the lives of their own children. Counteracting this is an incredible feat of overcoming the odds, but the other options are even more grave.

Chad is the very embodiment of overcoming the odds. He may not have done so on purpose, or worked very hard for it, but he has succeeded in making women believe that he has value to offer them. Whether we like it or not, Chad is the hero of the story of our modern era. He wins. Any approach to this archetype outside of aspiration and the will to power is self-defeating. We are living in a dystopian sci-fi novel, and just like in any story, the jealous foil who attempts to murder the hero always loses.

Various TERFs #sexist lipstickalley.com

(in response to an article about a trans woman who says that there are times and places where sexual objectification is fine and that, in those places, she WANTS to be objectified. For extra fundie points, note how many of them have ironic names.)

PhenomenalWoman: (because you're mentally ill)

OrganizedJen: They need to get some mental help. You are not a woman. That is why you are not objectified like we are.
They know you're a fucking man!

ashbee: Only a man would say that.

YoungBougieBlac: These people need mental treatment. [...] I'm tired of them including "people of color" in their arguments. Stop comparing trans and being black period full stop

wecarealot: Because you're a fucking man. Of course men think sexual objectification is fine because they're usually the ones doing it. And in this case, this person wants to be objectified because they feel they're a woman inside even though they're biologically male.

Corgi: Trans women stay wanting to believe that they are no different from people born female. Everything regular women find harmful and degrading they find empowering because it validates their identity. We all know they need constant 24/7 validation.

LazyDaisy: it's even worse because here you are, a marginalized identity putting forth this image and promoting this culture that's rampant among transwomen that them being sexually desired makes them "accepted" or even coveted in society and that somehow they'll replace ciswomen because they're sought for sexually. No. Get help, now. You're only doing a disservice to yourself and other transwomen by promoting your sexual objectification as something positive.

cosmiclatte: They're weird as hell. Literally everything bio women can't stand they love and envy us for. Most women hate being cat called because it's rude and they know that there's a possiblity they could be sexually assaulted but trans/non binary people that are jealous of females see it as a sign of admiration.

Unnie: This person is clearly MALE because only MEN don't find an issue with viewing women as sex objects.

coolgirlia: Only a man would think that the essence of being a woman is being sexually oppressed.

BambiGambino: Everything about the trans-movement advocates for violence against women and the silencing of our issues because they're transphobia and offensive.

LaDela: it doesn't surprise me that a mentally ill male-bodied trans "woman" would feel this way. Most of them feel this way. People like this are a danger to the public and especially to biological women.

talkign2much: This "wanting to be sexually objectified" is male thinking. He can't deny his maleness. He's a damn fool. Why did I bother reading this mess? I need a shot of mango juice to calm down and forget about reading about this fool.

Dr.Girlfriend: How is he qualified to talk about women's issues when he can't even get pretending right?

80sIcons: Women do not like being objectified. But he's a man and has no idea on what it's like to be a woman.

JenThePen: Only a man would say or think this.

Duckieee: only a biological born male would think this is acceptable. You might have the female body parts and pronouns but you still clearly have the mentality of a man.

Terry Mcginnis: I'm not surprised that a man thinks it's okay to look at others as sub-human and see only value in a person's look. This is why I subscribe to terfism.

locacoca: This just in: men don't know what objectification is, never have, never will and also they don't know anything about feminism.

These wypipo also think their argument is valid if they stick 'white, cis, able-bodied' in front of everything then woc and disabled women must think "Oh they must be right" because we have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

BotswanaB: He wishes straight men would objectify him like they do with real women.

Fetty Queen: Of course she wants to be objectified. She may have cut her dick off but she still has a male brain and men think this type of behavior is a compliment.

GeorgeSorrows: These people don't realize that biological sex is not just a matter of chromosomes. Sex has such a heavy influence on human physiology and that includes BRAIN physiology. IN GENERAL men and women don't process their environment the same way. That is, we may get to the same destination, but our pathways there will differ. This is not a matter of personality and socialization but a matter of BIOLOGY. Transwomen will still think like men.
The SRY gene expressed on the Y-chromosome makes SRY protein which is expressed in the testicles and in the BRAIN. Male brains differ from female brains
This is a FACT

IngaLou: Spoken like a true man! It seems like I never hear all these dumb things from transmen.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

Incel Wiki #sexist incels.wiki

Hypergamy

image

Hypergamy is the natural inclination for women to "trade up" in terms of looks, money, and/or status. In a social environment which seeks to free human sexuality from cultural influence, women become more hypergamous than men because they are naturally sexual selectors. Today, sexuality is very liberated, and women are extremely hypergamous, moreso than men, to the point of causing increasingly rampant inceldom among the male population.

Modern women are always calculating whether the gains from a new relationship will off-set the losses of leaving an old one. Femoids are consistent in analyzing the value of their partners relative to the available pool of men. Women judge social expectations as a cost when leaving a partner. Modern society makes promiscuity less of a negative, so women are more likely to jump ship when ready.

In non-human animals, this phenomenon is referred to as Bateman's Principle. Opposition or aversion to hypergamy is sometimes called 666phobia.

80/20 Rule

image
Women rate 80% of men as below the average of all men, source: Okcupid

An internal okcupid study revealed that the vast majority of women only consider about 20% of men to be actually attractive in looks, and irrationally evaluate 80% of men brave enough to show their mug on a public website as below the average of all men.[1] In the most popular dating app Tinder, people have found out that “the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men".[2] Because women are sexual gatekeepers their preferences decide the dating scene.

Okcupid deleted it's internal studies showing how women view 80% of men as below average etc... after the Alek Minassian attack but many archives exist including the ones cited above.

Personality Doesn't Override Hypergamy

A common normie counterargument to lookist theory would be that women aren’t as visual in real life as on apps, and that you can display a bit of personality when approaching a woman, thus overriding hypergamy. Other studies, however, stress on the notion called the “halo effect,” in which your perceived personality could be in correlation to how you look[3]. For example, men are commonly told to be funny to attract women. In reality, it is not the case that being funny makes you more attractive. Instead, being attractive makes you appear more funny[4] and judged less harshly/not seen as creepy in weird situations[5].

Even in real life, you have to surpass a certain looks level for a woman to even desire you intimately. There has to be physical attraction at first for a relationship to be initiated. While women say that personality matters more than looks, their decision indicates that they value looks first and foremost[6].

As a result, we can conclude that since females do not regard the vast majority of men to be physically attractive, them being sexually free results in sexual inequality, since only a few men would be actually desired by women. The other 80% have to make up heavily with status or money.

GINI coefficients

A study which analyzed GINI coefficients in human relationships found that, “single men have a higher Gini coefficient (.536) than single women (.470). Thus, female sexual partners are more unequally distributed among single men than male sexual partners are among single women”[7]. Famous sexologist Kristin Spitznogle says this is proof that Bateman's Principle now applies to humans.[8] A separate study of Tinder found that Tinder's GINI coefficient between the genders was on scale with the income inequality of third-world countries (see chart below).[9]

More and More Males Are Becoming Celibate

Here is a graph from Lyman Stone of the Insitute for Family Studies that shows that male celibacy is rising much faster than female celibacy.[10]

image

Since looks are the main factor in leading to sexual attraction, we could make the assumption that females are simply not appreciating the facial appearances of most men and not giving their sexual favors to them frequently.

How women chase Chads

The cock carousel is a phenomenon that is associated with hypergamy. In theory, women would chase as many Chads as possible, chasing the 666 rule, during their prime years before settling with a betabux.

image

Dual-mating strategy

One particular UCLA study states that, “a great deal of the evidence indicates two overlapping suites of psychological adaptations in women: those for securing long-term , cooperative social partnerships for rearing children and those for pursuing a dual-mating strategy in which women secure a social partner and engage in selective sexual affairs to gain access to good genes for offspring”[11]. The lack of loyalty with a dual-mating strategy begets the feminine imperative.

Translation: women (programmed to search for the best genes) have tendencies to fuck the Chads first, and once they become completely used up and hit the wall, search for a betabux to attain financial security and actually raise children with.

It’s OVER if you’re not Chad

image

Normalfaggots love to state that since ugly/average men can get women, the female species isn’t always displaying hypergamous behavior. This is so wrong on many levels, since women at heart always want Chad and will leave anyone for him once they get the chance.

“Women whose mate value increases substantially will become (1) more emotionally dissatisfied with their current partner, (2) more likely to evade a partner's mate guarding efforts, (3) more likely to cultivate backup mates, (4) more likely to initiate new relationships with higher mate value men, and (5) less inclined to stay with their current partners”[12].

Another study showed that women orgasm more frequently when having sex with attractive guys than with non attractive guys[13]. This shows that women are very likely to keep pursuing Chads for maximum sexual pleasure.

Further proof

A study that analyzed changes in the distribution of sex partners from 2002 to 2011-2013 showed that compared to 2002, top 20% of men (in terms of LMS) now had a 25% increase in sexual partners, and the top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners. The study commented that “no significant changes were identified among women in the top 20% and top 5%, overall, and among subgroups”[14].

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

...

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

...

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.
3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]
they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]
they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

...

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

...

