Similar posts

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

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.

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.

SkinjobCatastrophe #sexist #psycho incels.co

[It's Over] Women are not evil, they are even worse than evil

I have placed a tl;dr at the bottom for your edification if you dont want to ingest this ludicrously verbose wall of text

I am so tired of women. They poison EVERYTHING with their entitlement, terrible attitudes, bullying, lookism, and subconscious manipulating of men. They are so empty and lifeless. They have no soul. You can see it in their eyes - there is nothing there. No passion, no desire, no purpose, no meaning, no morals or even common decency. They are just soulless husks of people. Completely empty, without even the substance of a ball of dust.

If they were truly evil then there would be something to fight against. We could point and say, THERE is the problem! THAT is the source of our suffering, our oppression, that is why we experience the bullshit we do on a daily basis. But there is nothing to women, they are empty, so we cant point at anything.

The real source of our suffering is the men who work on womens behalf - but what is it that women want? Most men dont know what women want and even women dont know what they want. Women say what they want, and then men do all the heavy lifting to make sure that happens, but then what? Women complain and say thats not what they wanted and that men are the source of all their problems. But what are these problems? They are not actually problems, women like these things, many of which women have created for themselves, but then they complain about them and a man rushes to do their bidding like a slave minion.

So women complain about “problems” that they actually like - for example, being given attention for their looks, or as they call it, being “objectified”. Then, men rush to do whatever the women want done. Being men, they are able to listen and follow instructions very well, and so they do exactly as they are told, and then what? The women complain. “All women are beautiful, why havent you told them that they are pretty? They are not just your tools to use for working and, they want to feel pretty and sexually desirable too!”

And then the cycle either repeats, or more often, creates a ludicrously more complex system of interwoven bullshit that soyboys have to keep track of just to appease their female masters. “All women are beautiful! B-but- their looks dont matter! They work just as hard or harder than men! But men and women are equal! Except we need to give them special privileges and help them because they can't do it on their own! But they are strong and can do anything without a mans help!” Etc.

Many would say to blame these men who enable women and do their bidding, and I would agree. But just like everyone on this forum, men want to be with women. Some men are lucky enough to get to be with very attractive women, some can only get with landwhales, and some, like us, are left with nothing. If everyone wants to be with women, how can we do away with these problems?

Many people say that we need a more traditional culture that places women in the position of household caretakers as a requirement and keeps them out of the workforce and any position of power. But in this society, romance and mate competition would still enable womens behaviors. Just as it did even long ago in america and europe or even a very long time ago in ancient greece. Competition over women is a main source of these problems. Men will step over each other and hurt each other to gain access to higher value females. They will subvert, manipulate, and of course directly physically attack other men to win the attention of females. Women like this and encourage it, and we would be directly back to the root problem - men hurting each other and causing wide scale societal problems to appease women.

Let us say that we have a muslim state type society. There women are removed almost entirely from all public interactions. Marriages are largely arranged and many times you cannot even see the woman because of full body and face coverings. But then we arise at yet another problem. Men want to have sex and be with attractive women, of course, so what happens to these emotions and pent up feelings that are hardwired into the brain like hunger and thirst? Well, nothing good, obviously. Muslim states are not known for their peaceful and diplomatic nature. Men are angry and can only cope with other things, even if they have a wife and kids.

A mans sex drive can never be done away with. It cannot be suppressed. It is like thirst or hunger, it will be there until the day he dies. So what is the solution that can make the most people happy and let men finally have sexual contact? Well there is none. At least, there is not a good solution. Nature is cruel and cares nothing about morals or fairness.

Roughly 50 percent of males from the history of the human race likely never mated. Nature is designed to put a few men at the top and leave the rest of the men either fighting for scraps or suffering with nothing. You cant fight nature, its like stopping a hurricane with a fan or melting Antarctica with a space heater. These are not solvable problems.

It would be best if people accepted that the world is imperfect and did the best that we could instead of acting like if we could institute some massive social or cultural change that inceldom would be fixed. I cannot change the nature of humans. It always has been and it always will be over for many men.

When I say women are not evil, they are even worse, I mean that they are responsible, in a way, for an unsolvable problem. They are so empty and lifeless that they cannot be the ones responsible - men are. But even if we were to kill every soyboy and cuck and IT poster, the problem will still exist. Men would fight over women, they would hurt each other for women. All men want sex and female attention/companionship. But women are the source of these problems.

Its as if your only food source was poisoned potatoes. You have to eat them, but when you do they damage your body and put you in great pain. But you can never be not hungry. You will always want to eat them even though you know they will hurt you. You cannot think “these will cause me pain - so therefore I shouldnt want them and I will not be hungry”. You will ALWAYS be hungry if you dont eat, that is all there is to it. And you will always want women even though you know how terrible they are

Although maybe .0000000001% of the world population can take a step back and realize that fighting over women and simping for women is just a terrible idea, most cant. Even super geniuses who design particle accelerators do these things. Even intelligence cant help. Although intelligence has been has been used to solve just about every other problem throughout history, this problem is too much.

Tl;dr ITS OVER

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Why they attacked Trump all along

Their agenda is to take the guns away from American people, in order to advance Agenda 21 (land grabs) and the NWO. They knew when Trump won the election that he was never going to take guns away from his OWN VOTERS, so this halted the Rothschild-dictated totalitarian sprint to a tiptoe. They are pissed. They needed that decrepit cuvt Hillary to win, because that knee-jerk reactionary disease would be banning guns by now.

So on with the feminist agenda - a work around to the "problem" they have by using women in positions of power at the local level to guilt trip men into giving up their guns and confiscating them outright.

They always want women in power because gynocentrism and a matriarchal society is their quickest route to the one world order.

What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power... to take the guns away

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

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.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

[Categorical BS. I'm a blatantly feminist (GASP) conservatively dressed intj woman and I still get more male attention than I can handle. I've mentioned this before on here, but if you need others to pretend to be weak in order to allow you to feel powerful, then what you need is psychological help, not a girlfriend]


This is what feminists says all the time, 'heard this response millions times.
But men like women this way, it's not because we're scared, weak or something. It's our natural dominance/male ego that don't want to be "challenged" (like that would happen with an other "man").

If women want men or her husband to "feel" good, acting feminine is definetely the solution. The longer marriages are the ones where women are traditional.

Men have to "conquer" to have sex with women (and only want that from women), so it's logic that they go to "submissive/weak/fragile" women (Like a war strategy). It incousciously means that their chances to reproduce are higher.

There are also the motherhood qualities that are feminine (caring, nurtiuring, sensitive etc.. )

Women pretending to be men are the ones who need psychological help (aka feminists). But you can't, so now feminists try to turn men into females. Your "gender equity" obsession has no limit.


[I also think that in matters such as rape, women are indeed victims (as are some men) and rape prevention is a feminist issue.]

If rape victimes are also men, why is it a "feminist" issue ? It seems to be about man-hating (99% rapists are men).

["no, her skirt doesn't mean she wanted to get raped"]

If feminists care about women safety, feminists should also say to women that dressing in a certain way can lead to problems.


[We already talked about it at length, so let me summarize : 1, the clothes a woman wear doesn't "lead" her to getting raped, 2, even if it did, it wouldn't mean women have to change something but that men should change their mentality (just because her clothes were sexy doesn't mean she wants sex or that you are entitled to sex), 3, it's a problem if victims are discredited because of the clothes they wore at the time of the rape. I won't go into more details. Read the topic about the slut pride again if you want to.]


Really ? What's the point of dressing sexy then ? Men won't change, yes we want sex 24/7/365 and we have to go for it. It's part of Nature. I think women got it now. You can't shake fresh meat in front of hungry dogs, and then cry because a dog ate your hand.
Not it's not, I think it's good argument. I can't let the door of my house open all night, and then blame people that robbed it. There are certain dangers in our society, you can avoid them or provoke them.


[I find this degrading and insulting to men. As a civilised man, I have self-control and decency which prevents me from acting like a wild animal. How is it that you, yourself, are not in jail for sexual assault by now?]


Because I behave in a civilized manner most of the time. But asking men to stop wanting to have (forceful) sex with provocative women, or hoping that rape will disappear completely tomorrow is useless.


[If you rape a woman because of her clothes, the truth is that you didn't do it because you got so horny you couldn't stop yourself. You did it because you though that because she was clothed that way, she wanted sex, or couldn't refuse sex. It's not biological, it's sociological.]


It's both. If a man is "not" horny and see a woman dressed like a slut, he won't care.


[So he was horny before and just happened to see a convenient victim ?]


Yes, so ? I'm just saying that women have responsabilities in the way they dress. You can't put it all on men and just say to women dress like sluts if you want.

[yes you can. Adults are either responsible for their own actions or they're not.]


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

[
By saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men around her, just by dressing a certain way, you are saying that men should be treated the same as young children and the mentally handicapped when it comes to the subject of rape: incapable of rational self-determination.]


No, if you go to a shitty neigborhood, with all your expensive clothes, you're are provoking danger. It doesn't mean robbers aren't responsible, but you can attract even more danger by your actions.


[If you start justifying rape that way and restricting the way woman's wear, where does it end ? You'll find people who tell you veils are necessary because hair are too sexual, and then other people who think even hands or ankles are sexual so all women need to be dressed in integral veils. I say, you can control your penis.]


Showing all your legs, most of your boobs is universally seen as sexual. Women know it. And when showing it, they definetely want to (or they, at least, accept) men to have "horny" thoughts. Horny thoughs can lead men to rape.


[Also, do you suppose women have no sexual needs ? If I see a beautiful man without a shirt on, and I threaten him with a gun to rape him, is it his fault ? Or is that scenario impossible because men can't get raped ?]


Women can rape men (when they have weapons), but rarely do. Men (that are physically stronger) can do it more easily. So, it's so rare that there's no need for men to do anything. And when women rape, it's most of the time for other reasons than sexual attraction.


[There's a difference between saying "be cautious, don't go there alone at night" and saying "be cautious, never wear a short skirt".]

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


[But by definition it is not her choice to be robbed, assaulted or raped - it was somebody else's, and that person bears the entire fault.]


I never said women dressing like sluts were making "the choice to be raped" or that it's natural that men could rape them in that situation. But, in some situations, women have a (moral) responsibility.

And women dressing sluts are sexualizing themselves, and making them appear as sex objects. Why would a feminist defend the right for women to "dress like sluts", is this how they want women to appear ?


[It is not the woman's fault if she was raped, any more than if you were to go to the gym locker room and got raped by another guy, it would be your fault. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.]

Not comparable. When a woman is dressing like a slut, is drunk, and/or barely conscious when going outta a nightclub, she's putting herself in a situation that could lead to rape. I never said this is how most rapes occurs, but this is also a reality.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 3/end, goddammit Jim]

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles. So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.

Jesse Powell #fundie donotlink.com

Immediately after my conversion to patriarchy around 1995 I became aware that feminists, meaning the culture at large and almost all women in general, would resist my effort to recreate the 1950s ideal of family life for myself as an individual. This filled me with a great rage against feminists. The feminists were bent on destroying me completely; first they messed up my parents so that they would be selfishly oriented and not focused on my developmental needs as a child and as a future man. This is why I was particularly weak in my social skills and why I didn’t see what my positive purpose in relation to women was. Then the feminist culture in general tried to suppress my strength as a man telling me I was an “oppressor” if I showed strength in relation to women. So my particular weakness due to my parents neglecting my social needs combined with the globally imposed feminist culture telling me I should be weak as a man and I was obligated to make myself weak as a man in order to avoid “oppressing” women led to my strength level being so low that it was pretty much impossible for me to get women to be romantically interested in me. This was entirely feminism’s fault because feminism is what led my parents to be selfishly oriented and to neglect my needs as a child and a future man and feminism was responsible for the general cultural message that men were the oppressors of women and so men should weaken themselves in order to avoid oppressing women.

Finally as a young adult I figured out a way to escape from the universal rejection by women feminism imposed upon me; that being 1950s style male breadwinner patriarchy. The problem however was that me embracing 1950s style patriarchy I knew would lead to hostility and push back and that the whole culture and legal system was designed to make traditional family life fail and be unworkable for the purpose of promoting and elevating the feminist version of family life; the feminist version of family life and its associated cultural messages being what plunged me into my failure with women in the first place. So before my conversion to patriarchy I was too weak for women to be interested in me; after my conversion to patriarchy my goal was to be stronger than what the feminists wanted me to be with all sorts of roadblocks and danger and discrimination against me as a man being set up by the feminists for the purpose of weakening me and undermining me because the feminists deemed me to be “too strong” and therefore an oppressor of women with me not going along with their “gender equality” script; “gender equality” being simply female supremacy in practice.

So immediately after my conversion to patriarchy a great rage in me developed against feminists because I could see feminists were bent on destroying me as a newly emerging patriarchal man just like they had already dedicated themselves to destroying me as a child and a young adult by making me too weak to appeal to women before hand. There was no escape from feminist tyranny and feminism’s goal was to destroy my capacity to form relationships with women no matter what I did. So the first 2 years after my conversion to patriarchy I focused my energies on figuring out all the different ways feminism messed up society and developing a general plan in my mind about how patriarchy could be reintroduced and how feminism could be eventually destroyed and overcome.

One might ask themselves; after seeing that patriarchy would get a lot of resistance from the culture and that it might prove unworkable and impractical for myself as an individual why didn’t I try to pursue the middle level of strength feminists and the women around me wanted from me and that would produce a reasonable level of success with women consistent with the average level of success with women among men in general? Why did I start out being too weak as a man and then go to the opposite extreme of being “too strong” trying to be like a man from the 1950s and then refuse to “go to the middle” like the society and the women around me wanted me to do?

The answer to this question is that once I saw that patriarchy would work as a way of attracting women and would be good for children I saw the 1950s man as being a good man, a morally good man, and that the 1990s man others wanted me to become was a bad man by comparison because he did not care for women like the 1950s man did and he did not provide to his children a mother to look after their needs full time like the 1950s man did. The 1950s man was objectively better than the 1990s man so of course I was going to choose to be like the 1950s man regardless of the fact that the culture around me and the women around me wanted me to be a 1990s man rather than a 1950s man at that time. Since the 1950s man was objectively superior to the 1990s man if the women around me wanted me to be a 1990s man that meant the women around me were bad, that they wanted me to be a bad man because they were bad themselves. If the culture around me wanted me to be a 1990s man and not a 1950s man that meant the culture around me was bad. Of course it was already clearly established that the culture around me was bad because the culture is what made my parents what they were and the culture is what told me to weaken myself as a man so that no woman would ever want me.

Various Incels #sexist incels.co

RE: [JFL] Roastie claims dating isn't easier for wahmen, gets 2k upvotes and triple gilded on obscure reddit sub

(Arch Anemone)

Just another Chad won't commit post. Rather than lower their standards to someone who would appreciate them, they just cycle through Chad's who promise the world to them and they expect a different result.

Men have all those problem she has too.

That's the thing, she has endless opportunity to pursue all the exact things she wants. She can actually get some of them. She can have the 6'3" linebacker from Penn State with NFL prospects, a rich family, good prospects, etc. Someone reasonably close to their ideal.

Women pigeon hole themselves into the top 20 percent of men and don't even consider the rest of us humans. We don't exist.

Most men have no choice, they have to adapt to what their partner wants to be alone. They will never get an opportunity with anything close to their ideal. They have to adapt to the women who like them. Mold themselves into things their partner wants at the expense of things they want.

The majority of men will never get what they want, they have to adapt to what their woman wants.

(Spioenkop1)

It‚s just another big confirmation of the blackpill theory and a textbook example of the cock carrousel. We should rather thank this whore for writing this down for us. She wants rather attractive assholes than a commited hard working sub 7 male, that’s her entire problem. And boo-hoo she „ only“ gets sex so easy. @Personalityinkwell see women stay with chad even if the sex sucks at least for a while. You really don’t need to worry about your dick size.

(Fragile-X)

Both men and woman can be social retards, this woman is a good example of one.
The difference between a socially retarded woman and a socially retarded man, is that the man isn't constantly surrounded by sexual and social opportunities like the female. This socially handicapped woman is constantly approached by men who:
1. Want sex
2. Want a relationship

She can fulfill the first desire, but because of her autism she can't fulfill the second. Boo-hoo, I keep blowing my chances with attractive men because of my ineptness, feel sorry for me!
Men don't get these kinds of opportunities for free. A truecel man doesn't get approached by women who want to have sex with him and give him a chance.

(WarriorSkull)

While the whole "dating is hard for women too!" is obvious bullshit, she isn't wrong about women being unable to find love in relationships. The problem is that it is her inherent nature that is the problem. Women spreading their legs for Chad under the pretense of "just having fun" are deluding themselves and everyone else. Deep down, they secretly hope and believe that being a pump and dump for Chad might lead to him developing feelings for her. Every time they spread their legs for Chad it is like when a "nice guy" spends the night listening to their oneitis's life problems over the phone. Every time they give, but don't receive what they really want, they grow resentful and move even further away from the capacity to love or be loved.

mopusvindictus #fundie abovetopsecret.com

1 Reason...

Male homosexuality leads to a disgusting deplorable society in time and women are instinctually aware of that, Female homosexuality leads to... nothing particularly tragic for everyone else.


Before you all bash my brains in just listen and really think about it.

A: Disease

Women barely ever spread STD's to each other... it's that damn garden hose of our spewing stuff all over...

okay, the only thing that keeps Men in check from a constant desire to
Mate is the sanity of women and their avoidance of the topic... (being particular about who they shag)

Left alone Men screw constantly and with far more partners

NOT ALL

But go to a gay nightclub... combine Meth or even Booze with a male sex drive unrestrained it gets Raunchy... some guys keep Hundreds of partners... That's a recipe for Disease

If your wife has sex with a woman are you at risk... no, but your husband gets buggered by a man... are you at risk... hell Yeah you are...of DEATH

Not a turn on

Then there's ANAL... your going to draw Blood in small amounts every time 2 men do it...

Not good to avoid disease

Women tend to be clean and care for themselves more... the risks of Male gay behavior...disease, many partners, involving the Poop Hole... just not a turn on for women, risk, huge risks

Before you bash me...