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

Daniel Amneus #fundie fisheaters.com

[From a book titled "The Garbage Generation" hosted on the linked website]

What IBM thinks of as the promotion of equality is better understood as the undermining of hypergamy, one of the pillars of the patriarchal system. Hypergamy, or the "marriage gradient," means that women "marry up," men "marry down." A cinder girl may hope to marry Prince Charming, but a chimney sweep cannot hope to marry Princess Charming. A male doctor might well marry a female nurse, but a female doctor would hardly consider marrying a male nurse. The female nurse may be underpaid, but in the marriage market her prospects are better than those of the female doctor because there are more desirable males she can hope to "marry up" to.

...

IBM's question implies that society's arrangements tilt in favor of males. The fact is that society's arrangements produce more male winners and more male losers. One principal reason for the success of the male winners is the knowledge that they might well be losers: they must earn their success and are motivated to earn it partly by the greater risk of failure. IBM proposes to intervene in society's arrangements to confer benefits on females which will increase the number of female winners without increasing the number of female losers. What will increase is the number of male losers, since the male engineers will be competing not only with each other but with females enjoying a conferred advantage denied to males. Another question:

WHICH ONE WILL BE PRIVILEGED TO ATTAIN STATUS BY MARRIAGE AND WHICH ONE WILL HAVE TO EARN IT FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF BY WORK AND SELF-DISCIPLINE?

With IBM interfering with "market forces" this question might have to be re-worded: "attain status by marriage or by IBM's largess." As IBM offers women more status, marriage has less to offer them-- men have less to offer them. Men's marriageability is decreased because they have relatively less to offer women; women's marriageability is decreased because they have fewer men to "marry up" to. As IBM transfers status from those more dependent on work and self-discipline to those less dependent on work and self- discipline, men will become less motivated, since the rewards for work and self-discipline are reduced. The effect, though at a higher level of income, will be what is observable in the ghetto, where women enjoying the handouts of the welfare bureaucracy and become economically and status-wise independent of men, with the consequence that large numbers of men become de-motivated and less marriageable.

Two more questions:

WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO DIVORCE HIS/HER SPOUSE? WHICH ONE WILL HAVE HIS/HER LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF FIVE IF HE/SHE IS EDUCATED AND ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT?

...

Let's project IBM's program into the future. Let's suppose the wearers of the blue and pink booties grow up and both become engineers. Then:

WHICH ENGINEER IS MORE LIKELY TO BE CHILDLESS?

IF BOTH MARRY, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM HIS/HER SUPERIOR EDUCATION?

Virginia Woolf thought as IBM thinks: families would make great sacrifices to educate their sons, few sacrifices to educate their daughters. She failed to understand the reason: education enables sons to have families, to provide for wives and children who would benefit from the sons' education economically and by the transmission of the knowledge and the values embodied in the education. Educating daughters does not enable them to provide for husbands, and greatly decreases likelihood of their having stable marriages. The birthrate of educated women is far lower than the birthrate of educated men. (Ms. Woolf herself was childless, as are most feminists.) What Bernard Lentz says of professional men and women of the period l890-l940 is true of other eras:

Even for the "superperformers" [the most successful professional women]...marriage still led to diminished success, resentment, and a distracting tension in their personal lives. In contrast, men at this time found marriage had numerous advantages in their climb up the professional hierarchy....

Ergo, society has a greater interest in encouraging and furthering the education of males. Educating a boy enables him to have and to support a family, to give children an advantage in life, to transmit family values and strengthen the patriarchy, to create social stability. Educating a girl enables her to escape marriage, or if she marries, to escape childbearing or to have a smaller family. Education, which increases her independence, will enable her more easily to expel her husband and inflict upon her offspring (whose custody is virtually guaranteed her) the disadvantages accompanying fatherlessness. Feminists see these options as desirable, but why should IBM or the rest of us see them as desirable?

...

Feminist-economist Dr. Barbara Bergmann offers a little paradigm-story about Pink People and Blue People earning their living by picking berries on an island. Like women and men in our own society the Pinks and Blues have sex-segregated occupations. Dr. Bergmann thus illustrates "the crucial point":

If a group is segregated and furthermore is crowded into a relatively narrow segment of labor-market turf, its members will as a result be less productive, and their economic rewards will be lower.

(It is a sufficient refutation of this to point out that Senators are a segregated group occupying a narrow segment of the labor-market turf, but they do not suffer from low economic rewards.)

...

If men cannot outperform women they will not perform at all, and society will be lucky if male energies are merely wasted in narcissistic display rather than in disruptive violence and machismo. A man with nothing to offer a woman save a paycheck the size of her own is impossibly disadvantaged. He will know, and his wife will know that he knows, that the words "I don't need you, Mister" are always at her disposal and, thanks to the anti-male bias of the divorce court, she has an authority in the family greater than his own. Patriarchal capitalism prospers because it creates an arena of work wherein males are allowed to succeed and create wealth and where they are motivated to do so and rewarded for doing so by the satisfactions of family living.

...

Ms. Wattleton's pitch for "reproductive rights" and Dr. Bergmann's pitch for taking better jobs away from men to confer them on women come to the same thing: men are excluded from meaningful participation in reproduction. Men become superfluous members of families. The basis of civilized society is that men shall share equally in reproductive decision-making, and shall earn the right to do so by working. The program of feminism is to deny men this right by undermining the sexual constitution, the Legitimacy Principle, marriage and the family. When they talk about women's reproductive rights and about making women economically independent of men, this is what they mean.

shinbits #fundie christianforums.com

Women are also just as wicked, but are usually to scared to act on it. Like all the women who act in porn and do depraved things, and let depraved things be done to them.
Don't get me wrong, womanhood seems to have some extra special, God-given good sense. But they think of, do, and enjoy many depraved things.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

tl;dr: Legalize rape. Ban fornication. Old Testament got it right.

It is often said, and it is largely true, that women cannot get pregnant by rape. Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.

To get a woman pregnant, the sperm has to swim from the vagina to the womb, which is a mighty marathon race for something the size of a sperm. And between the vagina and the womb, there is the cervix, which is a pair of lips.

What are lips for?

Lips are for opening and closing entrance to an orifice. They are to keep out some things, and allow entrance to other things.

So that sperm is not going anywhere unless those lips open.

If you touch a woman’s cervix and it is not her fertile period, the lips feel hard closed, like the lips of a woman’s mouth when you go for the kiss too soon, and do not permit her to turn her head away, so she purses her lips against the kiss.

If you touch a woman’s cervix in her fertile period, it is like touching the lips of a woman’s mouth when she is ready to be kissed. They feel like they are about to open, and if you keep on diddling her pussy, they do indeed open.

It seems likely that if a nice guy were to touch those lips, he would feel them hard, as if the girl was not in her fertile period, but being an asshole, I have not been able to do that experiment.

So from the point of view of natural selection rape is not a problem for women. Women have control of who can impregnate them. She has lips where it counts.

Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.

Observing female behavior, many of them do not seem to be trying very hard to avoid rape. One does not see businessmen wandering in dark and sketchy places with two bulging wallets half falling out of their top pockets.

If you see a woman in a laundromat late at night, and there is no one around, it is always a single woman. A husband will usually put his foot down and forbid the risky behavior that women so easily engage in.

Emancipating women means treating female consent as more meaningful than it actually is. Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want. Their sexual choices are erratic, incompetent, inconsistent, incoherent, and frequently self harming. They lack agency.

“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.

Similarly, college girls get chewed up and spat out by the cock carousel, so we fetishize ever higher standards of consent for college, when the problem is not lack of consent, but a superabundance of foolish and self destructive consent. The problem is not lecherous college males, but lecherous college females.

Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

However, safe forms of corporal punishment, such as whipping a woman on the buttocks or the upper back, should not be considered harm when done by proper authority, such as husband or father, for proper reason.

Nor should sex without the consent of the woman be considered harm of the woman in itself, since female consent is erratic and mysterious even to the woman herself, but rather, sex with a married or betrothed women should be considered harm against the husband or fiance, and sex without the permission of the father should be considered harm against the father – illicit sex should be a crime against the man who has proper authority over the woman.

And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

Miguel #fundie theantifeminist.com

Ephebophilia (or ‘hebephilia’) is a word commonly bandied about online by individuals wishing to differentiate between men (like themselves), who are attracted towards underage teenagers, and ‘paedophiles’ who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Of course, the media, and the legal system, makes no such distinction. However, many who would champion the right of men to have sexual relations with girls currently under the age of consent feel strongly that if this distinction was more widely known and accepted then it could facilitate a more reasonable public discussion on the age of consent and the laws and punishments relating to sex with teens. Paedophiles are evil perverts and beyond the pale, but ephebophiles? Well, they are not so very different from the average red-blooded man – they just like their women a little bit younger. Yes, they are suffering from a clinical disorder, as paedophiles are, but it’s not so harmful and they are a lot closer to the normal spectrum than subhuman paedos.

So is ephebophilia a real thing? Does the concept serve any useful purpose in the context of the feminist war upon male sexuality and age of consent issues in particular? And am I just as much as a hebo as some of my former readers who have championed the label in the past, such as ‘Human Stupidity‘?

As regulars will know, I’ve made a point of strongly disavowing the very idea of ephebophilia. There are two good reasons for this.

Firstly, my experience of ‘ephebophiles’ both here and elsewhere online. Self-identified ephebophiles tend to be universally 1/ clearly autistic 2/ tactically clueless 3/ prone to paedocrisy and even 4/ Left-Wing and pro-feminist (obviously some exceptions, such as HS) and certainly ‘anti-misogynistic’.