I was going to the Empire State building with my class when I was 8

There I saw my First Homosexual Male...1978, Gay Orgy Club time pre Aids...

Man wore a shirt on line that said:

"500 Man Fisting party"

Okay NOT HOT to a Chick... guy took 500 fists up his rear end...

That is men left alone with unrestrained sex... NOT GOOD

B: Sexual Reality

Men... despite all bravado and desire... limited sex drive built in chemical process to make us pass out

Women need... more sex, men we burn out

Your man having a Man in his life means... exhaustion, you get nada from either guy, less not more

A woman...when they wear a Guy out... keep going together, it's good sex for HER

Unless 2 guys were focused on her, not each other, she's going to end up with 2 passed out chumps instead of one

Remember... guys sexual peak is 20 Women 35

By the time your that age... man have to work at it to keep up, especially if she has had a couple of babies, giving her the orgasm flow when she is peaked out at my age is not as easy as it is when a girl is 19 and it's all new and your at no 1 position...

There is no viable sex life for a guy exhausting himself with men...

so women are

at risk

and have nothing to gain sexually

So they don't like to think of their guys going Gay


Even more

Gay Men can get sex when ever they want just like women... The world exists on Men doing WORK to impress Women...

Men start Gaying out like Women can just play... they don't need Women so much do they?

Nor do they need to advance much from, waiting tables or painting...

Not much a Womans agenda to take risks with men leaving their position of Financial Bondage is there?

Lets also add cleanliness

Some women might find the thought or image of one Man dominating another Hot

But when 2 women have se it ends in a hot sexy orgasm

2 Men... the ending can be...urrr Grotesque

Not to be graphic but when the last sight you see when your husband or lover cums with a man... might be an explosive organic Enema of a result on your bed sheets

It probably goes from Hot to Not in an instant for most women...

Things like crying in pain from rectal taring, or a giant scat moment just... isn't the same as a beautiful woman orgasming in the Clean and non Bed sheet ruining manner they do...


Lets just bring it back to "The 500 Man Fisting party Guy"

Man..can be damn disgusting... period, it's almost a favor to us that women sleep with some of us at all... Gay sex isn't Hot to Women Mostly
Worst you get from Lesbianism is a Lady with a pack of Marlboro's and a Flannel

Gay guys bring us Drag Queens and Parades and Orgies and ...yeah Diseases and non productivity and allot of social ills

A woman is just at Extreme risk if her Man is Bi on allot of levels...

The same just doesn't apply in the opposite direction... it's FAR from a double standard, there are real reasons one is hot to one sex but not the other

IncelKing #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC SYSTEM, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

IncelKing #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

High IQ post.

IT won't touch this

No, they wont, they only ever share low IQ posts from this forum onto their sub-reddit. Thats why i wish there were less low IQ posts on the forum, because the only thing low IQ posters are doing is providing IncelTears with the material they need to misrepresent the entire forum as being full of low IQ retards so that nobody takes us seriously (which means the few high IQ and knowledgeable posters here are never able to spread the blackpill to normies).

I think feminism might of had some progressive aspects to it but this aspect was aborted by the female strategy you mention is the root cause of feminism .

Women consider serving their husband and children in return for food, clothing, shelter and all their needs being accommodated for, as being "enslaved," but they don't consider being a wageslave for government and corporations (in order to accomodate those same needs) as "slavery", which makes me think that feminism was never about female empowerment but about liberating themselves from being married to those evil, unattractive men who kept women in concentration camps known as "homes", enabling them to chase Chad dick and have their fill while society foots the bill.

Women are enjoying this new system which has given them so much freedom, although its not women (but society rather) which is paying the price of increased violence and social instability.

EconomicsofSex #sexist reddit.com

Let’s face it: This generation of Incels is lost

We are in the worst place at the worst time in terms of relationships and sex. 50/60 years ago, the dating market was completely different from now. Sex was only allowed in marriage, people who had it outside of wedlock were shamed and punished. But then the sexual revolution happened. In theory, this should have been a great idea: Casual sex and sex outside of marriage are now accepted. People can enjoy it without any restrictions. But this had one flaw: Women don’t want sex. Sex is a resource for them they use to get what they want. So the demand for sex went higher, since men wanted to enjoy this casual sex but the supply stayed the same. Women were not interested in it, thus creating a power imbalance on the dating market in favour of women. Just like in a relationship, where the partner who cares less about the relationship has the most power.

Now this back 20/30 years this was not this bad since there where still some restrictions like limited options. You had your town/city maybe the neighbourhood town but the number of potential partners was small. Then technology began to make progress, the internet came and with it new forms of dating. Suddenly you just didn’t have a handful of people to choose from but the whole internet. Again, theoretically this should have benefited men and women. More options mean more chances to find the one for you. But now the power imbalance hit with full force. Without limitations, women could demand best men thanks to the power they had on the dating market. Instead to settle and lower their standards like they were forced to do back then, they could be as demanding as they wanted to and still find someone.

Now we are in the strange situation that the standards for men are still rising while the standards for female are dropping. Men get told they should go to the gym, get a good career, be better looking, be richer. On the other side, women get told even the 400 lbs landwhale is beautiful and deserve a fit and tall men. Thanks to the position of power females hold in the market, the chances are good she finds one. This creates a spiral in which the standards for men rise and rise while many men struggle to keep up with it or are left behind. Men are forced to go lower and lower to find relationships and sex making it even easier for women to date up, creating incels in the progress since we don’t have the option to date down.

And this is what I mean when I say we are in the worst place in the worst time. The market is dictated by females, creating even higher standards since nobody challenges their position of power. Men are like hamsters in their wheels trying to run faster to keep up with it, fuelling the female privilege even more. A downward spiral that creates incels, or simply men who can’t keep up with the rising standards.

As a summation, I encourage my fellow incels to stop the self-improvement. You are chasing standards that will get higher day by day, encouraging females to set the limits even higher since they can. Someone who comes here and says you have to improve means that you should bow to the standards female can set because they have the power in the market. Instead of following the demands of females, we should ask: What can we do shift the power in the market to men?

Chateau Heartiste #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon

I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first

Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.

II. Make her jealous

Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants. The partner who harnesses the gale storm of jealousy controls the direction of the relationship.

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

IV. Don’t play by her rules

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

VII. Always keep two in the kitty

Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.

VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary

Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.

IX. Connect with her emotions

Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

XI. Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses

In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dancefloor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft.

XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little

Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.

XIV. Fuck her good

Fuck her like it’s your last fuck. And hers. Fuck her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

XVI. Never be afraid to lose her

You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.

***

The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.

Best,

Your Lord and King

CH & Pat Boyle #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

I’m having as big a laugh as any crimson-blooded American man over the latest sexual assault accusation against ür-shitlib feminist tribal hypocrite Al Franken, but it’s a good time to step back from the charade and examine this strange new moral panic overtaking the land as part of a larger marxist and feminist agenda to stigmatize normal male sexuality.

Pat Boyle worries about the same trend, in a comment over at Sailer’s,

I see this morning that Al Franken is the latest celebrity male to be accused of harassing some woman sometime. I hate all this because my views put me so outside the mainstream of contemporary politics but more importantly the mainstream of the community of iSteve readers.

I suspect that all this moralizing and tut-tuting about men harassing women will read like Victorian posturing’s in just a few years. Women want to be harassed. Indeed they are designed by nature to be harassed. My experience is that women demand to be harassed. Feminism will surely turn on its heel and come to be outraged that men are no longer harassing them as is their right.

Why are women happy and when are women most happy. Probably on their honeymoon and the first few months of marriage. This is when women get the most sex. Normal heterosexual women want to have sexual relations with a man every couple days. Most women for most of their adult lives probably are partially starved for sex.

How do women get what little sex they can manage? Unfortunately for them they are largely at the mercy of the energies of the men around them. They are also tightly bound by a network of prohibitions and customs that keep them from exercising the initiative. They must wait often for some man to make an approach. Not all men find it comfortable to do this. There is some risk of rejection and humiliation. Others are clumsy.

I never cheated on either of my wives but in those periods when I was single I worked diligently at accosting females. There was a time when I dated over a hundred different women strangers in a single year. This has become easy with the rise of the Internet. I was never accused of harassing any of them but I was often rejected – sometimes loudly and in public. So what? Girls dress up so as to become the object of men’s lust. Then they feign indifference. That’s just how the game is set up. Since women are generally small, weak and unarmed, all a man risks by being sexually aggressive is a few unkind words.

In those periods when I was most active I thought of myself as providing a public service. Women like to be vigorously pursued. If they are ignored they pout.

Some women are now thinking of the current jihad against grab-ass as some kind of moral crusade. They haven’t counted the costs. If as seems likely, men become more reluctant to flirt or even just make naughty comments to women, the sum total of human happiness will be diminished. Men will hesitate and women will go home and cry in their empty bed.

Women by nature are loathe to hit on men, so they must rely on men aggressively pursuing them to have any shot at love and marriage. If men stop busting a move, both men and women lose out.

Daniel Chieh follows up,

As Slavoj Žižek kinda trolled, the “new rules” are like an ashtray with a “No Smoking” sign above it. Its all madness, the glorious result of a combination of pursuing fantastical ideas of equality to their natural limit plus absolute atomization of the individual.

Enjoy the Current Year spectacle of leftoids getting id-raped by the very man-hating beast they released from the abyss, but don’t forget that the end game is not good for anyone: this beast won’t stop devouring until Equalism is dead as an ideology and virtue signaling passes from the stage as the flare of madness it has always been.

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.

Bob Smith #sexist returnofkings.com

9 Secrets About Female Nature Told By A Hot Girl Dying Of Cancer

Many years ago, I became friends with a very hot blonde in her early 30’s who was dying of cancer. Due to her impending death, she decided that it was okay to relay a vast amount of inside information to me, regarding what women were really all about. She volunteered this information. I have never forgotten what she told me, and it has served me quite well over the years.

Here is a summary of the ten things she told me about the true nature of women, which were related to me over the span of a couple of weeks, shortly before her passing:

1. Women are exactly like little children

We are constantly poking, prodding and testing a man, in order to find out what his boundaries are. If he has no boundaries, we will destroy him, especially if he loves us. A man has to have boundaries, and he has to outline them precisely, and he has to force us to adhere to them with the power of his conviction and the power of his action. If he doesn’t do that, we will beat him over the head with his weaknesses (his lack of boundaries) until he breaks.

2. Women put up a false front about virtually everything

Our faces are fake (makeup), our hair is fake (dyed), our boobs are fake (some of us), everything about us is fake. Most especially when it comes to what is inside of us. We lie constantly, because we are far worse, character-wise, than even our closest friends or lovers will ever know, and we desperately fight to keep all of that hidden.

We are looking for our true daddies, basically – the idealized daddies that we never had – somebody who can see through all of our false fronts and call us out on our bullshit and put us in our place. The problem is, those type of men are very few and far between.

3. If a woman ever tells you, “If we don’t have trust, we don’t have anything,” she is either cheating on you or planning to cheat on you

There are no exceptions to this rule. We use that as cover, to try and make the man feel guilty for questioning our fidelity. What we are really saying here, is, “I will fuck whomever I want and you’d better keep your nose out of it or I’ll cut you off from my pussy and I’ll ruin your freaking life if you keep pressing the issue.” If we really cared about you, and if we really weren’t cheating on you or planning to cheat on you, we would tell you something like, “I am not cheating on you, I love you, and I would never do that. I don’t care if we have to stay up all night, for the next week, and go over every single shred of doubt that’s currently troubling you about this. I have nothing to hide, I would never cheat on you, and I don’t want you thinking these things about me. Please tell me exactly why you think I am cheating, point by point, and I will do anything and everything that I have to do to prove to you that I’m not cheating, in order to ease your worried mind.”

4. Women are much hornier than men

Vastly, exponentially, hornier than men. A woman will do just about anything, sexually speaking, so long as she is fairly certain she won’t get caught. For example, we will occasionally go out of town in order to rendezvous with a man we’ve been longing to fuck, and/or to have multiple sex partners in the same evening, and/or at the same time.

This is something that hot women do, most especially. In our minds, it is a natural desire, and a natural thing, and so long as nobody else finds out, it’s “game on”. Women are receptacles for cock, that’s how we have been biologically designed. Nothing feels better to us than being completely filled up with multiple penises, than being the center of sexual attention, than being the object of unbridled group lust. Since it’s something we can’t risk doing on our home turf (don’t shit where you eat), we have to think outside the box, in order to get our boxes completely satisfied. And you might find this shocking, but many women – many, many women – have sex with dogs on a routine basis. This is just one example of how insatiable we truly are.

I can see why you might not believe it, to which I say, look really hard at all of the women you know who have dogs. Look at women who have dogs whenever you see them out on the street, in the act of walking those dogs. Or at the park. You will notice that most of them have male dogs – the vast majority, in fact. This isn’t a coincidence. And look at all the female teachers who are exposed in the media for having sex with underage students. We have no self-control when it comes to sex – or anything else, for that matter. To our way of thinking, losing control is what makes sex great. Doing anything that is taboo is what makes sex great.

5. Women do not have female friends—they have female competition

We lie to our so-called female friends and pretend we are loyal and faithful to them, just like we do with the men in our lives. Secretly, we are jealous of each other, and we want all of the desirable things that other women have—most especially when it comes to our female friends’ things.

And we consider men to be things. If one of our friends has a hot man, we want him to want us. We will do everything we can to seduce him. Not because we really want him—we don’t really want anybody. We do it because we are rarely happy, and we don’t want our girlfriends to be happy, either, and we want to boost our own egos more than anything else.

And after we get him to fuck us, when our girlfriends find out that he has had sex with us, that’s when we finally get what we wanted in the first place. If we break up the previously happy couple, that’s fine, too. It’s all about our pussy, not hers. It’s about winning.

6. Women always lie about the number of sexual partners they’ve had

They also lie about not wanting men with large penises. If we told the actual truth about the number of different men and women we’ve slept with, and if we told the actual truth about our fervent desire for big dicks, our pool of potential suitors would shrink drastically, to the point where it would completely dry up. So we lie. Most often, we will claim that we’ve had between three and eight sexual partners in our lifetime. And, to our way of thinking, it isn’t a lie, because if we had five sexual partners last Saturday evening, and our man asks us how many sexual partners we have had, and we answer, “Five”, well, technically, we aren’t lying.

7. All women dislike themselves

And because we dislike ourselves, we fervently hate any man who doesn’t see through our bullshit. The more a man loves us, the more we hate him. The more he overlooks our sins, and the more he fails to see how corrupt we are, and the more he gives us the benefit of every single doubt – the more we despise him. We will escalate our bad behavior until we finally break him and he wakes up and realizes how worthless we are and what a fool he has been for believing in us.

8. Women want what they can’t have

We want a man whom we can’t have. We want a man who honestly doesn’t give a fuck about us, who doesn’t care if we come or go. That’s the kind of man we will pursue. Call them bad boys or call them whatever you want, that’s the kind of man we want – period. The kind of guy who will make us orgasm, crudely, and give us a huge sexual thrill in the bedroom, and then discard us like used toilet paper, and fuck our female friends afterwards, just because he can. (Just like we would do with his male friends.)

9. All women are masochists

And all hot women are narcissistic masochists. We hate it when things are going well, especially if they continue to go well for long periods of time. We know down deep that we are fucked-up and not worthy of anything that is truly good. So when things are going well in a relationship, we eventually sabotage it. We just can’t help ourselves in this regard.

We could have the greatest, most handsome, most well-hung husband in the world—a one-of-a-kind man who makes all of our girlfriends jealous; we could have the greatest children in the world, who are beautiful, well-behaved and ambitious; we could have the most enviable career imaginable; we could have all of the money and prestige and the truly good things in life, and we could repeatedly tell ourselves over and over, and believe, on the surface, that we would never cheat on our husbands. But down deep we know that it’s a lie. Because one day, we could walk into a grocery store, and some bad boy could whisper just the right combination of words in our ear, and the next thing you know, we’re at the Motel 6 getting it in the ass. That’s just how we are, and any woman—especially a hot woman—who says otherwise, is a liar.

Over the years, my deceased friend’s words have proven to be spot-on, in the vast majority of cases. And if they ring true from your own personal experience as well, then I am more than happy that I shared them with you here today. I know that my deceased friend would be thrilled to know that I have shared this information with the manosphere. After all, she used to be a hottie, and she’s now dead, and by giving me the inside scoop on her female competition, she continues to beat them—she continues to “win”—even from beyond the grave.

Tim Tony Stark Rifat #crackpot #conspiracy #magick #mammon rvscience.com

SEXUAL ORGASM PHALLIC PSYCRYSTAL
The SOPP is a crystal wand which has a biophysical matrix that is designed to combine the sex energies from sex PCs to release the energy of orgasm. The combination of opposites, the dialectic produces energy on a new level. In nature this orgasmic energy is used to produce the soul of humans, this soul force is the basic core of human beings. In the SOPP this soul force is used to clean, repair and invigorate the soul, the awareness that travels into the astral, lives after death and is the biophysical body’s substance. Use of the SOPP makes astral sex totally real as you solidify your astral as well as charging, exciting the sexual organs it is applied to. The SOPP can be charged in various ways:

1. Male and female sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs
2. Male and male sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs
3. Female and female sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs

To do this hold the point of the male or female PC against the round base of the crystal wand to discharge sex energy it has collected during the day from people, larvae, and archons. Keeping Sex PCs in your pocket while in a big city supercharges them from the people around you. If you live in the country visit the inner city.

1. Gives you a heterosexual orgasm
2. The gay orgasm
3. The lesbian orgasm

If you are into SM then the following protocols are needed for charging the SOPP with SM orgasmic energy.

1. Place the male Sex PC against the base of the SOPP then download the energy in a female Sex PC through the male Sex PC into the SOPP to flavour the female sex energy with masculine dominance to give the dominatrix energy place the female Sex PC against the base of the SOPP then download the energy in a male Sex PC through the female PC into the SOPP to flavour the male sex energy with female submission to give the male sex slave energy. Combine in one SOPP to produce the dominatrix orgasm in female and male sex slave orgasm in males. This gives us the normal heterosexual SM orgasms.