To put it bluntly, based upon my experience, such people are worse than useless in the fight against the Sexual Trade Union. I’d rather go into battle against an Isis horde with only a dozen disabled, pacifist, transgenders alongside me than these creepy ‘ephebophiles’. Hell, I’d rather take on a handful of Russian Ultras with a thousand English football hooligans to back me up. That’s how pathetic these aspie hebos are when it comes to the street fight we are all in.

Secondly, I see no strategic advantage whatsoever in embracing the label of ephebophilia. ‘Hebos’ are so clueless that they really do believe, in their aspie naivety, that the same hysteric mobs who burn down the homes of pediatricians will take kindly to a group defining themselves by a slightly different Ancient Greek term meaning ‘ perverted love of underage girls with hair and perky breasts’.

Of course, this isn’t quite fair. Ephebophilia means ‘love of youth’ (form the Greek word for youth – ‘hebe’). And the attraction to young post-pubescent girls is indeed normal. The point is, to paedohysterics, a word doesn’t change a thing. David Futrelle, child snuff porn apologist and paedocrite that he is, is right to mock the idea that it could ‘win over’ feminists or the paedo hating population at large. In fact, it could make things very much worse. I have spoken here before of the fact that shows like ‘To Catch a Predator’, and ‘anti-paedophile’ vigilantes such as Stinson Hunter, nearly always target men who are trying to have sex with girls only a little under the age of consent. They never try to entrap real perverts and child molestors.

The reason why we have this insane moral panic over ‘paedophiles’ is not because perverts who molest 5 year old children are hated. It’s because society hates and fears even more the normal men who break age of consent laws by having sex with nubile young teens. Paedocritical men are shouting at the bulge in their pants at the thought of climbing into bed with a sexy 14 year old, and all the legal consequences that would follow for them, and paedohysteric woman (and feminists) are shouting at the millions of men who would not even hide the bulge in their pants and openly pursue teenage girls if it wasn’t for the law, the shaming, and the feminist induced hysteria over ‘paedophilia’.

It is true to an extent that establishing the concept of ephebophilia in mainstream discourse would help to clarify what real paedophilia is and isn’t. Real paedophilia is a psychological perversion involving the sexual preference for pre-pubescent children (in today’s USA, that means girls under the age of 10 or so). But at the same time, I see absolutely no advantage in replacing one clinically defined pathology with another. Anti-feminism is the fight against the feminist suppression and pathologizing of normal male heterosexuality. It is normal for men to be sexually attracted to females who have started puberty and who have the maximum number of fertile years ahead of them.

Ephebophile activists believe they can identify themselves as a group and fight for and eventually win their sexual rights, just as gays (supposedly) did. No they can’t. However, MEN can perhaps reclaim their sexual rights against feminists. Only normal, heterosexual MEN can win in the fight against the war on male sexuality.

With all this said, however, I wouldn’t be honest not to add my own personal experiences over the last couple of years, and describe how they have perhaps enabled me to look at the ‘ephebophile question’ in a new and more nuanced light. For some time I’d largely given up on dating. I was getting older, I was still introverted and awkward around the opposite sex, and in any case, as ‘the Anti-Feminist’ I saw all women as rapists, every one of them limiting male sexuality in order to futher their own selfish sexual ends. Walking down the street and smiling at a pretty jailbait as an act of defiance was the limit of female involvement in my world.

For over two years now I’ve been spending the majority of my time in Eastern Europe. As most readers accept here, Slavic women are much more feminine and better looking than their Anglo counterparts, with Russians at the very apex of the female beauty pyramid. Furthermore, they age rather differently too. Yes, of course any normal man would be attracted to even an average Russian 15 year old girl, but the ‘Manosphere Myth’ that I’ve criticised here in the past regarding peak fertility and women reaching their maximum attractiveness at 21-25 isn’t so implausible when you constantly see such stunningly beautiful long legged slim women in their early twenties all around you.

In Eastern Europe I don’t get the achingly painful sense of regret at seeing a pretty 14 year old girl and thinking that by the time she is legal, she will already be losing her youthful charm and beauty. The fact is, in the UK, and even in countries such as France and Germany, the majority of girls are burnt out, bitter, overweight slags by the time they reach 18. Because of diet, lifestyle, and genetics, even pretty 14 year olds do start to lose it by the time they are off to university. In Eastern Europe, puberty arrives a little later, lasts longer, and everywhere you turn there are 20 year old women who are ravishingly beautiful, have perfect skin, possess the long slim legs of ballerinas, and who wear elegant fashions with a graceful air.

Furthermore, I’ve fallen in love with at least a couple of such specimans. One of them is now 26. I have seen photos of her when she was a teenager and the curious thing is she didn’t look anything special even at 17. By 21 she was modelling, and even now as she approaches her 30’s, I get jealous looks constantly when I am with her, even in a city where HB8s are the norm. Even the likes of Krauser PUA would give me a nod of respect if he saw me with her. Look closely and she has crow feet developing around her eyes. Her skin is no longer perfect. But if I could re-wind time I would not wish her any younger than 21. And it’s not down to make-up either. I have seen her without, and she is still beautiful, and more beautiful than she was when she was a schoolgirl.

Another of my girlfriends is 20, and very pretty. She still looks like a teen, and even behaves like one in many ways, though thankfully more in a cute than insufferable manner. Although beautiful, I do not recieve so many jealous looks when I am with her as when I am with the woman who is a good deal older. This girl, I only met recently. I have seen photos of her when she was 18, and she looked almost perfect. I would have liked to have known her then, and I would still not object to a girlfriend such as her who is 16 or 17. However, in Eastern Europe the age of consent is not such a weighty issue given the mass of beautiful females aged above even 18. And this is probably why paedohysteria is primarily an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.

So in the light of my experiences, how would I finally appraise ‘ephebophila’? As to whether it is a real thing, I am both more and less inclined to say yes. Despite my disavowal of the term here in the past, I somewhat suspected that I might be ‘a little different’ to the average man. Not just in being honest about attraction to young teenagers, but perhaps more strongly attracted than most. Although partly right, I think I had simply fallen into the same mistake that I’d rightly accused self-identified ‘ephebophiles‘ of making. The honesty to accept that teens are attractive can lead you to identify yourself, even subconsciously, as ‘somebody who is attracted to teenage girls’ and different to other men, and to somewhat ignore the charms of slightly older females. And this is compounded by the disgraceful state of femininity in the Anglo-Saxon world, a world in which the only feminine and loveable girls left are indeed mostly under 18.

If ephebophilia exists, therefore, it is not a clinical disorder, such as real paedophilia is, but rather a situation in a man’s life brought about by feminism and the state of women in the Western world.

And as a badge, it’s still tactically clueless and aspie.

My experiences of falling in love have also altered somewhat my views on ‘normal male sexuality’ in the sense that I now give more value to the merits of sex within a loving relationship. Of course, I am not now claiming that the female monogamous system is ‘right’ for men. I am currently in love with two beautiful women, and I think I have emotional room left for a couple more as well, hehe. All I’m saying is I no longer mock the notion of love, and that sex with love is, after all, something that every man should be able to experience as part of a happy life. I also look at porn less, and so I have to admit, I am closer to Eivind Berge’s view that real relationships are better than fapping. However, I still feel that he doesn’t understand the dangers of giving the slightest credence to feminist arguments against porn. And also, not many men can have girlfriends as good looking as his, and not many men approaching 50, as I am, can walk down the street with a beautiful 20 year old, or a HB9 26 year old, as I can. Porn never stopped me having relationships. Rather, it was a life-saving substitute in fallow times. It also helped to keep the flame of desire alive as I sank into middle-age.

And that thought leads nicely onto a final word regarding my contribution to men’s rights activism and the lack of updates on this blog. Yes, I am in some ways happier and more content than before, and therefore no longer feel the need or have the desire to carry the stress and time commitment of regularly posting articles here. It’s also true that I certainly no longer feel any personal pain at current age of consent laws. I would certainly be satisfied forever more at having relationships with beautiful Slavic girls aged 16 above, or even 18 above. But this certainly isn’t the reason for my lack of involvement in men’s rights. I still maintain that the ‘age of consent’, or more correctly, all the many issues that revolve around it, as part of the wider assault upon male sexuality by feminists, is the leading men’s rights issue. But perhaps I am less inclined to maintain this site, just when I am finding some happiness and sexual satisfaction, to cater to disloyal self-identified ephebophile readers such as the likes of Jon or Human-Stupidity, themselves prone to paedocrisy whenever it suits them.

fschmidt #fundie love-shy.com

You miss the real reason women oppose prostitution. They oppose it because prostitutes are competition. American women are utterly repulsive human beings. The only reason that a man pursues an American women is for sex. American women have nothing else to offer, certainly not their horrible personalities. If prostitution were legal, American women would not be able to find husbands and thereby get alimony and child support. The European system is different. While in America, women are supported by enslaving a husband, in Europe women are supported through taxation and forcing companies to hire incompetent women. Since women can suck men's money via the government in Europe, they don't depend on a husband, so prostitution poses less of a threat. This is why women tolerate prostitution in Europe.

BlkPillPres #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

Alia_Harkonnen #sexist reddit.com

Female Personality Evolution

Despite most of them being fuckable, women have to compete too. Every woman wants to not be like other women but her ability to climb up the ranks of uniqueness depends on many factors, such as her intelligence, looks, environment, inborn personality, creativity, and more. This list is quite simplified but it helps define female evolution from its simplest forms to the most complex ones.
Goal is simple and universal to all but the last type: “To maximize number of sustainable high quality orbiters and to obtain the greatest possible appreciation and commitment level from the best available Chad.”
LEVEL 1: Basic Stacy
Life revolves around being validated on social media, make up, identifying with Beyonce's songs, and Chads cock. When eventually too old for Chad to keep on fucking, she sells herself to the highest bidder, has kids, gets fatter, dies.* Chad of Choice: Justin Bieber
*keep in mind, if attractive enough, she doesn’t have to compete with anyone below level 8. Especially in Gym Stacy version, which is Basic Stacy attending gym.
LEVEL 2: Basic Stacy Deluxe
Same exact script but with some thought put into rationalizing and romanticizing it to sound deeper than it is. For example, social media obsession is actually her networking or being artistic, and the top 40 songs she identifies with are ballads sang by crap female singers with great vocal range such as Adele, which in her social group counts as having a taste. Will finish college and have some type of career in something like education, and if she ends up purposely unemployed with kids, she'll base her decision on research. She likes Chad because of his confidence and personality and when she gets pumped and dumped she'll actually overcome an abusive relationship. Chad of Choice: Christian Grey
LEVEL 3: Good Girl
Average in every single way, and less attractive than her Stacy friends without actually being ugly, she usually went unnoticed. She appeals to men by being decent and stable, which is what many look for especially in comparison to her friends who can get sponsorships just for fucking around. Often from religious or at the very least overprotective families. She doesn’t drink, doesn’t do drugs, doesn’t sleep around, is average in school, wants to marry and be a mom, and soon enough when removed from school setting where she’s surrounded by more flashy girls, she finds men who are very happy with this offer. What these husbands to be don’t understand is that they bore her to tears, that she dreams of the same Chads who fuck her best friend she’s living vicariously through, and that the only reason she isn’t living it up is fear. She’s a ticking time bomb that will blow up and result in an especially shocking affair, divorce, and sexual exploration (drunk orgies) later in life. Chad of Choice: Her beta boyfriend’s alpha best friend or her best friend Stacy’s Chad
LEVEL 4: Basic Tomboy
Can range from attractive to ugly, this one is just smart enough to perceive than despite all the attention, men don't really value basic Stacy and her "interests", especially once in a relationship with her. Being interesting doesn’t come naturally to her due to complete lack of original thought, so instead of copying basic Stacies from her circle, she copies basic Norman/Chad in an attempt to get an edge over other girls by being more fun and in tune with the male brain. So she passionately follows sports, denounces anything fancy and girly, wears only natural looking make up, and forces herself upon a group of male friends who accept her because she lets them fuck her. The other part of her personality focuses on desperately trying to please every stereotypical male desire that stereotypical Stacy stereotypically fails at. This one is a treat for the right kind of guys since in her endless quest to prove how non difficult she is and how much she gets the male mind, she tolerates being cheated on, makes sandwiches, embraces porn, and takes it up the ass. Chad of choice: male best friend who is alpha in her pack - this one doesn’t annoy men with celebrity crushes, and they aren’t masculine enough for her anyway
LEVEL 5: Quirky fat girl
Unattractive enough when compared to 50% of Stacies around her, and not athletically or socially talented enough to be one of the guys, this one is under the impression she developed a personality. That means putting a lot of thought into standing out. Usually this is achieved through elaborate and irritating fashion choices such as wearing something from the 50ies or making a certain colored lipstick her thing. She also reads. Young adult fiction, of course. Thinks she's a bit of a geek cause she talks to her more nerdy male friends about Harry Potter and acts like she too has a crush on Emma Watson. Attempts humor a lot, think Amy Schumer. Men actually can't stand her but is a relatively easy fuck during her younger days which leads to resentment and turning to popular feminism later in life. Then she becomes a typical twox/askfemales poster explaining how women wear make up for themselves and how objectified she felt that one time when a drunk guy catcalled her although/because she knows he was actually addressing her friend. Has an office job and cats. Chad of Choice: supporting vampire character from Twilight whose fantasy gay relationships she writes fanfictions about (she knows the saga sucks but it’s her “guilty pleasure”)
LEVEL 6: Tomboy Deluxe (also known as The Gamer Girl)
Good looking and a bit smarter than the average tomboy, she doesn’t have to sell herself short to get an edge over basic Stacy. Claims to get along better with men but makes sure to look cute during. She wants her beta orbiters to really worship her and finds she can get more adoration from the romantic “nerdy” crowd. There she can also find Chads with better earning potential and more willingness to commit than when fishing among average jocks. Since she perfected the formula of mixing universally popular geeky interests (as long as they don’t require too much effort getting into) and cleavage, her ego is over the roof. This also makes her get bored of most men (never the attention though) which makes her sadistic until the right Chad comes along and makes her his bdsm bitch. Chad of Choice: The Joker
LEVEL 7: The Intellectual
Smarter than Gamer Girl, this one is actually able to read a book that isn’t young adult fiction and watch a three hour long black and white European movie where everyone smokes and feels unhappy. She gets some form of personal pleasure from it although mostly just because she knows she’s one of the rare ones who get it. Got into a decent college and will never miss the chance to mention her degrees, including during online arguments. Normally tries to get at least a few of those because being a college student is important to her identity. Is a more advanced level feminist, environmentally and politically aware, liberal, likes to think she’s cynical but is really just sarcastic when applicable. Worked hard to obtain resting bitch face and to appear as disinterested with everything as possible, including sex. Has few friends with benefits among her philosophy student male friends who validate her as a fascinating, smart and witty individual she’s not. Once they turn exclusive men tend to develop deep loathing for her, which is fine because she loathes them back. Chad of Choice: Her philosophy or English literature professor, at least until they finally have sex
LEVEL 8: Manic Pixie Dream Girl
Very beautiful face that always made men idolize her over slutty big tittied Stacies. Never really felt overly pressured to compete with women in her surrounding because men always fell in love with her whenever she smiled at them. Isn’t completely dumb but her energy is mainly focused on unproductive self analysis because everyone convinced her she's fascinating. What she needs validated is that this is really true, because on some level she knows that she is actually pretty boring. Her challenge is picking the right Chad worth settling for, and in the process she breaks many men’s hearts and egos. She doesn’t really know what to focus on and doesn’t like to feel like a bad person, so she deals with her hypergamy by creating a very flaky, inconsistent personality that mirrors adored and special types of women in popular culture. Often turns to drugs out of boredom but without seriously committing to them either, and develops existential depression every time she gets too settled into anything, because she is never sure if she’s missing out on something better. She looks for artistic talent Chads to provide what she herself can’t in her hopeless, exhausting attempts to be creative. Her taste in art boils down to her appreciating whatever is pretentious enough to make her think she doesn't get it. Chad of Choice: Lead singers from hipster bands such as Arctic Monkeys
LEVEL 9: The Unicorn
Had at least one big trauma or unhappy childhood which fucked her up, combined with receiving extreme adoration from men later in life. This created a fun mix of insecurity and ego, and a few mental disorders. She is usually a very sexually conflicted asexual. She has a good ability to at least subconsciously read people and she adapts her personality to mirror the fantasies of the men she is talking to. This is because she is always looking to be everyone’s everything. Her introductions are great, after which she enters a depressive phase and then goes into total destruction mode. Because she wants to leave a lasting impact without restricting herself to one person or one life, she does it by leaving scars so that they think of her even in her absence. She can’t fall in love with individual men, and is mainly solipsistic. Thinks of herself as completely emotionally empty and most likely is an addict, but can keep on bouncing back for a while due to everyone in the world wanting to support her. Chad of Choice: N/A
Level 10: Level 9 that manages to murder you and through it become the most significant person in your life while also being free of you and able to play the same crucial role in other people's lives. Role only reserved for a small percentage of female psychopaths, but if you're searching for one, places like this is where you find them so don't stop believing....

ElliotsSecondAscent #sexist reddit.com

[Summary: False dichotomy between "looks are completely irrelevant" and incel crackpottery. Conspicuously silent on numerical results. Also a "wonderful" demonstration of neochauvinists' failures at understanding biology and a nightmare to format.)

The Black Pill backed up by hard data and facts.

Preface:

All cursive text is not my own, they are quoted from the articles sourced under every title.

Black Pill Edition: Female nature
____
The relevance of personality as a petulant farce
____
Small Appetizer
____
Before we start with the more serious studies let me present you a small appetizer to stimulate the intake of the Black Pill.
____
A couple of years ago OkCupid conducted an interesting experiment. January 15th, 2013 was proclaimed by OkCupid as “Love is Blind Day” to celebrate the launch of a blind dating app released on that same day.

During “Love is Blind Day”, pictures were removed from OkCupid for a total of 7 hours and so data was gathered and the way people interacted with each other visibly changed!


As you can see, there was more and deeper conversation with an increase in exchange of personal information. A vast improvement for everyone! So, it seemed.

Here’s what happened next:

• When the photos were restored at 4PM, 2,200 people were in the middle of conversations that had started “blind”. Those conversations melted away. The goodness was gone, in fact worse than gone. It was like we’d turned on the bright lights at the bar at midnight.

Summarized in this graph.

Starting from the moment OkCupid released the photos, conversations died down almost immediately. The conversation life expectancy dropped nearly 30% just two messages later in the thread when the photos were back on.

There was another also another smaller experiment, that can be summarized by this excerpt:

• We took a small sample of users and half the time we showed them, we hid their profile text. That generated two independent sets of scores for each profile, one score for “the picture and the text together” and one for “the picture alone.” Here’s how they compare. Again, each dot is a user. Essentially, the text is less than 10% of what people think of you.