2. Repeat 1. but with the male against male Sex PC to give dominant master type of male; female against female Sex PC to give submissive sex slave female, combined to give male dominant heterosexual SM orgasm.

3. Repeat the above with the female male Sex PC downloading into SOPP to give dominant lesbian dominatrix; female female Sex PC downloading into SOPP to generate lesbian sex slave; combine in SOPP to give lesbian type SM orgasm.

4. Repeat the above with male male Sex PC downloading into SOPP to give gay sex slave; combined in SOPP to give gay typeSM orgasm.

1. Gives dominatrix/slave orgasms
2. Gives master/femslave orgasms
3. Gives dominatrix/fem slave orgasms
4. Gives master/male slave orgasms

This gives us the seven types of orgasm from which the 7 dark energy/matter inorganic being realms are derived and which the 7 BTRI psycrystals feed upon. To produce threesome, ménage a trios orgasms the following protocols are needed:

1. Male Sex PC downloading into SOPP followed by female Sex PC downloading into SOPP, followed by male Sex PC downloading, to give two male and a female type orgasms of three in a bed.

2. Female Sex PC downloading into SOPP followed by male Sex PC downloading into SOPP, followed by female Sex PC downloading, to give two female and one male type orgasms of three in a bed.

3. Three male PC downloading gives gay three in a bed orgasms

4. Three female PC downloading gives lesbian three in a bed orgasms

1-4 can be combined as threesomes simply by downloading an extra dominatrix (female male PC’s), master (male male PC’s), male slave (male female PC’s), fem slave (female female PC’s) to give all kinds of SM threesomes.

For four in a bed just repeat the above but add one more sexual partner’s energy, to reproduce all types of four in a bed orgasms. One need only have two supercharged Sex PCs if heterosexual, gays, lesbians and masters need more. Dominatrix heterosexual orgasms need only one male one female Sex PCs and balance the sex energies – this is my favourite type of orgasmic energy as one can fill oneself with it without going crazy, the other types is excess because they are imbalanced, can be destabilising in huge amounts. Normal heterosexual orgasms should be perfect but male energy is too female in the west, and female energy too male, the resultant mix therefore weak – poor orgasms. Making females more dominant and males to female submissiveness goes with the flow of consciousness in the west and as in Aikido not resisting by pushing the force in the direction tips the balance over producing the super explosive orgasms missing in the archon possessed humans. To experience the 22 types of sex simultaneously download all four Sex PCs into SOPP for all flavour orgasm. For those interested in orgies you can spend your time downloading five, six, . one hundred partners into the SOPP, just make sure you can handle one hundred simultaneous orgasms, gay, lesbian, SM or heterosexual or all types.

<only 600 dollars>

BlkPillPres #sexist #psycho incels.co

[Serious] Why I Can't Fault Rapists (Society Let's Women Play The Game Of "Schrodinger's Assault" - An Act Is Only Assault When They Decide [Criteria = Looks])

1. Rape Is A Man Rebelling Against The Corruption Rampant In The "Sexual Market" (Whether He Knows This Or Not)

Women like to (and are allowed by society to) pick and choose WHEN something is a violation or not, it can't work that way, that isn't logical and it isn't consistent, and that makes it prone to bias and in a way "corruption" as women are the "higher class" hoarding a scarce and valuable resource and controlling its distribution in a manner that does not allow "upward momentum" within the social hierarchy of the sexual market (the rich get richer so to speak)

Let me put it to you in the simplest way

I can't DECIDE that someone stabbing me isn't an assault (the police will still detain and question the assailant regardless of whether I refuse to press charges)

I can't DECIDE that someone taking my belongings at gun point isn't robbery (same as above)

I can't DECIDE that someone burning my house down isn't arson (same as above)

Etc, etc, etc

IF WE APPLIED THE SAME RULES WOMEN APPLY TO ASSAULT BY MEN, TO OTHER CRIMES, EVERYBODY WOULD BE OUTRAGED AND CALL IT OUT AS A CORRUPT SYSTEM

You see a system like that is inherently corrupt and open to bias, every white person can just say every black criminal that assaults them has assaulted them, and every white criminal that has assaulted them didn't (and vice versa)

IT CREATES A RIGGED SYSTEM

YET SOCIETY LETS WOMEN DECIDE WHEN AN ACT IS RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT, EVEN WHEN THE SAME ACTS ARE COMMITTED BY TWO DIFFERENT MEN (VARYING IN LOOKS) ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS

Here's what I mean by that:
Attractive man (Chad) forces his tongue down her throat - "he's being forceful, kinky"
Average/below average man forces his tongue down her throat - "help, I'm being raped"

IT CAN'T WORK LIKE THAT

Oh and yes I've seen shit like that happen in real life, attractive men get away with outright assault, because to women its only assault AFTER THE FACT (WHEN THEY HAVE REVIEWED YOUR LOOKS AND DECIDED WHETHER YOU GET A PASS OR NOT)

Women shouldn't be deciding AFTER THE FACT that THE SAME ACT is only now assault because they don't think the man doing it is attractive enough TO BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT

OH AND YES, THIS IS THE NORM AND WOMEN DO THIS SHIT EVERYDAY!

IT IS IN THAT SENSE THAT I CAN'T FAULT RAPISTS

BECAUSE IF WOMEN ARE COMPLICIT IN THAT KIND OF SYSTEM (AND THEY ARE)

THEY HAVE ALREADY ASSERTED MY ROLE/POSITION AS A RAPIST IN THEIR EYES

AS MY "ADVANCES" WILL ALWAYS BE TREATED AS ASSAULT (BEING A LOW TIER MALE), WHEREAS I WILL ALWAYS WITNESS ATTRACTIVE MEN DO WORSE, ONLY TO BE REWARDED

YOU SEE, MY SIDE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR ME, I'VE ALREADY BEEN MENTALLY PLACED IN THE ROLE OF "OFFENDER" BY WOMEN

EVERY INTERACTION BEING INTERPRETED AS AN OFFENSE, WHILE I LOOK ON AND SEE EVERY ACTUAL AFFRONT BY ATTRACTIVE MEN BE TREATED AS "ENDEARING" OR "CHARMING" (EVEN FUNNY)

2. Women Only Feel Violated Because They Feel They Were Not Compensated Fairly (Either By The Validation Of Said Male Being "High Tier" Or Monetary Payment)

What is rape (to women)? - having sex with a man you don't actually want to

What is prostitution (to women)? - having sex with a man you don't actually want to for money

I find it funny how easily "the most unspeakable act in the world" becomes completely acceptable and not traumatizing at all, the moment a woman accepts payment for it :feelskek:

AN AVERAGE/BELOW AVERAGE MAN HAS VAGINAL SEX WITH A PASSED OUT WOMAN AND SHE CAN'T REMEMBER A THING THE NEXT DAY (IS TOLD BY A FRIEND):
#METOO
#1IN4
#SURVIVOR
#RAPECULTURE

"RAPE IS THE MOST EVIL AND UNSPEAKABLE ACT IN THE WORLD, IT MUST HAVE BEEN SUCH TORMENT, SHE WAS VIOLATED SO HARSHLY"

AN AVERAGE/BELOW AVERAGE MAN PAYS A WHORE/ESCORT TO USE ALL HER HOLES, DOES ANAL, MAKES HER CHOKE ON HIS DICK, CUMS ON HER FACE, ETC:
#SEXWORK
#SEXWORKISREALWORK,
#YAAAAASSQWEEENGETDEMDOLLAS
#INDEPENDENTWOMAN

"SHE'S JUST EXPRESSING HER SEXUALITY IN HER OWN WAY, STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN'S SEXUALITY, SHE'S USING WHAT MOTHER NATURE GAVE HER TO GET AHEAD IN THIS WORLD, WHY ARE WEAK MEN SO AFRAID OF FEMALE SEXUALITY" (THE IRONY)

Do you think whores aren't being fucked "roughly"?, they are, they are handled more roughly than the average woman in a date rape who barely remembers anything, and whores do this with multiple men, day in and day out

THEY ARE VIOLATED IN THE TRUEST MOST LITERAL SENSE

NOT IN THE "I DECIDED IT WAS VIOLATION BECAUSE THE GUY WASN'T ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH" SENSE

But for some reason, like magic, there is no "outrage" like the woman who gets raped once in an alleyway or gets "date raped", now ask yourself, WHY IS THAT?

Its simple really:

IN ONE CASE THE WOMAN FELT LIKE SHE WAS DULY COMPENSATED (VIA VALIDATION AND/OR MONEY)

IN THE OTHER CASE SHE FELT LIKE SHE WAS ROBBED OF SOMETHING (THAT SHE IRONICALLY WOULD HAVE GLADLY LET GET TAKEN AWAY IF THE ASSAILANT HAD A BETTER LOOKING FACE)

That's the only difference, the difference between rape and prostitution is the feeling of being compensated (be that validation from males she desires and/or money, its the lack of compensation that women see as the TRUE VIOLATION, not the act itself, AND THAT MAKES "THE SYSTEM" CORRUPT)

IT IS IN THAT SENSE I CAN'T FAULT RAPISTS

AS THE VERY SCHEMA BY WHICH WOMEN DECIDE WHAT IS ASSAULT OR NOT, I AM BY DEFAULT IN THE "OFFENDER CATEGORY" AND ONLY IF I GIVE PROPER MONETARY COMPENSATION DO I GET A PASS

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MY SIDE WAS DECIDED FOR ME BY THE FEMALE COLLECTIVE AND THEIR STATUS QUO, IF I'M PUT IN THE ROLE OF MONSTER, I WILL NOT CARE FOR OR COME TO THE AID OF HUMANS, I WILL LEARN MY PLACE AND ACCEPT MY ROLE
Last edited: Today at 8:33 PM

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

I protected her.

We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.

Wrong!

Wrong again!

She totally and completely forgets it.
I endangered her:
“Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
“I cannot swim”, she replies.

I pick her up.

“Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Raping Girls is Fun #sexist #psycho #fundie #conspiracy #racist ifunny.co

(Submitter’s Note: the link is to a screenshot that was taken from the, now defunct, website “Raping Girls is Fun”)

[Rapepill] INTRODUCTION TO THE RAPEPILL: THE REASON WHY WE, AS RAPECELS, SAY RAPING GIRLS IS FUN

The Rapecel manifesto
A spectre is haunting the western femisphere —- the spectre of Rape-Culture. All the powers of feminism have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Bluepilled normies, white knight cucks; women's studies professors; Jewish sex offender psychologists; even young, borderline personality disordered femoids, and Chad's embittered, cast-off fucktoys, neither of whom can stop fantasizing about the Chad-rape they wish they could get, yet have no choice but to sublimate those fantasies by immersing themselves in the literature that condemns rape culture. They want to be raped by Chad, and accuse the betas and incels of rape for having the audacity to expect sex in return for their often state-enforced provisioning.
Where is the incel who has not been decried as rapey by his opponents in power? It is high time that rapecels should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Rape-Culture with a manifesto of rapecels themselves.
What is the rapepill?
The rapepill is the sexual component of patriarchism. It is the the understanding that men and femoids are sexually complementary; that sexual polarity depends on the union of a dominant male with a submissive female; that hierarchy is more efficient and stable than rule by a committee of two equals; that providing a stable home for the raising of children is incompatible with the notion of moment-to-moment consent to sex.
The rapepill is based on an acknowledgement that femoids, being emotional and childish (especially during their years of peak beauty and fertility), are not fit to make their own sexual decisions, and that men therefore must make those for them. But the rapepill also says that even if femoids had the same intellectual capacity as men, they would still need to be forced into sexual submission, because the power imbalance between man and woman creates unity in the family behind a common leader. The ability to compel the female to have sex gives the man a reason to stay with her, and creates harmony in their relations.
On a primal level, rape reassures the female that, being the type of man who is strong and assertive enough to take charge of her, her master can also go out into the world and do what is needed to protect and provide for her. She knows she is kept safe from her own self-destructive impulses as he subjugates her under his will, sexually and in other ways. Rape then is symbolic of care for her, because it springs forth from his ownership of her and desire to preserve his property so that it can be used for the satisfaction of his sexual cravings.
What is a rapecel?
A rapecel is a man who cannot have sex without getting accused of rape. As the term implies, he is a combination rapist and incel.
One might argue, "Many so-called 'rapists' don't actually copulate with anyone; they were wrongly accused." Or, members of the more mainstream factions of the incelosphere will try to distance themselves from the out-and-out rapecels by saying "NAIALT (not all incels are like that)!"
But the distinction between "rapist" and "non-rapist," as weighty as it may be in law, politics, and culture, is without a meaningful difference. Femoids can feel raped just by knowing that an incel looked at them lustfully. And with femoids, all that matters are feelings; to them, feeling raped is worse than actually being raped. To a femoid, "rape" is symbolic of every wrong that men do to femoids, because it is the one act that only a man can perpetrate against her. "Rape" encompasses every failing that a man can have in his relations with femoids, which is why when a relationship breaks up, often the femoid will decide that her mate was sexually abusing her the whole time.
Since female consent is an arbitrary social construst, and the female's perception of having consented, or having been raped, can change from moment to moment, and since her perception is all that matters in determining her happiness or sadness, we may as well say that those men who tend to inflict upon femoids feelings of being raped are for practical purposes rapecels. In today's society, all sub-8 men are effectively rapecels, since relations between the sexes are more dysfunctional than ever, making femoids increasingly inclined to cry "rape" because they feel unhappy, and because they know it will attract sympathy and assistance they could not otherwise get so easily. Female nature is to instinctively use deception and victimhood as a cloak and shield against any attempt to impose upon her personal responsibility for her actions.
In times past, femoids were protected from the consequences of poor sexual decisions by being forced to obey their fathers' wishes that they stay virginal until marriage and then marry a man of their father's choice, and stay faithful and loyal to him. Now, femoids have been unleashed to make poor sexual decisions, and if these relationships or lack thereof turn out badly for them, their recourse is to claim, "I was raped," if they want society to step in and help them in dealing with the consequences, and inflict retribution on the man they believe wronged them. In most cases, this will be a man who is not Chad (because they would never cry rape against Chad, since the halo effect makes them continually worship him rather than having contempt for him; and since they always harbor a desire to have sex with him in the future, rather than wanting to get rid of him), nor a truly dangerous man (whom they would fear too much to want to get on his bad side).
Thus, the rapecel is usually a gentle, meek man -- or at least, he starts out that way. He could also be an ugly man who is determined to get what he wants. But note here that under the inflated standards of male aesthetics which characterizes our epoch in which hypergamy has been unleashed, "ugly man" increasingly is a category that encompasses every sub-8 man, as for practical purposes they are just as incel as the sub-4 men of times past. Their acts of sex with femoids are just as likely to be labeled rape as those that sub-4 men used to engage in years ago.
Why do you, as rapecels, say "Raping Girls Is Fun"?
Raping girls is fun because it is what we, as men, are meant to do. The masculine man is all about conquest; what distinguishes him from the female is that rather than talk endlessly, to try to make sense of his feelings, he instead finds pleasure in bending nature to his will, making progress in his work, and rising to ever-higher pinnacles of success and accomplishment. With rape, man extends his dominion to the female, putting her to the use for which she was made, indeed the only use she is good for, and therefore the only use that can truly satisfy her, since compared to man, she is incompetent at everything else and therefore would feel inferior were it not for having between her legs what man wants and can only get from the female.
Rape appeals to our natural, primitive instincts, as we evolved during a time when rape was normal; yet it is not something we should aspire to evolve past, because it is classical, rather than anachronistic. Civilization does not mean we should stop raping; on the contrary, civilization makes more rape possible, as it enables men to combine forces to overpower femoids and force them under men's sexual domination; and rape in turn is a building block of civilization, subduing female rebellion so that femoids can bear children and be compelled to raise them with the children's father, producing physically and psychologically healthy offspring that can then participate in civilized society.
With all this in mind, we can let our consciences rest free of any guilt that rape is wrong just because a femoid says "Stop," "No," etc. We can enjoy ourselves as we thrust into these femoids while they cry out in pain and struggle against us, confident in the knowledge that this is right and what we are supposed to do, and what we as men have been blessed with as our birthright, and have earned through our contributions to society. Once we have taken the rapepill, all that remains is to put our ideas into practice, and that is where the excitement begins, because nothing is more fun than raping girls.

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.

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.

Archwinger #sexist reddit.com

The Red Pill is Pro-Woman

There’s a post floating around one of the other subreddits telling the tale of a 17-year-old girl and her controlling, manipulative, abusive 23-year-old boyfriend who took great pains to isolate her from her friends and family, demand sex on every occasion they would meet (and threaten to dump her or kick her out of his house if she didn’t comply), and some other really shitty behaviors, like physical violence and driving off and leaving her in another state. Needless to say, this guy isn’t the “alpha male” a Red Pill guy strives to be. He’s a sniveling loser who had to resort to insecure, jealous, and controlling behavior because he didn’t have options with other women, wasn’t an attractive or valuable man, and was desperately afraid of losing this girl.

Somewhere in this story, the woman tosses in the fact that this shithead she was dating was obsessed with reading The Red Pill, which, of course, led to the usual Reddit bandwagon about The Red Pill being a haven for virgin loser sexist rapist abusers. Conveniently brushed off was the fact that this woman, for five years, stayed with her boyfriend, had sex on demand every time, came back to him after every breakup, and put up with all of his crap. Everyone simply concludes, obviously, that this woman had psychological issues, was young and naive and inexperienced, and that her boyfriend “took advantage” of her and “manipulated” her. Because of the way he “made her feel,” she was forced to stay with him, forced to have sex with him on demand, and prevented from leaving him.

This standard surfaces again and again, in various examples--I’m just pulling this one because it’s recent.

If a man were to approach a “normal” woman he was dating, with no deficiencies, no issues, no perceived power disparity or significant age difference or anything like that, and if that man were to say, “Have sex with me or we’re through,” the assumption for this baseline, normal case would be that the woman has two choices: have sex with him, or end the relationship. Also assumed in this normal, baseline case is that the woman has the capacity to make whatever decision she feels is best for her. Maybe she wants to have sex anyway and likes sex with him. Maybe she doesn’t, but gets something else out of the relationship she appreciates. Or maybe she’s offended by this kind of demand on principle and dumps him. But it’s her choice, right? She has agency and makes the best decision for herself.

The modern, anti-Red-Pill viewpoint is that no woman would ever put up with that garbage. The only correct choice is for that woman to dump the “abusive” shithead she’s dating (because any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically “abuse.” You’re supposed to buy her jewelry every weekend, not say a word about sex, and hope she fucks you out of the goodness of her heart). If a woman does agree to sex when demanded like that, that’s obviously the wrong choice, and it is clear, simply due to the fact that the woman made this wrong choice, that she is psychologically impaired and not responsible for her bad decision. Her abuser somehow had power over her and she couldn’t see the truth.

That’s the standard. Essentially, if a woman makes a choice our detractors agree with, she’s responsible and made a great choice. If a woman makes a choice they disagree with, then she was clearly manipulated, controlled, abused, and not responsible for her bad decision – blame the man.

That’s the blue pill, feminist, anti-Red-Pill way. “The choice I would have made is the only correct choice. I’m so right that anybody who does differently is mentally incompetent by definition, and any man who causes a mentally incompetent woman to make a bad choice is an abuser who should have recognized that the woman he’s abusing is mentally incompetent simply by virtue of the fact that she did what he wanted.” That’s the standard. It’s on you, the actor, as a man, to recognize whether or not a woman is competent to make a decision on her own behalf. It’s up to you to know everything there is to know about her and the totality of her circumstances, and to assume that women are mentally incompetent and can’t make good choices unless their circumstances are absolutely ideal. And even then, maybe not.

Ironically, the Red Pill is much more pro-woman. We assume that women are reasonably intelligent people, capable of making reasonable decisions that are best suited to them. That’s where the whole hypergamy thing comes from – we assume women are smart enough to make the decisions that get the best possible outcome for themselves. Likewise, when a man gives a woman a choice: put out or get out, we assume a woman is intelligent enough and responsible enough and reasonable enough to decide which of those two choices is the best one for her. If she walks, great. If she stays, then maybe she wanted sex, or maybe she’s getting something else out of the relationship that she appreciates. But it was her choice based on what she felt was the best outcome for her.

The Red Pill gives women the benefit of the doubt. The Red Pill believes in a woman’s ability to make responsible decisions for herself. Our detractors assume women are idiots, and therefore, it should be a federal offence to ever attempt to coerce a woman into sex, because women that agree to be with such men are apparently, by definition, mentally impaired. You can’t put women on the spot like that! They can’t be expected to make the right decision in those circumstances!

That’s the world of “feelings.” If you pick up a woman at a bar, and she goes home with you that night, but tomorrow morning, she regrets the encounter, then you “manipulated” her into sex. It wasn’t her decision, it was your abuse.

But even if she doesn’t regret her decision, our detractors don’t take her feelings into account at all. They only consider their own. They never would have gone home with you. The only correct decision was to turn you down. Because she made a decision they disagree with, by definition, you abused and manipulated and controlled her.

Thankfully for women, we assume better of them. We’re far more pro-woman than most feminists.

kryptonian51 #fundie biblicalgenderroles.com

[Comment on an article entitled 'why the Bible allows forced sex in marriage']

And I was looking around, and I thought what would happen if women all over the world just said NO, they said, nope, we’re refusing to have sex….I mean a complete blanket denial, a sexual “fast” as it were…what would happen? and what would happen if it was permanent?

I believe there would be MASS FORCED SEX on a world wide scale…..Biologically in order to propagate the species, in time men would take women by force if necessary in order to confront this vile evil of a woman’s refusal to disobey what she was created for

It’s like the old saying, “we can do this the hard way, or we can do it the easy way”……..And not once did I feel in my Spirit, that this would be wrong
A lot of readers here will be horrified and think I am advocating rape, but I’m not , I don’t see forced sex as “rape”….I see the women’s refusal however to propagate the species as sinful and needs to be confronted with force if necessary
Unfortunately we have been too conditioned by society to see that as a bad thing

Now the ideal of course, is for the women to submit, and for men to be gentle in getting sex, but there’s a greater picture here, than a woman’s hurt pride, it is the inherent nature of a woman to resist ALL forms of male authority, to listen to the JEZEBELIC spirit that seeks to viciously control and manipulate man through sex, to use sex as a weapon

Now my hypothetical scenario might not ever play out on a grand scale, but it does on a smaller scale….women continue to refuse to have sex with their husbands by using the “I’m not in the mood card”, and this can be an infinite loop a man can’t get out of, he can show Christ like patience, self control etc, but in the end, a woman can create the infinite loop by saying not tonight hun, I’m really not in the mood every time he approaches her for sex
As Christian men, we need to be strong and refuse to accept that situation, and sometimes forced sex is the only viable solution, after other measures have been taken
That is why I say to women who wish to get married “Don’t get married and destroy your husband’s soul, if you don’t want to have sex”

The reason we have “Slut walks”, and out of control promiscuous sexual behavior by WOMEN, is women want to set the terms and conditions for when they have sex, but what they don’t realize is that “sex” is not a choice, it is a command from GOD to indulge in within the confines of “marriage” in order to propagate the species and to raise “godly seed” for the next generation Malachi 2:15

This is why women were traditionally NEVER allowed to choose a man as her husband, that choice was made by her father, because if women had their way, they would never choose any one, she would be the victim of her own impossible standards, and indecisiveness
In fact the whole idea of “dating” today is patently un biblical, the very idea that we allow women to choose who they want to marry is stupid and sinful….Nope, what happens, is if a man see a desirable and attractive woman, he goes and asks her father the permission to take her as wife, if she refuse, who cares, it’s not up to here anyway…..That’s how it should be, that’s what works best for society as a whole, and in fact, it is still widely practiced today in a lot of cultures like the Middle East and India

Thoughts anyone?

Was I too harsh?

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out. Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you. They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men. We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly. So we take power away from men and give it to women. “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men. The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better? Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies. We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs. A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person. I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet. I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people. To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

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.

Lilyofthevallies #fundie disciplesperspective.com

7 (8) Reasons Why Women Should not be Cops

1. NOT a Woman’s Spiritual make-up: Peter 3:3–4 which urges women to cultivate a “gentle and quiet spirit.” Being a cop is NOT cultivating this. God did not create women to be the aggressive, assertive, dominant sex, and yet, that is precisely what the feminists want and the police force needs.

2. NOT a Woman’s Physical make-up: Clearly God did not design women, as a whole and in general, with this purpose in mind, clearly it was a role that God gave men, so why are women taking it from them? Why are women going against God’s obvious intent? If it is wrong for a man to hit a woman because he is stronger, then what about a woman who is a cop?

3. Image: In Song of Solomon, we see it is the woman’s job is to bare the image of a flower, of beauty and fragility. “I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys.” Song 2:1. Impossible to do as a Navy Seal or a soldier. A woman should represent womanhood IN the home AND outside the home. This cannot be done in the inherently masculine role of a cop, or, like my previous post talked about, as G. I. Jane.

4. Setting bad example: If it is not something you want your children to emulate, then why are you doing it? A woman as a cop or even a soldier can lead to confusion, and gender confusion leads to homosexuality. The number of lesbians in the military and especially the police force, are incredibly high. There is a correlation that many men in the military have picked up on. Your are leading others kids astray, causing them to stumble…

5. Scandalous: Furthering on the last note, I am afraid that a ‘Christian’ woman who is a cop, is creating a scandal. Because of the reputation of female cops as being lesbians is such a recognized truth among certain groups, it is pure scandal in the church of Christ. Eph. 5:3, “But sexual immorality and any impurity or greed should not even be heard of among you, as is proper for saints. (Italics mine).”

6. Usurping /stealing man’s intended purpose and role: God gave this role to men, so why are women taking it, as if they ‘have a right’ to it? This is not the natural order of things that God has set forth, and yet so many people instinctively know this. God does not screw up, nor is He arbitrary; He designed men and women for a purpose, and those purposes are NOT the same. A man’s role is to protect women, children, and society. Why do we have women who are not satisfied with their God given roles?

7. Pragmatic Reason: Men are not being men, to a very large degree, because women are not being women. You want your man to be a man? Then get out of his way and stop doing his job for him. Very, very, few men desire to have a wife who is a cop; it is shameful for a man if a woman is just as, or more so, of a man than he is. This is inherent in the way God made men and women. You want to increase your odds of getting married? Be a woman, not a man.

8. Cross-dressing is Wrong: It is a perversion, it’s ungodly. Society ‘accepts’ men and women who cross dress, but that does not mean the God who created them does. Our God is not a God of confusion so why do we have women who are dressing up in the manliest clothes they can possibly wear? Because they want to be masculine. This is wrong, unhealthy, and only creates confusion. Just because society applauds women wearing clothes that makes are inherently masculine, does not mean the church should.

This feminist culture has redefined what it means to be a woman, now the church needs to redefine it again, back to what it should be. Even little children know that a woman should not be a cop, let us humble ourselves and learn from the ‘wisdom from the mouth of babes’.

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.

TFH #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

[Note: this quote is two comments made back-to-back]

What is stunning to me is the total lack of self-awareness. Consider the following :

1) Women are desperate for men to be more attractive. Their desire for this is greater than a man’s desire for an attractive woman, as evidenced by how women want every aspect of society and government to be rigged to favor them in SMV terms. Men are not remotely near the point where they think that everything should assist them in the sexual market (if men were, then at a minimum, we would have a female-heavy immigration policy). Plus, women really do think that unattractive men (the bottom 70-80%) should have many basic human rights stripped from them, while almost no men say that ugly women should suffer the same just for being ugly.

2) Yet women have no idea how to teach men how to become more attractive. Women infact misguide men, without even knowing that they are misguiding them. I have only ever come across 2-3 women who could discuss parts of Game with enough detachment as to instruct a man about it (and that too, only conveying material that men created and published).

3) So forget the fact that men produce almost 100% of all valuable knowledge, and that women are utterly uninterested in subjects that are serious, profound, and move civilization forward. Even that is not as profound as the fact that 99.99999% of women simply cannot teach a man how to do better with women, despite how a woman’s desire for the most attractive men greatly exceeds even a man’s desire for a 10.

Despite all this, women just cannot teach men to be what women want men to be. Women actually give advice to men that makes them repulsive to women. If women had any grasp of their own psychology, they would at least make Game a subject mandated in public schools or whatever.

This is a damning indictment about how incomplete the female psyche is…..

...

In summary, despite the fact that women are more desperate for highly attractive men than even men are from women who are 9s and 10s (as evidenced by how women think this should be the primary purpose of government, the economy, and judicial system), women, almost without exception, are utterly incapable of guiding a man on how to become more attractive. On the contrary, women give terrible advice that makes men repulsive to women, which in turn frustrates women……

Women just don’t understand how women think. To be this inobservant, this incapable of actually guiding men on what women really find attractive, despite how badly women want this…. This makes it impossible to think highly of the female intellect…

No wonder just about every successful society that ever existed realized that ‘tingles’ had to be deprioritized into utter oblivion, because there is just about no greater waste of resources and productivity, and no greater fountain of perverse incentives….

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

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

CH #sexist web.archive.org

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

(throwaway05566)
Women are so sexually selective that a portion of males literally are unaware that women even HAVE sex drives and need to be told

You ever hear numales telling each other shit like "y'know women want it just as much as you!" They cite this as some huge realization that made them less scared to interact with women.

Think of that. Some guys literally need to TOLD that women do in fact have sexual urges. If that doesn't show how picky and discriminating women are, I don't know what will.

(swaggeringgait)
Same with "women are complicated" Attractive guys do not think this, it's bluepill numale cope to explain their lack of sexual success.

(SafeAffect)
The existence of incels disproves the idea that women have equal sex drives to men.

(throwaway05566)
Women's sexual drive is simply directed at the top 10% of men.

(mikeavenatty)
no i think what he says makes sense. you dont have to have super high libido to be attracted to literally model tier people. but chads would pump and dump fatties just because they can easily get them. the reason why guys are willing to go much lower than their looksmatch is their high libido. maybe libido has a very specific definition in literature though i dont know.

(de_throni)
Men are less picky than women. That's the only difference.

Women never have "migraine" or are "not in the mood" or "too busy" when Chad is around. Women have 100+ guys lined up. Yes, even the 1/10 morbidly obese Jabba the Hutt lookalike. They just choose to go without sex for a limited time instead of fucking someone who is 7/10 or below.

On top of that: Tinder and other apps make it more private. A girl can get fucked 3-5 times in a day and you'll never notice. Had female coworkers talking about fucking 3 dudes in a week like it's no big deal. These guys fuck hundreds, if not thousands of women. Women fuck 100 different guys and the other 900 get none. That is the reality we live in.

A reality you'll never notice, see or be a part of. It's a sellers market. That's why there are so many hookers but no male escorts. There's no need for them.

(GasTheBlues)
There are male escorts, they're just called rent boys because men fuck them instead. I've had guys actually offer me money to suck my dick before, I'd say men definitely have stronger drives than women.

(billybones11)
fakecel out

(WomenRnpcs)
Gangbangs wouldn't exist if women didn't have a high sex drive. Women are always ready for the right guy.she will even drive to his house.

(Invisible_247)
Yep. This was me. There was a really strong undercurrent of 'men are disgusting and only want sex; women are above sex' in media growing up.

Taking that forward, in my IRL experience, women have never shown any signs of being the slightest bit sexual. Stuff like this being normal makes it seem more like we're actually enemies.

So I essentially believed women were mostly asexual, just tolerating sex in relationships. When I began actually learning about hookup culture and women having sex just after meeting someone or FWBs, my brain just couldn't even process that for a while.

Immersed in this community I now of course know the truth.

(AbledCat)
That sign is fucking ragefuel. They're literally dehumanising men and treating them as if they were all rapists that need to be kept in control, the fucking gillete ad in real life. Of course in essence its only a shit test that applies to ugly men.

(AbuIncelAlAustrali)
Chad has the impression that foids like sex even more than men

(flamethrowup)
Goddamn, googolplex IQ. And what you're saying makes perfect sense. If you're attractive enough the idea that women have sex drives is so obvious it's not worth stating; of course they do, otherwise you wouldn't be getting laid all the time. These are the black pills I come here for.

Lysander #fundie boychat.org

I think people are more fascinated with pedophiles than ever before. Back before the registry existed, there could be sex offenders hanging out in your neighborhood that you didn't even know about. They would hand out candy on Halloween just like anyone else, and no one would be the wiser. Pedophilia was effectively invisible. It wasn't talked about. Also, child porn wasn't even all that common, because we didn't have the Internet.

Now, we have more than 700,000 sex offenders on the registry. People can exclaim, "Wow, I didn't know we had a child pornography trafficker living right in our neighborhood!"

I think to some extent, people realize, "700,000 sex offenders can't be wrong." Also, they don't feel revulsion toward sex offenders, even though they say, "That's horrible and disgusting!" Rather, they can't get enough of shows like Special Victim Unit. They want to immerse themselves in it.

My view is, there are a lot of pedo-curious people out there. They want to know what all the hubbub is, that's making so many people want to download child porn, or have sex with little kids, or whatever. They're tired of feeling left out.

For a long time now, people have been sexualizing children. There are so many women (single moms, etc.) who are basically whores, that obviously their daughters are going to copy them, and want to wear the same tight/skimpy clothes and adopt the same sexualized stances, etc. so they can get attention too. Also, the Romeo-and-Juliet laws, coupled with the feminist injunction against slut-shaming, amount to society's sanctioning teen sexual activity.

The bottom line is that more and more, I think a lot of people want to experience sex with kids. They want to at least experience it vicariously. That's why they love to repost clickbait articles about adult-child sex. Women want to have sex with boys, men want to have sex with young girls, and homosexual men definitely want to have sex with boys (they barely even try to hide it). (As for women with younger girls, that doesn't get talked about much, because it doesn't fit into the feminist narrative, but I guarantee it will someday be a popular segment of the child porn market, once that's legalized.)

Another factor in this is that hebephilia and ephebophilia have been subsumed under pedophilia, even though the official change wasn't made to the DSM. That also tends to make pedophilia seem more alluring, because it includes not only attraction to the prepubescent but to the pubescent as well.

I think at this point, a lot of people would at least like to mess around with a kid to see what it's like.

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

Graham Seibert #racist #sexist amren.com

Why Older White Men Should Start Second Families

Developed societies are not reproducing themselves. This includes the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and European peoples along with their former white colonies.

Societies must have children. At the same time, children of our peoples will enjoy better prospects if they can live among others like themselves rather than among a mix of other ethnicities. And governments, whoever their citizens may be, have a constant need for new generations of taxpayers and soldiers.

A significant number of older men become available for marriage. Though some are widowed, more are divorced. Whether they sought this freedom or not, many older men find themselves no longer bound by obligations to former wives, children, and grandchildren. They are free to start over.

Identitarians, who are making the strongest case for increasing the fertility of their own groups, should look at older men as natural allies and recruit them to the cause. Older men identify more strongly with the societies into which they were born. They retain traditional values. They have demonstrated by their survival and success that they have “the right stuff” worth passing on to a new generation. They generally have the material resources to support children, and if they do not already have a family, they should start one.

Men should not be encouraged to fritter away the last few decades of life traveling and playing golf. Like younger men who are re-discovering their identities, they should raise strong families to perpetuate their heritage.

Genetics

Genetics lie at the core of most arguments against older fatherhood. Although the bulk of the harmful mutations that appear in every person’s genome are inherited from parents, an older man is more likely to have de novo mutations to his genome — those that appear during his lifetime.

Still, the number of harmful de novo mutations is small compared to the thousand or so inherited mutations. Kondrashov includes a table showing that in the genome of a newborn, de novo mutations make up 10 percent of the worst mutations (which reduce fitness by 10 percent or more), 1 percent of those that reduce fitness by 1 percent or more, and 0.1 percent and .001 percent of the lesser orders of magnitude of deleterious mutations. However old a father may be, he can take comfort in the fact that a significantly greater percentage of his children’s load of deleterious genes will be ones he and his wife inherited rather than new ones he passed along to his children. The increase in the risk of harmful mutations is probably no more than about 25 percent. If the rest of his genome gives children a 25 percent edge — in terms of charm, good looks, intelligence — it can be a fair trade.