The second graph.

The text makes almost no difference on how you’re viewed.

Lastly, there was also the experiment where Okcupid let people predict personality based on profiles. In this case a beautiful picture strongly correlates with a beautiful personality when you let people be the judge. Third graph.

Conclusion:

Photos have a greater impact on the course of a conversation than the intimacy of that same conversation, which displayed the personality of both correspondents. The text added to your profile meant to introduce your characteristics, plays an insignificant role next to the photo. Your personality will be established in advance primarily based on your photo.

source: https://theblog.okcupid.com/we-experiment-on-human-beings-5dd9fe280cd5

What is beautiful is good, really good.
____
It's commonly known that "looks matter", but have you asked yourself the question: How much do they matter? Especially in regards to the widely and heavily emphasized personality?

Let us take a look in some more professional studies who have pondered this same question.
____
In the year 2015, a study in Italy (subject: social psychology) researched the effects of attractiveness, status and gender on the evaluation of personality.

quote:

• Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model.

I chose this particular study, because it's recent and the first of it's kind. A myriad of older studies have already concluded that perceiving a person as good looking fosters positive expectations about personal characteristics (1).

• The effects of attractiveness are strong and pervasive. As Langlois et al. (2000) underline in their meta-analysis, attractiveness is a noteworthy advantage for both children and adults in almost every domain. Based on the “what is beautiful is good” effect (Dion et al., 1972), several studies (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991); Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 2000) demonstrated that this phenomenon functions as a stereotype, making the perceived link between appearance and personality larger than the actual link

In short, attractive people are perceived as having far better personalities even when that isn't the case.

• Indeed, people seem to assume that positive interpersonal qualities and physical attractiveness are systematically linked (i.e., a “halo effect”) (Andreoni & Petrie 2008; Callan, Powell, & Ellard, 2007; Smith, McIntosh, & Bazzini, 1999).

Off topic personal note:

It’s not that incels have bad personalities, they are perceived as such because of their looks. Now you’ll say that we possess misogynistic and violent attitudes but ask yourself, was this behavior preempted by the way we were treated or did we grow towards it?


Now to the final closure of this particular study.

• In general, results are in line with the ‘beauty is good’ effect (Dion et al., 1972), as people seem to believe that physical attractiveness implies positive personality traits, but the effects of attractiveness are different for men and women.

The results came in as predicted, with the exception that there were differences for men and women. Attractive men were perceived as more extroverted and open minded than attractive women, creating an advantage for attractive men.

In other words, it’s better to be an attractive man than to be an attractive woman.

• For Extraversion the effect of attractiveness is the same for women and men but is stronger for male targets. Attractiveness has a positive effect on Conscientiousness only for women whereas it increases Openness only for men.

• Thus, overall the “beauty is good effect” seems to be greater for men.

I will not go too deep in the status aspect because it was stated as rather controversial.

source for the cursive text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/


Female nature
____
Excellent genes or providing ability
____
The covering of personality serves as a foundation to grasp in a clearer manner for what I am going to say next. Now, what does a woman want when looking for a mate?

Let's look at this from an evolutionary perspective.
____
Physical attractiveness and especially masculinity indicate good genetic quality, which is important for healthy offspring while ability to provide amplifies the survival rate of offspring because it needs sufficient resources to survive as well(2).

The reason why masculinity plays an enormous role in the mating choices of the human female, is because masculinity in itself greatly enhances physical attractiveness. However, a female's desire for strong masculine features may be influenced depending on whether she wants a long term relationship or a short term one on which I'll come back later.

• From an evolutionary view, extremes of secondary sexual characteristics (more feminine for women, more masculine for men) are proposed to be attractive because they advertise the quality of an individual in terms of heritable benefits; they indicate that the owners of such characteristics possess good genes. In other words, such traits advertise the possession of genes that are beneficial to offspring inheriting them in terms of survival or reproduction

Females may choose less masculine faces in some cases (for LTR) because they will often associate masculinity with infidelity, masculine men will not be perceived as good long term partners(3). A woman needs a loyal provider to raise offspring. Masculine men are still preferred for copulation however, because they possess the best genes to pass on.

• Increasing the masculinity of face shape increased perceptions of dominance, masculinity and age but decreased perceptions of warmth, emotionality, honesty, cooperativeness and quality as a parent.

YOUR PERSONALITY IS ASSESSED THROUGH YOUR FACE

This may be well and good, but women want men who possess certain personality traits too. Someone who they can form an emotional connection with is what they claim. Funnily enough, the way your personality is judged is through your face. You will not be liked for your personality but in fact for your face. People do not care for who you are but what you look like. As you already know: “The better your face, the better your so called personality”.

• Personality traits are reported cross-culturally to be among the most important factors in partner choice by both sexes [1,118]. If desired personality is so important, it would appear likely that personality attributions elicited by a face would affect its attractiveness. For example, women who value cooperation and good parenting may avoid masculine-faced men. Thus, instead of feminine faces being attractive and this attractiveness driving positive personality attributions, it may be that the personality attributions are driving the attractiveness judgements.

They are essentialy saying that your personality equals your face. Personality = Face

The meme is confirmed true.

• One study has indeed demonstrated that a desire for some personality traits influences judgements of facial attractiveness [121]. Individuals valuing particular personality traits find faces appearing to display these traits attractive.

Even when it’s not related at all, if your face looks like a certain desired personality it will be attractive to the person who desires that personality.

Being aware of this prospect makes women pickier than thought before. At first women emphasizing the importance of personality made them seem much less shallow since anyone, regardless of looks can possess a certain personality. Now it is not really a certain personality they are desiring, but a certain face that looks like that personality.

• Thus, desired personality influences perceptions of facial attractiveness in opposite sex faces, changing the result to: ‘what is good is beautiful’ [121].

source for the cursive text: : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130383/

THE INFLUENCE OF THE MENSTRUAL CYCLE

It's possible one could be thinking that none of this poses an actual problem because different women want different personalities, thus different faces. Following from that, most men should still have a shot.

Things are a little trickier than that, unfortunately.

During ovulation, when a woman is most fertile and the best moment for impregnation; her desires for masculine features increase significantly and so her chances for cheating in her quest for a sexy masculine man(4).

• Women prefer the smell of dominant males, more masculine male faces and men behaving more dominantly when at peak fertility than at other times in their menstrual cycle.

That’s not at all, during peak fertility they also prefer more masculine bodies and more masculine voices.

The perfect strategy for a female is to be impregnated by a masculine dominant man and be provided by less masculine more loyal and less dominant men.

• Cyclic preferences could influence women to select partners when most likely to become pregnant that possess traits that may be most likely to maximize their offspring's quality via attraction to masculinity or serve to help acquire investment via attraction to femininity.

source for the cursive text: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X07000360

For reference, from masculine to less masculine.

If you understand this, it’s far easier grasp how it comes that 8000 years ago when there was no civilization; 1 man used to reproduce for 17 women. I can only hypothesize the female copulated with the dominant masculine males while being provided by ignorant less masculine men(5).

Final conclusion:
____
You are not desired for your personality as man. You are desired for your looks, genes or ability to provide.

Fun addition:

It's been posted here some times before, but just to be sure.

http://www.webtoons.com/en/drama/lookism/list?title_no=1049

Black pilled fun to read manhwa.

APieceOfFemShit #sexist reddit.com

The majority of people are degenerates. Unfortunately, no one is going to settle with a non-traditional atheist woman with the values of a conservative. I will then be single and without PIV for life. Masturbation and phone sex has been my only savior.

Now that women are slutty degerates, pretty women are now dominating the market with their forever expanding vaginas because ugly women have no leverage whatsoever in the game anymore. They have not only enhanced their bueaty with technology, but raised the beauty standard beyond any attainable reality for even average women. The only way an average woman can compete is spreading like mayonnaise. Average and ugly women are now lonely, suffering, getting fucked over and chopping their fucking noses off to not be considered subhuman. For an ugly woman the only option is 'fuck now' or I'm leaving for Stacy or an upgrade. Men are disgusting animals, and dumbass Stacy's have surrendered over what little power women had while simulitaneously making men worse than they already were, men these days have no standards whatsoever and will fuck anything and ultimately undateable. STD's, pedophila, fascism, white nationalists, violant black people, false rape, insane religious fundies, misogynistic freaks, whores, slutty deplorable males and green haired women are destroying our society and you wonder why I don't #justjoinin.

In spite of popular believe a sexual experienced man that has lot's of casual sex lowers his value to floor. Degenerate men that run through the gaping vagina coursel that believe opposite are in for a rude awakening when they get tired and coming looking for something different. When Rome falls this sub will be the last one standing, and they won't be accepting degenerates. I hope you fuckheads are happy.

"Now that women are slutty degenerates, pretty women are now dominating the market with their forever expanding vaginas because ugly women have no leverage whatsoever in the game anymore. They have not only enhanced their beauty with technology, but raised the beauty standard beyond any attainable reality for even average women. The only way an average woman can compete is spreading like mayonnaise."