Genetic advantages of an older father

An older guy who is available for marriage probably inherited fewer harmful mutations than most. He obviously didn’t inherit anything that would kill him young. Heart disease is about 30 percent heritable. An older guy fit enough to marry probably doesn’t have it. Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are about 50 percent heritable. The older husband who doesn’t yet show any signs of dementia is less likely to carry those mutations. An older guy on the marriage market is less likely to carry genetic mutations favoring bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other conditions that show up over the course of adult life.

An older man available for marriage has almost certainly been successful, and therefore above-average in intelligence. Intelligence is about 80 percent heritable. A woman can’t control her own contribution to a child’s intelligence — that’s baked into her genome. But if the older partner she attracts has a 20 IQ point advantage over a younger suitor, she can reasonably expect her children will be correspondingly smarter.

Part of the argument about de novo mutations is that since the rates of childhood mortality fell from about 50 percent at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to today’s 1 percent, an increasing number of deleterious genes are retained in each successive generation. The older father is one or two generations closer to the Industrial Revolution. In all, though the older father will have somewhat more deleterious mutations, his genome may be superior to that of a young woman’s younger potential partners.

What do we want out of life?

There are other considerations, and each of the following has a particular point of view: the older man, the younger wife, the children, and the state. Finally, society has an interest in perpetuating its culture, values, and traditions and this interest may conflict with those of the individuals and the state.

Will children make an older man happy? Children take time and money away from the pursuit of commercialized happiness. A man whose concept of “happiness” is skiing, surfing, and rock concerts will find that children do not bring happiness.

Personal consumption is a major element in many men’s idea of happiness. They want the latest iGadgets, imported wines, and Swiss watches. Children are expensive, so all but the wealthiest men must make trade-offs, but children can also be a vehicle for conspicuous consumption. Sending them to private schools, exclusive camps, and Ivy League universities burns money almost as well as buying yachts.

It is impossible to measure the value of sex. The man raising children within a marriage can be reasonably sure of getting sex every now and again, but he can be equally sure that he will not get all he wants. The man who equates happiness with frequent sex is better off being a wealthy bachelor, frequenting prostitutes, or using Tinder. An older husband, presumably with a somewhat reduced libido, is likely to be better matched to his wife.

Responsibility for a family gives a man a reason for living. The family provides emotional support. A lifelong partnership gives a man an anchor in life, a sense of stability. Happiness comes with satisfying ones felt obligation to God and/or the church, one’s clan, one’s tribe, and one’s nation. For a patriot, serving his country also brings happiness.

Community involvement

Being married provides a man with a niche in society. Other people know how to peg him: married with children. He is automatically included in other groups: the PTA, parents who carpool, babysitting cooperatives, swimming pool parents, etc. These connections keep an older father involved in society. It is easy for a retiree to let go of life bit by bit as his family obligations are satisfied and no new ones appear. A late-life family poses real obligations, and keeps a man connected with society.

Why would an older man start a family?

Having children doesn’t offer material benefit for the older prospective father. If he is already old, he won’t last long enough for children to care for him in his dotage. Having a younger wife will confer some status whether or not she bears him children, but the tax and welfare benefits of children are laughably small. Ultimately, the only motive is to have children for their own sake, and perhaps to follow some higher calling, such as an obligation to ancestors, society, or the church.

Why would a woman have children with an older man?

Western society has been drenched for decades with anti-fertility messages. We are told there are too many people on earth and Westerners, because of our material consumption, damage the planet. Our societies are inherently unfair to women and racial minorities and sexual minorities; we should die out. Add to that the scare stories from women’s magazines about the genetic risks of an older father.

If a woman decides, despite all the opposition, that she wants children, what are the advantages and disadvantages of an older man? The age of the mother is dictated by biology. A woman’s fertility declines quickly after 35. If she is over 40, the couple may well seek medical help, and will probably stop at one child. This is asymmetric: he has three more decades of fertility than she.

In Western society, a woman who has decided to dedicate her fertile years to having children is in a privileged position for choosing mates. This is especially true for intelligent, educated women, because so many of their competitors are busy with careers. Such a woman can choose a partner from more or less her own age up to the limits of male fertility. Why would she choose an older man?

Financial resources

Raising a family takes money. A woman wants a man who can provide for her.

In choosing a younger man, a woman is betting on the future. It’s uncertain how far he will rise. He may burn out — and prove to be an unsuitable provider — or, he may become spectacularly successful, pull away from his wife and family, and become subject to all kinds of temptations. With an older man, you get what you see. The drama has already played out.

Older men tend to have more money. This is especially true of older men looking for younger woman in the marriage market. They would not be looking unless they were successful. It is also something specific to this generation. The baby boomers have been running society for more than 40 years, and have stacked the deck in their own favor. The baby boomers are the richest generation in America’s history, and also in Western Europe. Younger men are not likely to have as much money.

Men already on pension are probably receiving healthy ones. This is on top of the wealth they have accumulated. Gen X and millennial men have had such a hard time scraping together the down payment for a house that they have not benefited from the rise in stocks and real estate. Moreover, they could well be cheated out of social security; there will be nothing but a dry well for them.

Maturity

People tend to become more stable and predictable as they get older. They know more about life and they fall into habits that have proven successful. An older husband is less likely to make erratic decisions, such as changing careers, moving, or developing a newfound taste for drugs, alcohol, or video games.

Arguments and stress are part of every marriage. A mature man will understand his long-term interests better, and favor the long-term benefits of marriage over short-term concerns about one-up-man-ship or self-esteem.

A woman should enter marriage with the expectation that her partner will be there for the 20 years or so it takes to raise children. An older guy can be a good bet. Actuarially, an older suitor in good health is very likely to survive another 20 years, and psychologically, he is more likely to remain the same person.

Fidelity

A woman should not bet on a man who is unlikely to settle down. A man’s character becomes clear by the time he is 50. An older man is less likely to his affections wander, so long as he has a reliable partner.

To return to a previous point, the primary reason an older man would want to marry a younger woman and have children is because he wants children. The best way to succeed at that is to remain in a monogamous marriage. Children in a stable marriage are more likely to succeed, and the man himself is far more likely to have more children with a single loving spouse than he is with whatever paramours he may find by stepping out.

Traditional values

The rate at which society changes has accelerated dramatically. Members of the silent generation grew up attending church, not cursing (very much, anyhow), believing in the Golden rule and that honesty was the best policy, and expecting that we would marry and stay married. Our millennial children think we are hopelessly square. More than that, they slur us with epitaphs such as patriarchy, racist, bigot, homophobe, and whatnot when we utter what was merely common sense when we were younger.

A woman might conclude that the family values with which an older man grew up are a better foundation for a family than the social justice ideas that fill the minds of younger men.

Commitment to children

Convincing a much younger woman to have children is not an easy task. A man who does so has already shown his commitment to children. He probably already has children. A prospective bride can talk with him about what worked and didn’t, and how he will contribute to raising a new family. A man who has never married may not have given the subject much thought, and except for a few who have had the chance to help raising younger siblings, not much experience either.

Experience

Older men who are inclined to marry have probably done it before. They have experience changing diapers and babysitting. They probably know how to wash dishes and keep house. If the guy has kept himself in shape, as a great many have in this day of bicycling and health clubs, he should be up to the task. A man who works to stay in shape can sustain himself pretty well until he reaches his 70s, but at some point age catches up with him. An offsetting benefit is that an older husband is likely to have more time to spend with his wife and family

The wife’s career

The odds are strong that the prospective husband has already reached the peak of his career. If he is a workaholic, it will be evident — and he will probably not want to saddle himself with family responsibilities. If he truly wants children, there is a strong chance he will find time to spend with them. If her husband has more time to spend with children, his younger wife may find her own life easier. It will be easier for her to pursue a career if she wants, or to take music lessons, attend lectures, and do other things strictly for herself.

Predictable problems

An older man will have a different circle of friends and different interests than those of a younger wife. If both man and wife come from the same country and culture, he may expect his wife to socialize with people of his generation. If they come from different countries, as is often the case with modern May-December marriages, one of them will have to adapt to a whole new environment and make a new set of friends.

For an older man, the better option appears to be to rise to the challenge of learning a new language, making new friends, and adapting to new customs in his bride’s country. If it is the woman who is doing the adaptation — moving to a wealthier Western country — there is a chance the new environment will change her perception of her husband. Not a few older men have seen their tender Asian or Eastern European brides go feminist and decide that this marriage was not exactly what they wanted.

Advantages to children of an older father

The children of an older father will see more of their father. Spending time with their father doesn’t contribute to intelligence or the formation of personality, since these things are mostly inherited. However, boys, especially, turn out better if they grow up in intact families and spend a lot of time with their fathers. When mother and father agree that developing a child’s character is important, it seems they can do that. Even in a therapeutic society dedicated to the proposition that every child should be “happy,” parents who emphasize responsibility and hard work seem to be rewarded.

The good of society

Society needs children. A culture needs new generations to share everything that defines culture: customs, religious beliefs, history, dress and so on. The more fathers, the more children, and the more children, the better — at least in the West. If older fathers sire more productive children — intelligence, personality, etc. — their children make more positive contributions.

If we look at society as a gene pool, an older father’s increased load of de novo mutations is more than offset by the likelihood that he is perpetuating superior genetic material

The good of government

A government needs soldiers and taxpayers. Government benefits from children — and pays for their education and services — whoever the father may be. Older fathers do not impose any special costs on government. Their pensions do not go up. An older father is more likely to be solvent and less likely to be on welfare. This benefit is more than enough to offset the greater likelihood that he will die and his family will go on welfare.

Conclusion

We of today’s older generation have more education, resources, and time than any in history. Although we do not have as much of a feeling for our family, tribe, and nation as our ancestors did, we certainly have more than the generations following us. If there is going to be a renewed ethnic identity among our people, we have an important role. Many of us are already committed.

Awareness alone, however, will not solve the problem. We need new generations of people like ourselves. White people need to be raising white babies. Japanese need to be raising Japanese babies, and Chinese, Chinese. There is no danger in encouraging other groups. Given our shrinking numbers, the world has room for all of us.

We reached the zenith of human accomplishment when we had pride in ourselves and our people and believed that what we had was worth passing on. We can continue to do this by spending time with our grandchildren but, when possible, we should start new families.

Resolving to begin again and find a committed partner is not easy but it isn’t impossible. There are traditional women in our own countries, women who have not been swept up in the moral ambiguities of the age, who are looking for reliable partners. There remain countries such as those of Central and Eastern Europe where a majority of women of childbearing age want a traditional family.

Stop lamenting the unfortunate changes that have affected our countries and our society, and create a new generation to perpetuate all of the good that we inherited and cherish.

FACEandLMS #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] Women HATE the fact that this forum has women's nature SUSSED

Admittedly, there is a lot of edgyposting, hyperbole and venting on this forum, and a lot of CuckTears mistakes that for how everyone here feels 100% of the time and acts when interacting with people. "Even if you don't say misogynistic things IRL, cuz you say them online, you must feel them, thus you must display them unknowingly when outside. I know how you behave better than you do!" etc. There are some basement-dweller theories here, some bad anatomy posts, overgeneralizations and lot of latching onto an idea and running with it and denying events that don't agree with your adopted world view, e.g. "Since women only want chads, any woman dating a subchad is cucking him with alphas on the side derp derp derp".

All that aside, when you break the looks redpill and our knowledge of women down to their base elements, it's generally true what we say:

- Women deny and downplay how much looks play a part in their mate-selection because they respond to our arguments emotionally or with their personal anecdotes rather than looking at the general trend/biology.
- Women generally fuck around with goodlooking guys in their youth and then maybe settle for a safe beta guy when it becomes clear that Chad doesn't commit.
- Women can date up and date a lot of guys due to the male sexdrive, hypergamy, supply-and-demand.
- Being an ugly man and trying to date women is life on max_difficulty mode.
- Women find it harder to pairbond if they have been promiscuous in their past.
- The dating market is skewed in women's favour (Tinder, male thirst, sexual harrassment laws, feminism), etc.

And more.

All of that is based on facts, biology, observable reality, and the consensus of so many men. We know this. We are not bluepilled. We are not controlled opposition. And cucktears and women hate this. They would not have a problem with us if we were discussing which coffeeshops to take women to on dates, which compliments to pay women, which classes to join to get access to women. No. What they hate is us having women SUSSED, FIGURED OUT, UNDERSTOOD. It's like we've exposed their true nature. We have unzipped the "tall man" suit to discover it's actually two ugly midgets one standing on the other.

Women hate men discussing how to get better access to sex (that's PUA's goal although it fails pretty much) and what women's true nature is like (MGTOW, looks redpill). Now I didn't watch that Mel Gibson movie What Women Want, but my impression is that women generally liked it, thus, I guess that it was some bluepill about women just wanting a loving, caring guy. If the movie had shown how women will do anything for Chad, then women would feel exposed and would have hated it. if it showed "cheatcodes" to get women into bed (so they can lie there having orgasms), they would have found it misogynistic.

And because women can't for them life of them logic, they can't counterargue our fundamental points. They instead pick out the edgy posts and strawman the whole community to death with their emotional posting and basic sarcasm.

TLDR: Women wouldn't hate this place so much if our theories were wrong, bluepilled and painted them in a better light. They need to get fucked right in the pussy.

J.K. Rowling #transphobia jkrowling.com

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Burns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

Eivind Berge #psycho #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

What women have that men don't is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts."

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

Arpagus #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Rape is equality

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

What women have that men don't is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts."

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.

But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.

So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.

And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.

The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.

You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.

If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.

You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape“, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.

Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.

High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century where not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.

You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)

The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.

It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.

If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.

Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

bsutansalt #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

[Repost] Women Do Not Have A “Sex Drive”

tl;dr Red Pill Theory focuses on inducing and maintaining female sexual attraction, but the applied theory (e.g. dread) is missing the underlying connective tissue - women have an attention drive, not a sex drive. If you want to maintain sexual attraction, learn to give the right type of attention (but not too much!).
________________

What Makes a Woman Feel "Sexual"?

Anyone who reads the sidebar understands that the Game is all about FEELINGS. How you make her FEEL is the key to unwrapping every other aspect of attraction.

"Feelings" are temporary emotional states. They are also overwhelming, meaning at sufficient levels they take priority over the rest of the cognitive processes.

Female sexuality is REACTIVE - it's not the dull aching horniness that men experience. It is rapid-onset response to desirable male attention.

The price of male attention is sex. Sex is the glue that holds male attraction firmly in place. 1

Ipso facto women are willing to pay the sex price and a natural feedback loop is created; male attention makes her "sexual", the sex engenders more attention from the male, the attention makes her FEEL "sexual", and so on.

They fuck because they want to FEEL sexual. Not because they want sex.

What Do Women THINK Makes Them Feel Sexual?

Who cares. Ask 10 of them once a day for a week and get 19182 different responses. Listen to their advice and get 0 sex.
________________

What Motivates Women vs. Men to Play This Game?

I don't buy the line that "women are natural Machiavellians/She's always planning the next branch swing/etc.".

Her goal is to maximally exploit her youth (in other words beauty) for maximal desirable male attention.

Can this take the form of a conniving woman, ready to trade up at the next possible chance? Sure. But that is a SYMPTOM and not a CAUSE.

Men want to fuck for fucking's sake. Some trade resources and their dignity for this (gradually rarer) privilege - we call them beta males. Others learn to exploit the desire for their attention. Be the latter guy.

Men's goal is sexual variety.
________________

The Breakdown - Why Women Leave

Ultimately, whether through fault of the man or woman, the cycle of attention stops.

Men who break the cycle generally stop giving the girl "sexy" attention. This can be the result of him becoming unattractive physically 2, but more often the man fails to make her FEEL seduced.

His attention shifts from "sexy" to "expecting" - this makes the girl FEEL...at best nothing, at worst like she is doing work. What used to be motivating attention has been replaced by a demand for service. Wrong kind of attention.

Cheating happens when some other guy steps in and gives her that seductive attention again, making her FEEL sexy. She might fuck him then, she might not. BUT the relationship enters Stage 4 Terminal Cancer at that point.

You may hear "I love you but I'm not IN LOVE with you" at this point 3. Scrap it and move on.
________________

Attention in Context of TRP Terms

Let's re-frame a few core concepts from applied (things you do) to theory (abstract thought that creates broader understanding).

* Dread is reminding a woman your "sexy" attention is always for sale, not overtly stating you will fuck other women

* The 3/2 rule is meant to stifle inappropriate outflows of your time and resources aka limitation creates mystery, it is not a math equation

* Pre-selection and social proof are when other women competing for YOUR attention increases its perceived value

I could go on - the point is the underpinning theme is provisioning and framing of attention.
________________

Conclusions

* Women do not have a sex drive - they respond sexually to desirable male attention

* Never rely on a woman to tell you what makes her FEEL sexual - especially not one you are fucking

* Males desire sexual variety, women desire maximal exploitation of their youth and beauty for attention

* Women cheat when they stop getting the sexy kind of attention - this PERMANENTLY prevents your attention from being "sexy" ever again
________________

Footnotes

Throughout the post there are footnotes of side observations. Each references a specific problem in the modern SMP. Here they are in order.

1. Men giving away attention for free in never before seen quantities - Remember how I said the price for male attention is sex? This dynamic is fucking that up - attention is available in mass quantity without the old cost.

2. There's a reason our advice starts at "lift" - there's no excuse to be physically unattractive - Don't lose the game because you didn't learn the basics. Keep it simple.

3. Reinvesting in a dying or dead relationship - Don't go looking in the dumpster. You'll only find trash. Roll around in there and that smell will be stuck on your for awhile.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: r/Relationship_Advice: [25m] my girlfriend[24f] told me she had only slept with 3 guys, her best friend [24f] blurted out that they slept with a guy every city in Europe they visited

(SomeTurdInTheWind)

We were talking about some topic and it came to Europe and she told me that they slept with a bunch of super hot guys. It seemed that everyone tuned in then. I laughed it off and didn’t make it into a big deal.

"I laughed it off". Why do guys nowadays solve everything by grinning and smiling and laughing like chimpanzees when a bigger chimpanzee threatens to beat them up?