I don't think this is true or at least I hope it isn't

I guess it depends where you live or some of the femcels on here are way, way below average

Sorry, but I have seen plenty of below average women with boy friends it might be your dating pool or where you're looking but just because a female is not a stacy doesn't really mean its all over for them

I'm serious, maybe try online dating or find a church

Ugly women don't actually exist as people. They existed behind 'Stacys', who are the representatives of our gender. When STACY fucks up, we all fuck up. And now that Stacies and higher tier women are spreading like mayonnaise for dudes, they expect this of ALL women, and if not, hypergamously move upward to more attractive women they can get it for free from. Unattractive women in order to compete have to either give up sex early on or subject themselves to subhuman treatment in order to be considered an eligible candidate. Sure, there are some moids that will date an unnatractive, average, hideous women, but they have ran a TRAIN through mentally ill Stacy's that have fucked them up for life, turned them into miosgynists with subhuman views of women and now think they can get 'saved' by some lower-tier woman desperate for love and dick. They are in for a rude awakening. I certainly don't want those fuckheads.

And you know what drained out Stacy can still doafter making misogynists? Get a non-misogynistic man.

I'm an atheist. I have no fucking interest in church.

Nya Nya Jo #fundie edendecoded.com

As a woman, I have no desire to have headship in government leadership. I have many reasons for why I feel this way, but my primary reason is simple: just look at how women have handled leadership roles in this country so far.

The first thing women did with their power in government was fight for the right to kill and abort their babies via the US supreme court case Roe V Wade.

And if you follow closely where women have consolidated their 'fighting' power, it's been almost totally behind preventing babies from being born. As a Christian woman, wife and mother, I have a serious problem with that. Why do these select women think their power to be equal with men only resides in preventing life that grows inside of them? That's so oxymoronic!

It's so obvious that most liberal women want to be liberated from being women. At least biologically speaking.

Liberal women are not seeking liberation from men so much as they're seeking to be liberated from their Creator's design and the natural roles associated with that design. I wish they would just say that! Because every time I tune into liberal political news whether online or TV, there is always some woman crying about having the right to kill (abort) their baby or about having access to birth control to prevent pregnancy entirely. And then my mind always goes back to why on earth do women feel powerful solely through killing life? Is that how women exert their authority over men?

Women have become just as sick, bullyish and patriarchic in their thinking as the men they now negatively portray throughout all of media.

IN THE DEFENSE OF MEN, I know of NO law where men lobbied to be able to kill and abort their own babies. If men did such a thing, there would be an instant national public outcry. There'd be calls for even tougher anti-male legislation. Men would be accused of being deadbeats, whiners and responsibility dodgers. There'd be calls from pro-feminist politicians - both male and female - for men to just 'man-up' stop acting like wusses. Of course, I'm aware that in early America women didn't have the most basic right of 'voting' as their white male counterparts did, but that was what the women's suffrage was created to fix.

The Women's Suffrage Movement was solely created for helping women obtain the right to vote in elections. Nothing more and nothing less. And then it morphed into a political man-hating monster, now known as the feminist movement.

Look what women have collectively done with their vote since 1920. Nearly every major vote has come at the expense of disenfranchising primary children for their own self gain and reducing men to some type of effeminate puppet of the Left.

And as a result, these women are rewarded with the cosmic effects of all the havoc they've done to society and families. Hence why you have thousands of women dying from all types of cancers: breast, ovarian, cervical, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar. Have you noticed that each of these are connected to the female reproductive system in some kind of way?

You can't hide an insidious anti-god agenda behind the curtain of Women's Reproductive Health rhetoric. It's not about reproductive health; it's about reproductive death.

I thank God that I'm finally aware of the major lie that young women have been fed for generations. A lie that bitter older women and homosexual men - many of which are LGBT openly or secretly - have fed to the masses of young women.

Believing such lies will consistently put you in an early grave or give you a mentally and emotionally unstable life. And you'll end up endlessly searching for the next fleeting high in life through some random accomplishment in the workplace or through your career. (And if you do end up having children, you'll either abuse or neglect them by default.)

Think about it, you abort your babies - put off having children until in many cases it's too late to even have any - for a college degree and a paycheck that ultimately won't give you any comfort in your later years.

But guess what's in the pipeline for women like you... it's called Assisted Suicide: because that's what's next on the menu of lobbyists for women's healthcare. Those feeding these grand lies of 'women empowerment' know you will be riddled with all types of 'reproductive health' problems brought on via your abortions and birth control treatments.

Meanwhile, you'll be left with no one to care for you in your old age, and then your Women's Healthcare will conveniently provide you with what you voted for: assisted suicide. I can see the bottom of this slippery slope: and it's not a pretty picture!

This is what you invest in when you vote for death via abortion laws; laws that are designed to give you a false sense of empowerment over men.

Because let's be honest: feminist rhetoric has made it clear that women don't just want equal rights with men: they really want special rights OVER men. This is why abortion is the go-to subject whenever the topic of women's rights comes up.

The death you sow is the death you'll reap; because while you're supporting a woman's right to terminate her child's life during pregnancy, you're inadvertently supporting the devaluing of life for ALL people: yours included. And this will manifest through the coming push for assisted suicides for women just like you in the near future.

TarznanaWomen #fundie latimes.com

[Kayla Eland and Lindon Pronto say sharing a dorm room hasn't been awkward. The mixing of genders is a generational issue, Pronto says, and "Over the years, this division between men and women, which was so big, is slowly closing"]

What???? A non biological related raging hormone 21 year old male grossly immature to make such a comment. A young inexperienced women has a vagina, a male a penis, when mixed together just inches sleeping in close quarters is a 100% certain formula for rape, sexual harassment, compulsive masturbation and obsessing with a naked women you can hear breathing inches apart. A colossal recipe for disaster, pregnancy, failing grades, depression, emotional chaos that these youngsters won't be able to control, nor understand..biological anthropological reproductive hard wiring mating instincts override immature childlike undeveloped brains. What is with the Fathers of young college girls thinking it's okay for her to sleep with a man and think this will be an uplifting experience free from harm. Sexual drive does not change as these young fools profess, has nothing to do with some imaginary "division". Liberalism is a mental disease.

HARVARDCRIMSON12 #fundie constantsupervision.wordpress.com

What women hate more than anything is the fact that the “working world” isn’t easy. It’s extremely hard to balance a family, social, and work schedule. They’ve always had it easy. Sitting at dad’s home dreaming about sitting in another man’s home in a life of security that men gave her, of course. It’s like never leaving the womb. Women in general do not feel secure without a man. Again, it’s a crazy world out there and women refuse to realize exactly where they are – in a jungle. Men are not allowed to feel safe and secure. Men are constantly on guard and at work because women constantly need our supervision and protection. Yet, they mask this need for supervision with their constant need for attention and vice versa. If women need help they act like they love you. If they need love women act like they want their dad/boss. This is how they balance out being a woman, a weakling, and childish. They can’t escape this pussy ass lifestyle and it drives them insane. Penis envy is REAL. Jealousy of men’s bodies is real. They cover all that up by pretending to obsess over their own body, which they actually hate because there is no way to be a perfect woman. Women are still humans living in a violent world full of traps and jungles. They’ve made themselves dumb and weak on purpose, not because that it what men want from them, but because they are lazy and childish. You can become the greatest basketball player, the greatest mechanic, the greatest astronomer, and be proud of yourself, but 10’s come a dime a dozen. Being beautiful isn’t that hard and most so-called beautiful women aren’t even that good looking. They are completely fake. Nothing naturally beautiful about them. Yet, they all want to be the best looking thing on the planet, which won’t even last. An education lasts. Skills are usable. Women are trying to gain working and academic skills, but they have failed to do one thing. Stop waving their vagina around in the process. They can’t stop bending over and poking their ass out while at the same time claiming they are trying to stand tall and courageous.

BlkPillPres #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

The essential thrust of heterosexuality in the male is return to the womb. Since the vagina is the only pathway to the uterus, the vagina becomes the center of sexual attention. Sexual concern with other anatomical structures (such as breasts for the rectum) is quite beside the point, and a substantial segment of the heterosexual subculture looks askance at nonvaginal sex. The heterosexual male thrusts fingers, tongue, and penis into the vagina in a desperate, irrational attempt to find again the security of the womb, to return physically to the womb. Since that attempt can never succeed, heterosexuality is inevitably unsatisfying. But to the extent that the male can re-enter the vagina, through which he traveled when he was expelled by his mother at his birth, heterosexual sex approaches satisfaction. This explains why coitus is the preferred form of heterosexual sex: the tongue cannot penetrate very far into the vagina (and besides, the vagina is a very unsatisfactory object of oralism, for the essence of oralism is taking things into the mouth, not straining the tongue to reach out). Nor can a finger penetrate far. Of the parts of the male body, and the thrust into the vagina, the penis reaches farthest toward the ultimate object, the womb. This fact, combined with the fact that many heterosexual males find pleasurable the sensation arising from the penis's contact with the walls of the vagina, works to push coitus as the prime form of heterosexual sex.

True Player #fundie rooshvforum.com

[Images not included]
MODERN FEMINISM

Sometimes you can’t help but think there must have been divine intervention. The same day I pen my article about why Adelaide women are the best in Australia, I pick up the front page of the paper to see outrage that 500 young Adelaide women have had naked photos of themselves plastered all over an American website.

You may have noticed I didn’t sing the praises of Adelaide women aged 18—25 in my article. That was for good reason. Here is a passage that unfortunately didn’t pass the final ROK edit:

One word of warning: you had better strike while the iron is hot. With feminism destroying women at a truly scary rate all over the world, this could very well be the last generation of desirable Adelaide women. On recent visits I have noticed a disturbing rise in the number of girls aged 18-25 with ugly tattoos and piercings. Obviously, it goes without saying they are addicted to their smartphones. It breaks my heart because many of these girls would be really attractive if they embraced their natural beauty, put on a nice dress, and put down that damn phone.