She had previously told me that she only been with three guys. Long story short she and her friend when they went to Europe would sleep with a hot local guy every city.

This always happens. No exceptions.

When we saw each other she didn’t even want to sleep with me for three months until we were official. And now hearing how she slept with guys hours after meeting them bugs the hell out of me.

Oh, look, the same thing as always.

(bcat124)
From the comments :

I know right now that's not the biggest priority in your brain. You're hung up on images of her fucking her way through Europe. That's just your lizard brain doing lizard brain shit. Set it aside for a moment. Difference in experience? Meh. Banging around in Europe? Meh. That's not the important shit here.

We live in a matriarchy where women have all the sexual capital and take full advantage of it. What a joke

(robfordscrakpipe)
Men, ignore your natural instincts that are hardwired in your brain to help you survive and pass your genes on, that's patriarchy. Ignore your repulsion towards promiscuous, overweight, loud, unattractive women, that's all social construction. Women, if you feel the urge to sleep with that stud at the bar, go for it! Do what feels right! Forget about your boyfriend! Anyone who tells you otherwise is a horrible person who hates women and has a fragile ego and small dick.

(elephant__dick)
If this stuff was meaningless women wouldn't freak out and lie about it. Also if it doesn't matter then why do they always make certain guys wait?

(arissiro)
Exactly - the crux of the issue here is why did her current boyfriend whom she supposedly loves have to wait 3 months, while randos all over Europe had to wait 3 seconds? Why could she make him wait and not them? Why did she feel compelled to make him wait?

(COPE_OR_ROPE)
A roastie inadvertently dropped a brutal blackpill in the comment section:

Also, many guys don't understand that women often wait longer to sleep with someone they really like and want to build something long term with. If the guy is just fun for one day of a trip it doesn't matter to wait. Quick sex doesn't equal a stronger liking of someone for women, though men seem to interpret it that way.

What's the blackpill here ?

She admits that women make betas wait months for sex while Chad get's to ravage her 10 minutes after meeting.

(Thrwwwwaway6)
The blackpill (hidden behind all that delusion) is that girls wait to sleep with guys who make good providers but aren't attractive.

(arissiro)
Yip, a lot of foid delusion there which soymales will fall for. Thing is the "reasoning" itself (if we can even call it that) is incoherent: if this sex thing is important enough for some men to have to wait for - why should it be the men the women "actually want to build something serious with" that wait, instead of random fucking strangers? That's like loaning money to random people immediately without doing credit checks whilst waiting three months on someone with a good credit rating.

You and I know what's going on of course.

(Magehunter_Skassi)
I like that one other roastie in the thread too. Honorary blackpiller. If you're going to be a slut, you may as well own it instead of lying.

I love sex. The idea of finding a different guy in every city I visit in Europe sounds exhausting, but also fun. That said, I’m not too worried about how that “makes me look”.

[...]

Like I get that some people will say shit. But why would you want to start a relationship with someone who judges you for your past anyway?

(PerfectCeI)
So basically the same as... I have a history of multiple arrests for workplace violence and thiefts, many companies wont hire me because of my criminal history but why would you want to start working for a company who judges you for your past anyway teehee

Foids really have the impulse control and accountability of a 4yo child, those Saudis are right in some ways

(mantrad)
Women are nothing, and I mean fucking nothing but cum holes, the more attractive and less used the cum hole the better, that's their only value

(GuacMerchant88)
whatever her claimed total is x by 7 to get an accurate body count. it used to by x 3 before tinder and other quick hook up apps, but modern tech has allowed instant hookups for average looking women to fuck chads at a moments notice. Although roasties are collecting a higher body count and are encouraged to do so by their fellow feminists, very few are willing to be honest with potential beta providers of their true body count. They know that even most betas will not want to finance a roastie who slept with 30+ men (which is more than 75% of women in their 20s today).

I am collecting data on this trend and will post back in a few months with charts/graphs. I will be banned when I report on it but will be good info. r/dataisbeautiful will downvote it to oblivion.

The data is indeed self-reported. The sample size as of right now is only 23 women who agreed to partake. My goal is 2000 women aged 18-40. This is just taken from Tampa. I will be in Boston, NYC, and DC in the next few months and will ask women there as well. The questions are simple:

How many men have you slept with?
Have you lied to your current partner or a potential partner about the amount of men you have slept with?
If so, what number did you tell them? (18/23 admitted lying about their number to current/potential spouse)
Why did you feel the need to lie about your number?

The first 20 responses indicate a 6.7x actual body count to claimed body count.

(arissiro)
Absolutely brutal blackpill mate. Remember this is what life's like for so many men who "aren't incel" - they get laid every now and then, sure - but it's like the homeless guy who sometimes gets to finish off some rich guy's leftover lunch at a restaurant.

(hopfield)
Ahahahhahaa look at this cope:

That's literally the opposite of how it actually is.

Like imagine you're hungry but you're too tired to do much so you just slap some baloney from Wal*Mart on dome bread and eat it. It ends the discomfort from your hunger but it still sucks and is unhealthy for you and not even very enjoyable.

But later on you get yourself together and decide to be healthier and decide it's worth it to do a bit of work to be able to eat actual good food so you learn to cook and start cooking really excellent cuisine for yourself, like 5-star restaurant stuff. It's s not only healthier but a million times more enjoyable than the stupid baloney sandwich which seriously wasn't even good at all, it was just easy.

That's how casual sex is for most women. It's the sucky baloney sandwich they didn't even enjoy, but it was just the easiest thing at the time. They know if they want an actual good meal, they have to put time and effort into it.

When a woman waits a while to have sex with you, she's not "making you wait," and it's certainly not because she thinks you're "beta," it's because she knows the only way the sex will be truly enjoyable and fulfilling for her is if she spends the time getting to know you and making a connection. Then there a chance the sex will actually be like a 5-star meal instead of a baloney sandwich. If she'd had sex with you sooner, it would have sucked for her and not even been enjoyable. She waits because she likes you enough that she'd actually like to have GOOD sex with you and maybe keep having good sex for a long time, instead of having bad sex that would make her want to never see you again.

Women aren't like men. They don't enjoy casual sex like men do. There are even numerous scientific studies showing women are unlikely to orgasm during casual sex and are likely to regret it and not really enjoy it. Putting the time in before having sex literally makes women enjoy the sex itself more, if they don't put the time in and just have sex right away the sex will be garbage like a Wal*Mart baloney sandwich.

They "make you wait" because they actually want the sex to be good and know it won't even be enjoyable for them if they just have sex right away.

"likely to regret it and not really enjoy it."

Then why the fuck do they willingly do it??? Almost as if these cucks are fucking stupid

Girls regret it so much that they go hunting for one-night-stands with Chad week after week after week.

Not even an incel. Just have to post and point out this guys a retard.

The making you wait is about making sure you've invested enough time and money into her so that you can't bail when you find out how much of a cunt she actually is.

This is some 'we wuz kingz' level coping right here. what a soy.

(Big_Iron_PP)
I wrote a poem for the OP:

Fish and dicks down in London

The two met near the Thames

He had a noble accent and

His name, I think, was James


In Paris, the Eiffel Tower

Wasn't what she tried to climb

Tho it was hard like ancient iron

Jaques was a stunning mime


In Amsterdam, where the smell

Of weed hung in the air

The dealer Daan van Dorn and her

Oh, they made a lovely pair


Madrid was hot and sticky

She siesta'd for a while

And after one bull fighting match

She dodged Juan's cum in style


In Venice on a galley

She nigh fell of and drowned

Cause it was all a shaking

When she the oarsman found


Berlin, she really loved to see

What a truly German city

She was a bit surprised when things

With Franz turned to shitty


Budapest of Hungary

She was eager to test

And Jànos did not disappoint:

He was well hung like the rest.


And finally, in Moskva cold

Her journey came to an end

She met you in a bar

And loved you as a friend

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.

ChinoF #sexist getrealphilippines.com

Some Thoughts on LGBT Issues after the Colorado Baker’s Win

Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple isn’t liable for anything. The ruling left the question of whether it was bordering on religious discrimination. But for me, it isn’t. Establishments have the right to refuse to give service to customers for their own reasons. It’s not the same as hanging a “No Filipinos/no gays allowed” sign, which could be argued as more like discrimination. But this probably will get the LGBTs fuming, with the SJWs among claiming that it’s “oppression of the state,” or other baloney like that. I thus would like to consider the other side, something like the side of Zaxx’s article, where he discusses negative effects of some LGBT attitudes.

A couple I know in church who’d been traveling to other congregations related that pastors had asked them topic suggestions for sermons. The couple said, just look at TV. Broken families, switching partners, making crime look good, and more. And one example they talked of at length was a gay beauty pageant on TV. During an interview, the contestant was asked if he had a boyfriend. “Yes.” Where is he? “With his wife.” Oh, wait, isn’t there a problem with that? “No, because his wife is OK with it.” Jumping in is this famous actress acting as judge: “I’m so proud of you for standing what you believe in!”

Cringe.

Other gays are not that lucky. Some straight guys just flat out refuse. They’re straight, for crying out loud! But the gay person might feel slighted. Life’s wisdom tells us, it’s part of life to be spurned, but the gay will not accept it. So what might he do? Some gays might take revenge in some way against the straight guy. They might stalk or harass the straight guy, like immature spurned teens would do. Others might try to “out” the straight guy as a gay, although that’s a lie. But in doing so, he commits defamation and harassment.

Since suicide has become a topic in social media after Anthony Bourdain’s death, I’ll just give it a little controversial link to my topic. Let’s say an LGBT person commits suicide after they become spurned by someone. The reaction might be, “the spurner is a bigot,” “the suicide is his fault,” and all sorts of trolling and bullying. But no, these are wrong. Unless the spurner or another person was caught on record to have actually encouraged suicide, there is no fault with them. Better to research the person’s background for the complex web of reasons that led to it – including the person’s own decisions. I will also make that controversial point later – that people with mental illness are not always victims, but could possibly have brought it upon themselves. But back to the current topic.

Let me recall the case of Jeffrey Laude. One of the local ladyboys who was killed by a visiting American soldier, in a situation that our webmaster Benign0 likened to the movie Crying Game. The American was expecting his new sex partner to be a legitimate female. Of course. But he found out Laude was male (a transsexual or transgender if you will), and got mad. He was deceived. He snapped, lashed out and did wrong himself. But Laude’s deception would make him less free of fault than media would like us to believe.

I don’t expect most gays to be like this; I’m sure many of them disapprove of the above behaviors. But there are likely some who may defend wanting to be recognized as a woman while hiding their being a man. The problem is, it is still deception, and if all you are looking for is sex, you don’t deserve to be protected from the consequences. Hiding one’s real sexuality is not a right.

Such gays are working on the idea that, if I want something, I deserve to get it. Perhaps it can be forced by law. Entitlement operates in this scenario. Perhaps the agenda of these particular gays is, it shouldn’t matter whether you screw a man and woman, right? So everyone should be homosexual! They should be forced to be give sex to whoever wants it! People are entitled to this joy they want from others! But wait a minute, forcing someone to have sex… isn’t that rape?

Human rights is based on the precept that everyone is entitled to self-determination, which includes their sexual orientation. This could be seen as in favor of gays as well as against. But when they want something from others, that other person has the right to refuse them as part of their own self-determination.

The problem cited by opponents of laws in favor of gays is that such laws would grant unequal protection, or special treatment. It could also lead to ridiculous provisions that are not fair. For example, if one does not agree that someone is beautiful, it is considered “bullying,” or someone who doesn’t want to play along with one’s declared transsexual orientation (still referring to one as male even when dressed up and really looking like a female) should be punished.

Also, let’s look at these ridiculous genders some have tried to invent. Nature (which determines reality) only recognizes male and female, and these can’t be naturally changed. Or you have a sex change and want to be called the other gender. What if someone disagrees, and says, “you’re still your original gender.” They have a right to do that. You can’t sue them. They’re not oppressing you. That’s life. It’s not meant to obey you, and other people are not either.

The outcry of many LGBTs is mainly against harassment; that I agree with. But being harassed doesn’t give you the right to harass back. If harassment is a problem, you don’t need a new law or special treatment. Existing laws on harassment can be applied to that.

If some people return, what about heterosexual spurned lovers, the same should be true for them? I agree. There have been many women who made false rape charges against men (the story of Brian Banks who was wrongfully convicted because of a fake rape case comes to mind), many “spurned” who “take revenge” against their spurners. And I’ll repeat that example of our former maid’s brother, who was poisoned by someone who thought he was his rival over a girl. That attitude of “I must have what I want” keeps turning people into monsters.

Again, on that wish of people who believe “I deserve to be loved;” it likely means, they want sex. Sex and love are actually two concepts that have long been differentiated. And perhaps being pampered and being a freeloader can be the actual meaning of the “love” they desire. Sorry, kids, none of that is a right, and you don’t deserve it.

The saying, slightly worded, “I will defend your right to disagree with me,” comes to mind. That seems more appropriate if you replace the latter words with “your right to refuse to give what I want to take from you.” What we need is respect, especially respect of other people’s refusal of you. As well the acceptance that we sometimes don’t deserve to get what we want. That applies to even “love.”
If you’re a transgender, better reveal that you are, and there are people who will accept you for what you are. Deceiving other people means not only do you lack respect for others, but for yourself as well. If you feel you have to lie to get what you want, chances are, you want something that you should not have. If you want find the love of your life, you don’t steal someone else’s love of their life. And if you want something to validate yourself, don’t get it by force, like what a gay couple wanted from the Colorado baker. Get it fairly and honestly, and if refused, move on to the next. If there are other people who don’t accept you for who you are, there’s no point wasting time on them. Keep calm and carry on.

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

However, it seems that this is a problem that goes beyond the formal business world, and has pervaded society in general to the extent that many – perhaps most – people think the government (i.e. taxpayers) should bear the costs of their life choices.

The example most in the news today is the demands for subsidized abortion and birth control that have become a feature of the presidential campaign. You’d think that our country’s women’s top priority is getting the government to subsidize their sexual choices, whatever they may be.

Following what I was getting at yesterday, sex has always incurred some expense. Like it or not, men pay for sex (or its results) in one way or another. Traditionally, you’d pay by getting married and taking the woman on as your responsibility, or you’d pay a fee for a one-off (prostitution). If you took it without paying for it, as in adultery, rape or fornication, it was a crime, or something like that. If we were honest with ourselves, we’d have to admit that it still is a quasi crime; as the old system has been replaced with something significantly more confusing, sex crime laws have become far broader in scope and can be applied to any number of situations (such as prostitution) that used to be considered beyond the purview of the law.

Additionally, despite false promises of free sex from the 60s and 70s, when feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free when we had “equality,” it turned out that sex still had a lot of associated costs. Pregnancy, of course, is one of the biggest. At first, we socialized that, but then welfare reform threw the costs entirely onto fathers (not mothers, mind you). Combined with welfare reform, we had VAWA, which significantly increased the costs of marriage and cohabitation by legally handicapping men in relationships with women. So great strides have been made in restoring a heavy cost to sex, but this hasn’t been enough, because women have grown accustomed to sexual license with whomsoever they please, and the men they generally like either a) don’t have the money, or b) are desirable enough to not have to pay.

Although the latter is a bit counterintuitive (wouldn’t women desire men who pay for them?), it’s a function of female sexual psychology. Women generally use sex to ensnare the man they want (and they typically have high expectations), and then they begin to draw resources from him. It works in simple societies where people hold each other to account, but in more cosmopolitan settings it breaks down for a couple reasons. First, there are more than enough women to go around, so it’s easy to drop one and pick up another, and secondly there are other means for women to gain resources, such as jobs and welfare, and as long as those resources exist men who have no trouble procuring sex see no reason to provide for women, even if they have the means. And who can blame them? Although it’s a social catastrophe, it’s a perfectly reasonable attitude from a personal perspective, because, after all, the individual man didn’t create this mess in the first place.

Here’s a scenario:

A handsome young investment banker making six figures can go out to a bar and take his pick. Let’s call him Mark. Mark picks up a young woman named Amanda, she goes home with him, they have sex, and he enters her number into his phone, leaving her only a promise to call again. Perhaps he intends to do so, and perhaps not. Whatever the case, he feels no guilt or responsibility, because the woman, who happens to be in law school, also has a job at a nonprofit, and makes more hourly than the average young man in their city, so he doesn’t need to provide her with anything. Additionally, if there’s an “accident” (but in all likelihood there won’t be, because Mark is careful about these things) there’s a Planned Parenthood down the street. Not only does it provide her with birth control, but it will treat STDs and abort unwanted children resulting from her nightly excursions.

Sounds fine, so what’s the problem?

The problem is that this young woman, despite being a student and having a job, is essentially on the dole. Her nonprofit is funded in large part by state and federal grants, as is her tuition. Her sexual care at Planned Parenthood is also funded largely by taxpayers. Her life, including her sex life, is paid for by the average working Joe, but she isn’t sleeping with Joe — oh no: she’s sleeping with Mark, a guy who easily could afford to feed, clothe and insure her, but who doesn’t have to because of Joe. Although it isn’t really his fault, Mark is a freeloader.

Joe, for his part, makes do with monthly trysts with a mid-level prostitute, which he can barely afford after taxes and child support. Joe, who is an HVAC repairman, is paying for all the Amandas in his state, his ex-wife Lisa, and his hooker, who is named Elena.

Interestingly enough, Joe and Amanda have met. Joe was called in to fix the AC in her nonprofit’s office on a sweltering summer day. Because the AC was broken and the atmosphere was stifling, Amanda had unbuttoned the top part of her blouse, and poor Joe couldn’t help but look at her breasts. Amanda was furious, and called his supervisor, who apologized profusely, and when Joe got back from the job he caught hell. Fortunately, he wasn’t fired, but it sure was humiliating. Not as bad as having to deal with his ex-wife’s lawyer, but close…

I suppose we could say “life’s unfair,” and that would be entirely true. But should we make it that unfair? Should we set things up so that Joe has to support Amanda as much as Mark?

According to our nation’s single women, the answer is a resounding “YES!” Married women, however, have a significantly different take on it, for obvious reasons.