I truly believe western millennial girls are nightmares, even in sleepy little Adelaide. What we are seeing with so called ”revenge porn” is an example of the disturbing but inevitable consequences of the first generation of women who, brainwashed by feminist propaganda, truly believe they can do no wrong, and that there are no consequences for their actions. Throw in their smart phone addictions and toxic need for constant social media validation and you have a recipe for disaster.

At this rate, we are not too far from a world where every second man’s girlfriend’s or wife’s tits will be plastered all over the net, her slutiness on display for the whole world to see. This is supposed to be your loving life partner, the mother of your children? How can any man these girls meet in the future possibly take them seriously?
A tech-savvy generation? Millennial girls’ behaviour indicates otherwise

fb-addicted1

Young women are so addicted to social media they can’t see the negative effects it has on their lives

The millennial girl’s smartphone obsession is of course the root of their misery, but it’s their lack of intelligence and social awareness that is truly astounding. How can they not get it? Once a photo is put on the internet, it is there forever. Media reporting on this story was incredibly irresponsible. These photos certainly were not “stolen”, as journalists claimed. Whoever got these photos didn’t break into these girls houses, nor were they Peeping Toms who had secretly photographed them without their knowledge or consent. In fact, they had been willingly uploaded to social media or sent directly to the latest bad boy to make their vaginas tingle. From that point onwards, they were totally at the mercy of that bad boy as to what happened next. Some empowerment! Now admittedly putting them on the web for the whole world to see is a pretty low act, but they don’t call them bad boys for nothing. You can bet your bottom dollar these are the guys who are far more likely to receive and distribute “sexts” than the nice guys forever languishing in the friend zone.

Despite all this, I feel sorry for these girls. They have grown up in age where being a slut is glorified and where their peers give as little thought to posting revealing selfies online or sending “sexts” as they do to taking a piss. Unlike women from previous generations, at no point in their lives have they been pulled aside and told in no uncertain terms that being easy reflects poorly on themselves and is likely to be a one way ticket to disaster. It’s not politically correct, you see, and many have been denied a strong father figure by their money-hungry mom who wanted freedom, a divorce and custody. This is why millennial girls are not only narcissistic and slutty, but completely oblivious to how broken they have become, and why they are hopelessly addicted to the crack pipe of Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. All they need to do to break free of this toxic cycle is log off, but unplugging from the vortex would be unthinkable. Next thing you know, BAM, there they are spreading their legs on the net for the whole world to see for the rest of time.
Millennial girls are trapped in a social media vortex

Woman using cell phone on bed

Young women love selfies more than life itself

“Revenge porn” wouldn’t exist if young women weren’t so obsessed with selfies. Sadly, millennial girls are so infatuated with internet “fame” everything else is merely background music. To demonstrate how warped their perspectives are, consider this. What did this girl do when she found out she was on the site? She re-uploaded a photo from the site of her in the shower to her Facebook! Yep, she tried to get even more attention! All this does is draw even more people to check out the website she is supposedly so outraged about. Out of curiosity I looked up her Facebook page, and sure enough, it is selfie after selfie. She is quite hot, but obviously so desperate for fame I can’t help but wonder if she is secretly thrilled she now has a chance to step out of the shadows of her well-known football playing brothers. As the shocking revelation of Dubai Porta Potties showed, millennial women want fame, no matter what the price is.
Women have been betrayed by feminism

PW_ClementineFord

Feminist woofer Clementine Ford.. all for female empowerment, but for God’s sake don’t expect women to exercise self-responsibility

Predictably, critics have directed all their energy into attacking the faceless American creators of this site and furiously denouncing “victim blaming”, rather than spreading the word to young women everywhere that uploading raunchy photos to social media and sexting guys is risky behaviour with potentially very serious consequences. Bottom line: If girls don’t send these pics out, they can’t end up on a site like this. That would put these “shady creeps” out of business permanently. But in the twisted minds of feminists, prevention is never better than cure: don’t teach women to do X, teach men not to do Y. They have always played the victim, abrogated the concept of self-responsibility and denied the reality that women’s actions have potential consequences, and now girls everywhere who were brainwashed to believe exactly that are paying the price.
Is there any hope for young women?

Teens-social-media

Scenes like this will be familiar to us all.. what does it take for young women to put down their phones?

The prospect of having a daughter one day seriously scares the hell out of me. What chance do you have of raising a decent human being, when you are fighting a reckless pro-slut cultural tsunami?

There was a time when the family unit provided the guidance young women needed to develop important values. Unfortunately, with The Decline accelerating this is often impossible. For most girls, any semblance of fatherhood authority has long gone. If they really care for the welfare of girls, mothers and genuinely concerned women need to fill this void and educate them that acting like a slut must be avoided, for this behaviour places them at risk of ending up on sites like this, forever. Is that something they really want? They might also want to consider how driving a strong man out of their daughter’s life might have devastating consequences.
Conclusion

Like so many other modern social problems, feminism is definitely to blame for “revenge porn”. This warped ideology has always irresponsibly promoted the delusional idea that women have all the same rights as men, but without responsibilities or consequences for their actions. They were the ones who encouraged a life of reckless hedonism and narcissism for young women, with no thought for their futures. They were the ones who spun the gross lie that being pumped and dumped by men who couldn’t care less about them is “empowering.” These 500 Adelaide women are just a drop in the ocean of the many girls who are being sacrificed daily at the altar of “female empowerment.” This is what happens when it is politically incorrect to state the obvious: that acting like a slut is dangerous for a woman’s honour, credibility and future happiness.

witchwind #sexist radicalhub.com

["PIV" means "penis-in-vagina (intercourse)" among radical feminists.]

Well, PIV is natural for animals because they have hormonal drives which pushes them to copulate at given times, either during estrus or at given seasons, according to their biological needs. Since they copulate only when their nature/body tells them to, it can’t be rape in my opinion.

Humans on the other hand have no pre-ordained sexuality: there’s nothing in the human body that pushes us to copulate at any given time, we don’t have any hormonal drives during estrus that forces us to seek a mate for PIV and it’s not part of our basic and necessary body functions/needs like peeing or breathing. sexuality is completely social and learned. It’s been seen on some adults who’ve never learned about PIV not to know “how to make a baby” and it didn’t cross their minds to do PIV. PIV isn’t natural but socially institutionalised by men through compulsory heterosexuality, marriage and rape. It certainly isn’t a recreative practice either since men use it as a *weapon* against women to control them – and it IS a weapon of war given the harm it causes women. And as Feuerwerferin says, PIV isn’t even necessary for reproduction since sperm on the vulva is enough to cause pregnancy. Plus the trauma-bonding (trauma = survival mechanism to something wrong being done to you = that something needs to stop). Plus the fact that having something the size of an erect penis thrust into your body with a naked man all over you is in itself deeply invasive despite the genital stimulation that is most often just reactive or mechanically activated after years of grooming and is usually only triggered after some first seconds of pain. (PAIN!! that’s a normal body sign telling something’s *wrong!*). without counting that at the beginning of PIV grooming it’s most often just painful, irksome, or at best there’s not much sensation, and the girl usually feels she *has* to do it because she’s already groomed to believe her value lies in being fucked by men.

Anyway, these are many reasons that make me say PIV is in no way a natural human practice, and that women’s vagina isn’t meant to be penetrated at all, but only meant to expel a baby.

Dr. Ty #fundie dasouth.com

Masturbation is what I'd like to call, tormenting pleasure. The three second blissful orgasm achieved by masturbation is just as much tormenting as it is pleasurable. Because God never created solo sex. Masturbation often promises the pleasure but can never fulfill your inward void. And the many people that it has imprisoned by its non~threatening lure to satisfy your sexual desires, come to find that the trap is not worth the 3 seconds it took to get it. Trust me, I've been there, and I'd rather have cold, dry sheets than to fondle my self. Two things I've come to know about masturbation is this:

1. It brings shame, and...
2. It is addictive

Most people who have engaged in masturbation know that the culmination of this sexual act ends in shame. I don't have to share with you the thousands of emails of the admittance of this shame because you know all too well since you have experienced it yourself. Curled up in a fetal position, crying, because your bed is even more empty and you're lonelier than you did before you violated yourself...Because God never created sex so that you could gratify yourself. The dictionary defined masturbation as self abuse...the miss use of yourself. The mistreatment, the manipulation, the exploitation of YOU.

Note: The following picture accompanies this article:
image

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The Victorian theory that women were angels, therefore no coercion was needed against naturally saintly women, only against demonic males who make saintly women do bad things, led to an intolerable flood of bastards and women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, which in turn led to “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which brought us the welfare state, and the replacement of the nuclear family with child support. As people in the eighteenth century were aware, people need marriage in order to reproduce, and marriage needs coercion to make it stick, and the primary victims of this coercion need to be women, otherwise they will have sex with one man, then sex with another, making it difficult and unpleasant to father children.

Similarly, “White Man’s Burden”, and “la haute mission civilisatrice” was the death of colonialism.

It led the British general who was invading Afghanistan to believe he was doing Afghans a favor, and if he was sufficiently nice to them they would throw flowers at his troops. So he forbade his troops to take necessary measures for self defense, and, as a result, he and his troops died.