I’m not sure single women are consciously aware of how selfish they are being. I think they fully intend to find some man to support them, and think the only way they can do that is to have unfettered sex with all the Marks of the world they can get their hands on in the hopes that one of them will some day give in and marry her. The problem is that it’s a trend that reinforces itself; the more Amandas we have giving it away for free the less likely any given Mark will be to actually support any of them. The competition will escalate, desirable men will become even more reluctant to give women any financial support, and the screeching for more entitlements for single women will grow louder and louder.

It is exactly this trend that has led to the bizarre, unprecedented fixation on women’s sexual entitlements in our current election cycle. When you socialize the costs of a private activity – and sex is about as private as it gets – you create an unnatural imbalance that rewards the few at the expense of the many. You also run the risk of inflating costs to unsustainable levels, and I think that’s something young women ought to think hard about. But they won’t.

David J. Stewart #sexist jesusisprecious.org

The Word of God foretells of a future time when SEVEN WOMEN will hold on to ONE MAN, begging him to marry them! Wow! I can't even find one wife. Isaiah 4:1, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” Consider the sharp contrast to America today, where many women are merely looking for a Sugar-Daddy to take care of her and pay all the bills. Granted, it is a man's job to provide for his wife and take care of her, but it is also her job to take care of her husband's needs (intimacy, clean the house, prepare home-cooked meals, wash the clothes, care for the children, et cetera). The biggest problem with women today is their SELFISH attitude! They want this, want that, but don't have a servant's heart. A godly woman wants to wait on a man hand and foot! In today's messed up female world, women are pursuing careers. It seems that most young women are enrolling into Bible colleges these days to become nurses! Really? What about staying home as a homemaker? 1st Timothy 5:14-15 commands women to get married, have babies, and guide the house, not become working nurses who never get married and never have any children. They are turned aside after Satan!

1st Timothy 5:14-15, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.”

Bob Jones University and Crown Bible College (to name but a couple institutions) are helping young women to TURN ASIDE AFTER SATAN, training future nurses, many of whom will never get married or become mothers. How messed up is that? Hey, there's lots of guys out there who want to get married and take care of a wife, like me, but few Christian women want to be cared for. Instead, they want to take care of themselves! Christian women have the WRONG PRIORITIES today! In the old days a century ago, feminine women sought for a husband. It was expected of a female, and they knew their role. Today, increasingly since World War II, women have entered into the workplace—wearing tattoos, driving cars, fighting with machine guns in the military, operating heavy equipment, managing businesses, and are today as manly as ever. SHE-MAN, YOU KNOW THE NAME OF SHE-MAN!!!

Check out Google to see Bob Jones University's shameful female students exposing their thighs and butts in sexy sports outfits! BJU's females are rugged, they're tough, they're fearless, they have THE POWER...SHE-MAN!!!

Today's Bob Jones University Female Graduate (SHE-MAN and the masters of the universe!!)

Alex Jones is right—Women are empowered, angry and rebellious!

Sadly, that includes Christian women as well, who are not very “Christian.” In fact, you cannot tell a Bob Jones University woman apart from the heathen world anymore, and that includes many of their shameful female graduates. GET RIGHT WITH GOD!!!

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.

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.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

After a long period in society of women having unlimited personal freedom to pursue life as they wish, they have shown to consistently fail in making the right decisions that prevent their own harm and the harm of others. Systems must now be put in place where a woman’s behavior is monitored and her decisions subject to approval of a male relative or guardian who understands what’s in her best interests better than she does herself.

Women have had personal freedoms for less than a century. For the bulk of human history, their behavior was significantly controlled or subject to approval through mechanisms of tribe, family, church, law, or stiff cultural precepts. It was correctly assumed that a woman was unable to make moral, ethical, and wise decisions concerning her life and those around her. She was not allowed to study any trivial topic she wanted, sleep with any man who caught her fancy, or uproot herself and travel the world because she wanted to “find herself.”

You can see this level of control today in many Muslim countries, where expectations are placed on women from a young age to submit to men, reproduce (if biologically able), follow God’s word, and serve the good of society by employing her feminine nature instead of competing directly against men on the labor market due to penis envy or feelings of personal inferiority.

...

When you give a female unlimited choice on which man to have sex with, what type of man does she choose? An exciting man who treats her poorly and does not care for her well-being.

When you give a female choice on what to study in university, what does she choose? An easy liberal arts major that costs over $50,000 and dooms her to a life of debt and sporadic employment.

When a female lacks any urgent demands upon her survival, what behavior does she pursue? Obsessively displaying her half-naked body on the internet, flirting with men solely for attention, becoming addicted to corporate-produced entertainment, and over-indulging in food until her body shape is barely human.

When you give a female choice on when to have kids, what does she do? After her fertility is well past its peak, and in a rushed panic that resembles the ten seconds before the ringing of the first school bell, she aims for limited reproductive success at an age that increases the likelihood she’ll pass on genetic defects to her child.

When you give a female choice of which political leader to vote into office, who do they vote for? The one who is more handsome and promises unsustainable freebies that accelerate the decline of her country.

When you give a female unwavering societal trust with the full backing of the state, what does she do? Falsely accuse a man of rape and violence out of revenge or just to have an excuse for the boyfriend who caught her cheating.

When you give a female choice on who to marry, what is the result? A 50% divorce rate, with the far majority of them (80%) initiated by women themselves.

While a woman is in no doubt possession of crafty intelligence that allows her to survive just as well as a man, mostly through the use of her sexuality and wiles, she is a slave to the present moment and therefore unable to make decisions that benefit her future and those of the society she’s a part of. Once you give a woman personal freedom, like we have in the Western world, she enslaves herself to one of numerous vices and undertakes a rampage of destruction to her body and those who want to be a meaningful part of her life.

A man does not need to look further than the women he knows, including those in his family, to see that the more freedom a woman was given, the worse off she is, while the woman who was under the heavy hand of the church or male relative comes out far better on the other side, in spite of her rumblings that she wants to be as free as her liberated friends, who eagerly and regularly post soft porn photos of themselves on social networking and dating sites while selecting random anonymous men for fornication every other weekend.

Men, on average, make better decisions than women. If you take this to be true, which should be no harder to accept than the claim that lemons are bitter, why is a woman allowed to make decisions at all without first getting approval from a man who is more rational and levelheaded than she is? It not only hurts the woman making decisions concerning her life, but it also hurts any man who will associate with her in the future. You only need to ask the many suffering husbands today on how they are dealing with a wife who entered the marriage with a student loan debt in the high five figures from studying sociology and how her wildly promiscuous sexual history impairs her ability to remain a dedicated mother, with one foot already out the door after he makes a reasonable demand that is essential for a stable home and strong family.

I propose two different options for protecting women from their obviously deficient decision making. The first is to have a designated male guardian give approval on all decisions that affect her well-being. Such a guardian should be her father by default, but in the case a father is absent, another male relative can be appointed or she can be assigned one by charity organizations who groom men for this purpose, in a sort of Boy’s Club for women.

She must seek approval by her guardian concerning diet, education, boyfriends, travel, friends, entertainment, exercise regime, marriage, and appearance, including choice of clothing. A woman must get a green light from her guardian before having sex with any man, before wearing a certain outfit, before coloring her hair green, and before going to a Spanish island for the summer with her female friends.

If she disobeys her guardian, an escalating series of punishments would be served to her, culminating in full-time supervision by him. Once the woman is married, her husband will gradually take over guardian duties, and strictly monitor his wife’s behavior and use all reasonable means to keep it in control so that family needs are met first and foremost, as you already see today in most Islamic societies. Any possible monetary proceeds she would get from divorce would be limited so that she has more incentive to keep her husband happy and pleased than to throw him under the bus for the most trivial of reasons that stem from her persistent and innate need to make bad decisions.

A second option for monitoring women is a combination of rigid cultural rules and sex-specific laws. Women would not be able to attend university unless the societal need is urgent where an able-minded man could not be found to fill the specific position. Women would not be able to visit establishments that serve alcohol without a man present to supervise her consumption. Parental control software on electronic devices would be modified for women to control and monitor the information they consume. Credit card and banking accounts must have a male co-signer who can monitor her spending. Curfews for female drivers must be enacted so that women are home by a reasonable hour. Abortion for women of all ages must be signed off by her guardian, in addition to prescriptions for birth control.

While my proposals are undoubtedly extreme on the surface and hard to imagine implementing, the alternative of a rapidly progressing cultural decline that we are currently experiencing will end up entailing an even more extreme outcome. Women are scratching their most hedonistic and animalistic urges to mindlessly pursue entertainment, money, socialist education, and promiscuous behavior that only satisfies their present need to debase themselves and feel fleeting pleasure, at a heavy cost for society.

Allowing women unlimited personal freedom has so affected birth rates in the West that the elite insists on now allowing importation of millions of third world immigrants from democratically-challenged nations that threaten the survival of the West. In other words, giving women unbridled choice to pursue their momentary whims instead of investing in traditional family ideals and reproduction is a contributing factor to what may end up being the complete collapse of those nations that have allowed women to do as they please.

I make these sincere recommendations not out of anger, but under the firm belief that the lives of my female relatives would certainly be better tomorrow if they were required to get my approval before making any decisions. They would not like it, surely, but due to the fact that I’m male and they’re not, my analytical decision-making faculty is superior to theirs to absolutely no fault of their own, meaning that their most sincere attempts to make good decisions will have a failure rate larger than if I was able to make those decisions for them, especially with intentions that are fully backed with compassion and love for them to have more satisfying lives than they do now.

As long as we continue to treat women as equals to men, a biological absurdity that will one day be the butt of many jokes for comedians of the future, women will continue to make horrible decisions that hurt themselves, their families, and their reproductive potential. Unless we take action soon to reconsider the freedoms that women now have, the very survival of Western civilization is at stake.

Caamib, Elliot Rodger, various incels #sexist pastebin.com

(Caamib's translation of an article about an interview between him and German news magazine Der Spiegel in 2014)

Male, single, life-threatening

The man who killed six people in Santa Barbara in May, was a member of an obscure community: So-called Incels live involuntarily as single, and some develop a hatred of women, which can be fatal. Who are these men?

Written by Takis Strangler

Marijan says there are people in his community who hate the summer. In summer they have no choice but to see more of the women, their skin, their bare knees, tight clothes and their breasts. Marijan says he does not look at women, and he was trying to avoid places where he has to see naked female skin. He says: "If you're hungry but cannot eat, you're not going into a street fully loaded with cakes."

Marijan, 26, from Zagreb wishes a girlfried, and because he’s unable to find one, he experiences his life as a torment. He is lonely, but in his loneliness he is not alone. His community meets on the Internet.

He belongs to a group of people who answer to the moniker "Incel", which is the abbreviation for the English term "involuntary celibacy”. Marijan frequents forums in which an own culture of solitude has developed.

People who gather there are almost always men, a few hundred in total. How many there are exactly, can be difficult to estimate, there are English, German, Dutch, Australians and especially Americans.

One of them wrote in the past year on an internet forum: "One day the Incels will realize their true strength and number and overthrow the oppressive feminist system. Imagine a world in which the WOMEN FEAR YOU. "

The author of these lines was student Rodger Elliot. On 23 May this year, Rodger (22), from Santa Barbara, California, recorded a video from himself. He put the camera on the dashboard of his BMW and sat behind the wheel.

He said: "This is my last video. Tomorrow is the day of retribution. The day on which humanity will experience my retaliation. Which you all will experience. In the past eight years of my life, since I reached puberty, I was forced to endure loneliness, an existence full of rejection and unrequited desire. All just because women never felt attracted to me. In the last years I rotted in solitude. "

Now and then Rodger laughed in the camera, a handsome young man with black hair and white teeth. Through the window of his car palm trees were visible.

A short time later, he killed three fellow students in his apartment. Forensic scientists examine which weapon he used. The wounds of the corpses are not clear. The police secured fingerprints on two machetes, a knife and a hammer.

When the men were dead, Rodger took his Sig Sauer P226, his Glock 34 and two semi-automatic pistols, and went out in the neighboring community of Isla Vista. He knocked at the house of a sorority. Nobody answered him.

A few steps further on he shot two students. He went into a snackbar and shot and killed a customer. Then he climbed into his car, drove through the town and shot at passers-by, injuring 13 people.

He rammed his BMW into a cyclist, slammed into a parked car and killed himself with a shot in the head. Rodger left a few videos and a 137-page manifesto. In it are phrases like: "Women are like a plague. They are like animals, completely controlled by their animalistic instincts, and corrupt feelings and impulses. "

Many men who became lone gunmen have, as Rodger had, a sick relation with women in general. Eric Harris, one of the boys involved in the 1999 at Columbine High School shooting in the United States, killing 13 people and killed himself, wrote in his diary: "Maybe I just need to have sex. Perhaps that would change this shit. "

And his accomplice Dylan Klebold wrote: "I do not know what I do wrong with people (especially women) - it is, as if they hate me and scare me. "

During a shooting rampage in Winnenden in 2009 Tim Kretschmer killed eight female students, three female teachers and a male student in his former school.

In the same year the American George Sodini shot three women and wounded nine more, before taking his own life in a gymstudio. Previously, he had written in his blog:

"Women simply don’t like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the United States (is my estimate) - and I find none "!

These gunman leave questions:

Why people had to die? Exists there a connection between the murders and the loneliness of the perpetrators? What has this incel community from the Internet to do with the murders?

Rodger can answer no longer, and even if he could, he could hardly give any clear answers. But there are people who understand a few of his thoughts. Because they share his anger at women and his loneliness. One of them is Marijan (not his real name). You can reach him on his blog, thatincelblogger.wordpress.com.

After a few emails he agreed to meet, in Zagreb, Croatia, his hometown.

Before a pizzeria near the Cathedral a handsome young man, tall, with jet black hair and a three-day beard is waiting, he wears a white, loose T-shirt and cropped trousers.

While shaking hands he does not look one in the eyes. As he sits at a table, in the back, in a quiet corner of the restaurant, he says: "I'm going to look bad in the article, but what have I got to lose? "

He says he was angry after Rodgers rampage. The whole world again only talked about tougher gun laws. But no one thought about other reasons that drove Rodgers to his rampage. No one had thought about incel.

Marijan talks much and long. He doesn’t allow a lot of questions. It is less a conversation but rather a series of lectures, which he conducts with great precision.

Sentence after sentence, lecture to lecture, he leads the listener deeper into his world, deeper into the darkness in which there seems to be no happiness, only immeasurable hatred.

Excerpts from lecture one, subject: Women.

Women are simply designed robots with the desire to procreate. Young women in past generations always had help from their grandmother. She helped with finding a man. She said: This is a good type, he will take care of you. These grandmothers were replaced with the magazine Cosmopolitan. Today women want to marry up. They want improve their station. I would not say that we Incels hate women. But if you were rejected 50 times, then you develop negative feelings, which is normal.

Excerpts from lecture two, Topic: seduction game.

Women can now provide for themselves, so their preferences have changed from breadwinners to seducers. A minority of men has sex with the majority of women. The successful men are the Bad Boys. If you want to have a woman today, you need to become a Bad Boy and lose your ethics.

Excerpts from lecture three, theme: a better world.

I want a society in which a group of men cooperates in total trust. Each man gets a woman. The women are fairly distributed. People are monogamous and marry as a virgin. If a man wants sexual diversity, he goes to a prostitute. Feminists would be made prostitutes in this society. When a man tries to seduce multiple woman, he is killed instantly.

Marijan and other Incels meet on various forums on the Internet. the forum, that Elliot Rodger used, is now closed. Another is a relatively moderate forum called love-shy.com. The members speak there about topics such as pick-up lines, plastic surgery and other ways to escape their despair.

The users of the forum had opened a discussion about Elliot Rodger. On the first page a moderator writes that he condemns the deed and that Rodger did not reflect the philosophies of loveshy.com. The moderator announces that all posts glorifying the deed will be deleted.

One user writes on one of the later pages: "I think about Elliot Rodger ... why didn’t he just rape a slut at gunpoint? "

Another user wrote: "I was always taught to respect women and not to be sexually aggressive. That was a bucket full of shit. All what they really want is a muscle man who fucks them in the ass instead of fucking a real person with feelings”

A user writes on one of the last pages about Rodger: "He is a martyr, in the real sense of the word, one must give him that. "

On the forum Marijan calls himself "Dante Alighieri”, as the medieval poet. Dante started his poem “the Divine Comedy” with the words: "Halfway through the path of human life I found /myself in a devious dark forest/ Because I strayed from the right path."

On the morning after the first meeting Marijan wears the same clothes as on the day before. He says he did not sleep well, because the conversation had him stirred. In the café he ordered a chocolate cake and tells his life story.

Marijan grew up in a middle class family, he has a brother, and both parents were employeed. In school he had many years of little contact with girls. As he started to get interested in girls, they were alien to him. He was afraid of them. "My brain has not developed normally, " Marijan says. He was "love-shy". The American psychology professor Brian Gilmartin invented this term in 1987. The men who suffer from this condition complain about their complete inability to enter into a romantic relationship.

Some men report panic attacks, when they are alone with women, some break out in sweat, others can hardly move anymore when they think of a date, to which they look forward to. Marijan developed a morbid fear of women mingled with a steadily growing demand for a relationship with a woman.

He says: "My standards are very low, as long as the woman is not overweight or is unhygienic. And I have trouble with bad teeth. "

At 19, he met a girl through an SMS Chat. She was 16 and said to Marijan, that she wanted to sleep with him. She showed him how she likes to be kissed. The girl became Marijans girlfriend. He was happy for a moment.

Then she went on vacation over the summer to an island. Before parting, Marijan was angry because he did not want her to go, and told her that maybe they should become just friends.

The girl went anyway. Marijan sent her many SMSes and self-written poems. When she returned, she told him that she no longer liked him. Marijan could not cry for three days. Then when he finally cried, he didn’t go to the university for months and stuffed himself full with chocolate. He didn’t get over it, says Marijan. After one year he wrote on an Incel forum on the internet that he was planning on shooting himself and the girl. The owners of this forum contacted Interpol. Marijan got a visit of the Croatian police.