The white man’s burden was profoundly counterproductive to social cohesion, because it led to them sacrificing near (British officers and troops) for far (afghan officers and troops)

If it is a burden, then you proceed to conspicuously display your holiness by burden carrying – which is apt to mean making your troops carry burdens.

Before the British intervened in Afghanistan, the most recent news that most people had of it was records of Alexander’s army passing through two millenia ago.

The empire of the East India company was expanding, and the empire of the Russias was expanding, and it was inevitable that the two would meet. And so it came to pass that the Kings of Afghanistan encountered both, and played each against the other.

When the British became aware of Afghanistan, they interpreted its inhabitants as predominantly white or whitish – as descendants of Alexander’s troops and camp followers and/or descendants of Jews converted to Islam at swordpoint.

Afghanistan was, and arguably still is, a elective monarchy, and the fractious electors tended to fight each other and elect weak kings who could scarcely control their followers, and so it has been ever since Alexander’s troops lost Alexander.

Mister Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his account of is mission to Kabul in 1809, says he once urged upon a very intelligent old man of the tribe of Meankheile, the superiority of a quiet life under a powerful monarch, over the state of chaotic anarchy that so frequently prevailed.

The reply was “We are content with alarms, we are content with discord, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master!”

As Machiavelli observed, such places are easy to conquer, but hard to hold, and so it proved.

To conquer and hold such places, one must massacre, castrate, or enslave all of the ruling elite that seems fractious, which is pretty much all of them, and replace them with your own people, speaking your own language, and practicing your own customs, as the Normans did in England, and the French did in Algeria, starting 1830. The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

So what the British could have done is paid the occasional visit to kill any king that they found obnoxious, kill his friends, family, his children, and leading supporters, install a replacement king, and leave. The replacement king would have found his throne shaky, because Afghan Kings have usually found their thrones shaky, but the British did not need to view that as their problem, knowing the solution to that problem to be drastic and extreme. If the throne has been shaky for two thousand years, it is apt to be difficult to stop it from rocking.

After a long period of disorderly violence, where brother savagely tortured brother to death, and all sorts of utterly horrifying crimes were committed, King Dost Mahomed Khan took power in Kabul in 1826, and proceeded to rule well, creating order, peace, and prosperity, and receiving near universal support from the fractious and quarreling clans of Afghanistan.

The only tax under his rule was a tariff of one fortieth on goods entering and leaving the country. This and the Jizya poll tax are the only taxes allowed by the Koran, at least as Islamic law is interpreted in this rebellious country which has historically been disinclined to pay taxes, and because this tax was actually paid, it brought him unprecedented revenues. On paying this tax “the merchant may travel without guard or protection from one border to the other, an unheard of circumstance”

However he did not rule Herat, which was controlled by one of his enemies, who been King before and had ambitions to be King again. He therefore offered Herat to the Shah of Persia in return for the Shah’s support against another of his enemies, Runjeet Singh. He was probably scarcely aware that Runjeet Singh was allied to the British, and the Shah was allied to the Tsar of all the Russias.

Notice that this deal was remarkably tight fisted, as was infamously typical of deals made by Dost Mahomed Khan. He would give the Persians that which he did not possess, in return for them taking care of one of his enemies and helping him against another.

The British East India Company, however, saw this as Afghanistan moving into Russian empire, though I am pretty sure that neither the Shah of Persia nor the King of Aghanistan thought they were part of anyone’s empire.

So Russia and the East India Company sent ambassadors to the King of Afghanistan, who held a bidding contest asking which of them could best protect him against Runjeet Singh. He then duplicitously accepted both bids from both empires, which was a little too clever by half, though absolutely typical of the deals he made with his neighbors.

Dost Mahomed Khan was a very clever king, but double crossing the East India Company was never very clever at all. No one ever got ahead double crossing the East India Company. It is like borrowing money from the Mafia and forgetting to pay them back.

Russia and England then agreed to not get overly agitated over the doings of unreliable and duplicitous proxies that they could scarcely control – which agreement the East India Company took as permission to hold a gun to the head of the Shah of Persia. The East India company seized control of the Persian Gulf, an implicit threat to invade if the Shah intervened in Afghanistan to protect Dost Mahomed Khan. It then let Runjeet Singh off the leash, and promised to support his invasion of Afghanistan.

So far, so sane. Someone double crosses you, then you make an horrible example of him, and no one will do it again. Then get out, and whoever rules in Afghanistan, if anyone does manage to rule, will refrain from pissing you off a second time.

The British decided to give a large part of Afghanistan to Runjeet Singh, and install Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk, a Kinglet with somewhat plausible pretensions to the Afghan throne, in place of Dost Mahomet Khan.

Up to this point everything the East India Company is doing is sane, honorable, competent, just, and wonderfully eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, it is the nineteenth century. And the nineteenth century is when the rot set in.

His Majesty Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk will enter Afghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference, and factious opposition, by the British Army. The Governor-general confidently hopes, that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and that the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn. The Governor-general has been led to these acts by the duty which is imposed upon him, of providing for the security of the possessions of the British crown, but he rejoices, that, in the discharge of this duty, he will be enabled to assist in restoring the union and prosperity of the Afghan people.

So: The English tell themselves and each other: We not smacking Afghans against a wall to teach them not to play games with the East India Company. On the contrary, we are doing them a favor. A really big favor. Because we love everyone. We even love total strangers in far away places very different from ourselves. We are defending the independence of Afghanistan by removing the strongest King it has had in centuries and installing our puppet, and defending its integrity by arranging for invasion, conquest, rape and pillage by its ancient enemies the Sikhs, in particular Runjeet Singh. Because we love far away strangers who speak a language different from our own and live in places we cannot find on the map. We just love them to pieces. And when we invade, we will doubtless be greeted by people throwing flowers at us.

You might ask who would believe such guff? Obviously not the Afghans, who are being smacked against the wall. Obviously not the Russians. Obviously not the Persians. Obviously not the British troops who are apt to notice they are not being pelted with flowers.

The answer is, the commanding officer believed this guff. And not long thereafter, he and his troops died of it, the first great defeat of British colonialism. And, of course, the same causes are today leading to our current defeat in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the British expedition made a long series of horrifyingly evil and stupid decisions, which decisions only made sense if he was doing the Afghans a big favor, if the Afghans were likely to appreciate the big favor he was doing them, and his troops were being pelted with flowers, or Afghans were likely to start pelting them with flowers real soon now. The East India company was no stranger to evil acts, being in the business of piracy, brigandry, conquest, and extortion, but people tend to forgive evil acts that lead to success, prosperity, good roads, safe roads, and strong government. These evil acts, the evil acts committed by the British expedition to Afghanistan, are long remembered because they led to failure, defeat, lawlessness, disorder, and weak government.

As a result, he, his men, and their camp followers, were all killed.

Progressives tend to judge people by their good intentions, and the intentions of the British Empire in invading Afghanistan were absolutely wonderful, but the man who does evil because insane is a worse problem than the man who does evil because he expects to profit. The rational profit seeking evildoer, you can pay off, or deter. You can surrender on terms that will probaby not be too bad. The irrational evildoer just has to be killed. Before 1840, the East India Company was sometimes deterred, frequently paid off, and frequently accepted surrender on reasonable terms. In 1841, just had to be killed.

This illustrates the importance of the rectification of names, of formalism. If you lie to yourself, you are deceived. I have been reading the Clinton emails, and one of the most striking features is that Clinton and company are deluded and deceived by self flattering lies, that despite having vast spy networks in far flung places, are seriously out of contact with reality, as their circle tells each other what they want to hear.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Hillary and her advisers, and therefore I suppose the entire state department, know neither the enemy nor themselves. They dream grandiose delusions, in which they are the terribly smart and virtuous people, rather than a drunken old sow surrounded by lying flatterers.

The East India Company did not realize that it was about to be recast, or was recasting itself, from being a for profit company, empowered to make war and engage in acts of piracy and extortion for private profit, to being the British government’s instrument of holy do gooding, benevolently carrying the white man’s burden for the benefit of a bunch of strangely ungrateful foreigners. In place of a ruthless mafia with uniformed soldiers, the East India Company was about to become an NGO with uniformed nursemaids.

Yet strangely, the greater the good intentions, the more they were to be resented. [Sarcasm tag removed because it broke the quote submission] The East India Company seems to have been more popular when they were pirates and bandits than when they were pious do gooders. No one seemed to appreciate the East India Company doing good to them at gunpoint. The ridiculous part of the white man’s burden was the striking ingratitude of the supposed beneficiaries, resembling the striking ingratitude of Middle Easterner’s towards meddling by presidents Bush and Obama in the Middle East. Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.

If an elite attempt to rule distant places, they will rule them very badly, unless some of the children of the elite move to those places, and stay there to rule them. Carpetbaggers who come and go tend to leave horror and devastation in their wake, as for example the looting of Haiti by do gooder ngos after the earthquake. If you are not going to stick around, the incentive is to take everything and smash everything, which is what happened to Haiti when the US State Department ngos got coercive quasi governmental power. Haitians wound up eating dirt, sleeping in the rain, and got cholera. So, not going to rule well, unless you have a fertile elite, which needs more governmental and quasi governmental jobs for its excessively numerous offspring. In which case good rule will naturally follow from the desire of that elite to make a nice place for themselves and their descendants. This is necessarily going to be rough on the existing local elite, but an ideology of doing good to far away strangers does not result in doing good to far away strangers, but at best to famine, destruction of property, and disease, as recently demonstrated in Haiti.