He testified that he no longer wanted to kill. The policemen nevertheless arrested him and charged him with the suspicion of murder threats and put him in pre-trial detention. After a month a judge released Marijan because he hadn’t threatened anyone directly. The judge said, so tells Marijan: "Maybe you’ll meet another woman just outside the court."

It was followed by two years without a kiss.

As Marijan turned 24 years old, he wrote on an Internet forum that he was a male virgin and looking for a woman, that would deflower him. A Croatian woman contacted him, visited him in Zagreb, slept with him and then said that he was pathetic , as he tells it.

In the years after he managed to bed three other women. "One of them was crazy and
a total bitch, "says Marijan. When she left him for another, he remained lying in bed for months, he says. He thought about suicide, and spent five days in a psychiatric ward.

Later he earned a degree in Medieval History at the Zagreb University. But he never wanted to work, because, as he says, he didn’t want to pay taxes that will reward sluts.

Today he says he no longer dates because he never want to feel disappointment again. He’s been alone for a year.

Most gunmen send out signals before their deeds, signals which could have been interpreted as warnings in retrospect. Allusions, threats, videos on the Internet.

Some gunman stuck a note on the school toilet wall, on which was written: "Tomorrow you're dead." Some men start wearing black clothes and leather jackets before they act. Elliot Rodger wrote his fantasies on blogs.

Marijan says: "There are a lot of broken people waiting to die. And he says:" I do not know when I will snap. " This English word "Snap" has several meanings. It can mean break, tear or explode. Marijan says: "I think Incel that can cause people to shoot or kill with a bomb. "

He smiles, it seems as if he enjoy the moment. Psychologists and psychiatrists that deal with school shootings, try to explain why men kill women, but women almost never kill men. Testosterone was one reason, the researchers say, and gender roles are also to blame, since men are more likely to resolve conflict with force and women are more likely to retreat. At the end they still lack a satisfactory explanation.

The FBI, the American Federal - police, writes in a report about shootings at schools that offenders are often focused on perceived injustices. One goes through life and picks out everything, that offends them. Every stupid comments of a classmate is remembered, each breakup with a girl finds his place in the collection of misery, until someone thinks the whole society is against you.

Many gunman also like to play videogames, where it’s the goal to shoot people’s head off. And many suffer from a narcissistic disorder.

But correlation does not equate causation, so no handy formula like this one can be derived: loneliness + computer games + narcissism = rampage. There are many lonely, narcissistic gamers who never shoot people.

In the life of a crazed gunman something happens, that the psychiatrists and psychologists cannot explain. Evil is sometimes greater than a simple explanation.

The assassin who tried in 1981 to shoot U.S. President Ronald Reagan, said when interviewed: "You know a few things about me, sweetheart, for example, that I’m obsessed with fantasy, but why don’t you understand, that fantasy in my world becomes reality? "

Another gunman from the USA heard voices that told him: "You have to kill all. You have to kill the whole world. "

According to Wikipedia: "The trigger of a rampage is a combination of an advanced psychosocial uprooting of the offender, the loss of professional integration through unemployment, demotion or transfer, increasingly experienced insults and partnership conflicts. "

After all, what Marijan tells about himself, he has few friends, no job, no partner, and he experiences his life as an insult, which becomes greater each passing dayl. Those looking for long enough, will realize that the template fits him.

The last meeting with Marijan is in the evening and takes place in a restaurant, again at a table away from the other guests. It is a warm evening, but Marijan sits down inside the restaurant, the place where no one else sits. He says that he wished that women have the right to vote taken away.

Then he says that he once tried to kill himself with sleeping pills, but one and a half days later he had woken up. His eyes light up with pleasure when he takes on the theme rampage. Then he unleashes the bad thoughts from his mind in the world. He says: "I will cause dissatisfaction. I want to make people angry. I do not think that I'm going to kill people. " After a moment of silence, he says: "I want to spread a little panic. "

He again starts talking about similar topics as on the first day, always it comes to women, and always it comes to himself, he says: "I've started to see women as the filth that they are. " A little later he says: "I do not like people."

This article attempts to explain about the Incel community and the research leads to different men, who identify as Incel. One dreams of to find a farm where Incels can live together. The farm dwellers could agree to import women from Mexico and divided them amongst themselves. One sat with radiant eyes in a small German town and told of how he overcame his fear of women by simply spending more time with women. He looked happy and said it was probably a good idea if the Incel forums were monitored by psychiatrists to ensure that the users can find professional help.

Another hopes to, finally, in his mid-twenties, to kiss a woman. A few of these men seem lost. Nobody seems dangerous. And in end it became clear that there is no Incel community. There are only a few lonely men.

Many men from the Incel community can simply find no partner and look for help on the internet. For them the forums can perhaps save them. For other men the forums offer the opportunity to cultivate their hatred in a group.

For 20 years, such people would remain in their hole, alone with their bad thoughts. Probably a man is difficult to love when he is full of hatred. While carrying these thoughts, it’s possible to want to kill everyone around you and yourself. The potential gunman becomes Incel. And not the Incel a potential gunman.

Elliot Rodger was in his mid twenties when he died, he had visited several therapists, he had been bullied at school, he had his own blog on the Internet.

Marijan is mid-twenties, he has visited several therapists, he was bullied at school, he wrote his own blog on the Internet. One was a mass murderer. The other meets with a journalist and eats chocolate cake.

Rodger left us with the question:

Why did six people have to die? There is no logical explanation. His 137-page manifesto that he wrote before he became a murderer, ends raving about the prospect of killing people. It shall be the punishment for not getting a woman who loves him. Rodger has named the work "My fucked-up world ". He writes that he will retaliate and punish everyone. The last sentence of the manuscript is as follows:

"Finally, I can show true value to the world. "And in the penultimate sentence Elliot Rodger, 22, a young man from California, who had his whole life before him writes: "And it will be beautiful."

Marijan wrote recently a new entry on his blog. He analyzed why he is lonely: "I finally understand the depths of madness and sexism in our society. All the betrayal, the whole heartless and horrible behavior of women were seen as my fault. That is hatred. "

Roosh V #sexist rooshv.com

How To Stop Incels From Killing People

The busy bees at the media have been highlighting how “dangerous” incels are, often linking them to the manosphere [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. These journalists fail to mention that incels have either outright rejected manosphere ideas, especially when concerning game, or have been inoculated against its teachings by their own media colleagues.

Incels are killing solely because they are failing to bond romantically or sexually with women in an intensely competitive sexual market that constantly rubs sex and nudity in their faces. The solution is rather simple: give them free sex from whores.

What is an incel?
image
It’s first helpful to determine the basic profile of an incel. Typically, he does not have a hands-on masculine father teaching him the ways of life and women. He was teased in school, though not aggressively bullied, and has few friends. He is not good in sports or any other activity that would help give him a sexy aesthetic. He has no skills beyond programming or playing video games. His educational upbringing taught him that any display of masculine behavior is harmful to females, which he has internalized to his own detriment. More severely, he is introverted and has practically no ability to talk to females or attract them.

A decade ago, this type of “herbivore” male become a cultural phenomenon in Japan. In America, it’s now becoming the default man. Within a few years, more than 50% of all men will be on the incel spectrum.

An incel primarily wants a loving relationship with an attractive woman. Secondly, he wants sex with any woman. A male who gets laid but doesn’t experience love may be depressed or unhappy, but he’s unlikely to possess the urge to kill. The ones who do end up killing have received neither relationships nor sex. They feel utterly forsaken by society. To remind society that they do in fact exist, they resort to getting attention in the only way they know how: killing. Shooting up people is the same for an incel as a female uploading a perfect selfie. It’s a way of saying please recognize my existence and validate me for it.

Incels must be provided free prostitutes

I therefore advocate for a government program called Complimentary Heterosexual Affections Directive (CHAD). Incels will be given a mobile QR code for a complimentary legalized sex session every six months, a time interval that would outright eliminate their urge to kill. The whores that are a part of this program would be given special training to make the incels feel special by calling them “handsome,” “powerful,” and “confident,” compliments they have never heard in their lives. The whores would rock their worlds to such an extent that the incels will patiently wait to live in freedom another six months to fornicate again.

The details of the CHAD program would be simple. First, the government would provide an online questionnaire that incels take to qualify for the program. It would not be too strict: if a man hasn’t been laid in at least six months and wants a free whore, it’s better for society to provide it for him to dampen his rising urge to be noticed through a mass shooting.

Whores would apply to the program and work from home or in a designated government brothel that is placed in high population areas. After a sexual experience, the incel would give his government whore a rating on a 1-5 star system. Whores who ever dip under 3 stars would be eliminated from the program, ensuring that the government only hires the best whores for the incels since this is literally a life or death matter.

Single women will pay for the incel’s whores
image
She’s funding the free whores program

Structuring CHAD as a government program will allow women to have “skin in the game”—they’ll be reminded that their choices in sex partners have both financial and mortal consequences. The program will be entirely funded through taxes on the products that enable women to have casual sex with attractive men—birth control, dating apps, and smartphones.

After CHAD is implemented, anyone who wants to buy an iPhone will have to provide government identification that reveals their sex. If the buyer is female and unmarried, an automatic 100% tax will be added. Women will also be taxed $5 for every Tinder match they receive, and each birth control pill purchased by an unmarried woman will come with an extra $1 tax that goes directly to fund CHAD.

Whenever a girl uses her phone to get attention from attractive men, scores a new Tinder match with a hot guy, or pops a birth control pill that let’s her have sex without wanting to reproduce, her mind will flash with the realization that her easy-earned money is going towards incels she refuses to bang. If women are choosing nice guy incels for sex, those incels will not need to use the whore program and thus the tax will be reduced. It’s fine if women want to forsake the bottom 50% of the male population for sexual relationships, but they will have to pay for it so those men don’t kill other citizens. We have to stop the high standards of modern women from causing additional deaths.

An easier and cheaper solution than the CHAD program is to teach men game, particularly the Roosh Program. It instructs an incel to hit the gym, read some books, build up social experience, stop being a wimp, and finally embrace the masculinity that has been smothered for so long. Game may be getting harder in the West, but there are still worthwhile options in South America, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.

Game saves lives
image
This man will not kill anyone

The fact that Jewish organizations, feminist authors, and the media continue to attack me means that they don’t really care that people are getting shot up. Give me an incel on the verge of killing and I’ll hand you back a sexually sated Stan who lives in Thailand for three months of the year, or a beefed-up Oscar who found a dive bar where he can bang porkers on the weekends with barely any effort. Maybe these situation aren’t exactly ideal for Stan or Oscar, but it’s better than rotting in jail or being killed by the police in an exciting shootout that gets millions of views on YouTube.

Of course our cultural elites with not help implement the CHAD or Roosh program. As much as they whine about how older women can’t find any “good men,” and how hard it is for mentally ill trannys to get laid with in a climate of “transphobic” discrimination, they much prefer for incels to fuck off and die. A Silicon Valley executive named Ellen Pao even suggested they never be hired in the first place, which could lead to their starvation. We’re only a year or two off from op-eds in the New York Times suggesting Incel Concentration Camps. Are you a man who women don’t want to sleep with? Off to the gulags! You won’t even be allowed to masturbate.

The reaction of the elites clearly shows that there will be many more incel shooting sprees in the future. They will desperately try to link these killings to pro-masculine dissidents such as myself, but we know that if a man is allowed to find my work and implement it, he would never want to kill in the first place. Let us all hear the incel rallying cry: Give me love, give me whores, or give me game! Otherwise, he just may go crazy.

Zsych #fundie intjforum.com

Time to see how terrifying men find that idea. And I'm asking this question seriously. IMO:

1) If a woman didn't get a guy's consent before having sex, and there's no serious harm or STDs or a resulting kid to deal with... I'm not sure the guy would consider it a huge deal.

Especially not if she was decent looking... The male worldview doesn't have lots of ideas around the rape of men by women being a horrible and catastrophic thing for a guy embedded in it.

If women try to tell us in an extension of the ideas of equality, that a woman having sex with a man without expressly getting his consent beforehand, is super horrible - Don't think that would convince most of us to see it that way.

2) Saying that you got raped as a guy, is almost definitely not worth the resulting disruption for a guy. Especially if it was by a woman... Because nothing that other guys consider particularly bad or worth noticing actually happened... And from a male perspective means that you're basically asking for attention, of the same kind that women get on saying they've been raped.

Most men are not naturally protective of men the way we are of women. Asking to be treated like a woman that has been raped, for having been raped by a woman - would not get you taken seriously - if you didn't get laughed at for bringing it up and trying to make a large emotional issue of it.

--

So (straight) guys, who finds the idea of unexpectedly or even somewhat forcefully being made to have sex with a woman without getting formal agreement, maybe while you're drunk, particularly horrifying and highly punishable when say: No physical harm happens, you don't get STDs, and she doesn't end up pregnant - so no long term real world consequences?

(Instead of assuming that she's pretty or ordinary, we can also assume that she isn't attractive if you prefer)

-----

Or to make it simpler: If you remove the word rape and look at:

1) A woman forcing a man to have sex with her.
2) A woman not getting a guy's consent before having sex with him where he doesn't expressly refuse.
3) A woman ignoring a man's refusal of consent before and / or during having sex with him.

Assume no relevant laws currently exist: What punishment do you honestly think these women deserve for these acts, and what support do you think the men deserve for having had those experiences?

-----

Or, another way to simplify thinking about this: Imagine a woman you find repulsive managing to somehow have sex with you without you being okay with it.

Would you prefer:

a) Forget this nonsense ever happened - and definitely not discuss this with anyone.
b) I'm gonna punch her in the face.
c) She should go to jail for a week, and maybe do some community service.
d) She should go to jail for a month, and maybe do some community service.
e) She should go to jail for a year.
f) She should do hard time for a year.
g) She should be exiled from the country.
h) She should be put on pills that kill her sex drive and be forced to take them.
i) She should be forced into a sex change operation (this idea could be a problem)
j) She should be killed.
k) I should kill her myself.

Halfmcdadbod #sexist reddit.com

Sex is an accessory for women

Sex is primary for men; we are ready at the drop of a hat to pull out our cocks out and stick them in the hottest blondest women. This is one of the greatest needs in our life.
Women only drop their panties for the alpha male; this is common knowledge here at TRP, but lets exam why.
1.) The function of a woman for a man (in this cruel world) are to only be his object of desire: sex.
2.) The function of a man for a woman is to secure either a.) his resources or b.) his genes. This is the dual strategy of female mating.
So keep in mind, sex is accessory for women whereas it is primary for men. A woman's ultimate goal in seeking out a man ISN'T SEX; it's your resources and genes.
JUST REMEMBER the next time you are standing by the side of your bed with a blonde hb 9 pulling off her panties and biting her lip, she is only doing this unconsciously to secure your resources.
JUST REMEMBER when that hb8 says 'its ok, you don't have to use a condom, I'm on birth control', you are not the greatest sex rockstar of all time, she just wants your sperm.
JUST REMEMBER after a few months of lifting and now every female is checking you out, they don't want you for special snowflake you: they want your sperm.
JUST REMEMBER when you finally are getting consistently getting the sloppiest blowjobs from the hottest women, they are doing it to secure your resources!
Of course this happens on a subconscious level; no woman on planet earth will ever openly say they are fucking you for your sperm. Wait, until you are in the throws of passion when a girls begs for you to cum in her. If you had a great life-changing opportunity, wouldn't you go to great lengths to get it?
SEX is not the ultimate goal for women; they just use it as a means to an end. Sex is an accessory for women.
EDIT: After re-reading what I have written, it is clear that I am no where near out of the anger phase despite taking the red pill 6 months ago. Each time I exercise a new principle learned here in TRP out in real life, my perceptions of reality are shattered and I continue to be further angered.

futurehope #fundie rr-bb.com

I Feel That I Was in the Generation Which Saw the Change

The answer to "why" do women dress provocatively?

My conclusion:

WOMEN'S LIB + THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL

Women's Lib came along in the sixties and taught women that to have sex outside of marriage and use birth control was their right. Women should be able to enjoy what men have always enjoyed (now that the pill was on the market).

Trouble is: The cost of behaving "loosely" is no self-respect at all. This is the complete opposite of what women's lib wanted for women. They wanted women to have respect, and the same enjoyment of sex without ties or commitment, but instead, we now have women who dress in such a way, that they are not respected at all. They sell the view of their bodies' for love and closeness.

IT WAS ALL A LIE. Women's Lib singlehandedly drove scores of women to have less respect for themselves, and to be respected as OBJECTS instead of for the talents they have. This was the exact opposite outcome that Women's Lib wanted. They wanted MORE respect for women

Trouble is, you sell your soul for sexual pleasure, and you get no respect at all from men. I guess the ideal for women's libbers is to leave men out of the equation entirely, IYKWIM?

Thank you women's lib and Margaret Sanger for your birth control pill. NOT. You have degraded women and we have you to thank.

IT WAS ALL A LIE. And you know who is the father of lies.

That's my opinion.

_Ryo_Hazuki #sexist reddit.com

Women do not like men in general. They don't want any physical intimacy (including cuddling) and don't want any romantic affection. Not even from Chad.

• Should go without saying but women don't want sex. Period.

• Women don't like cuddling. Men pay to cuddle, there are even cuddle cafes in Japan where men pay to cuddle with women.

• Men are the romantics...women think it's cringy.

• Men pay and have to do all the work in relationships, including Chads.

• Women prefer the company of other women.

• Men pay just to be acknowledged by a woman platonically (see: beta orbiters)

• Whenever I read about a couple that sleeps in separate rooms it's because the woman wants it...the man hates it and wants to sleep in the same bed and same room.

• Women don't like any physical contact of any sort from men.

• Women in relationships always want more space but men want to be closer.

The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that the only things women want from a man are money, attention and children.

Chads are not desired by women...they're just easily tolerated. Average normie guys are reluctantly tolerated and incels are not tolerated.

The proof is in the pudding. Denial of any of these things is delusional male fantasy.

Anonymous #sexist archive.is


Mid 20's College sluts are dried up old hags.

I'm 21, I don't want to fuck women older than me for the next 10 years.

The fucking day I hit 18 I realized it would just be old hags from now on, and that's when I realized AoC laws are fucked up. I wanted to stay with the 16 and 17 year old girls I liked. I still want them.

Women get uglier as they get older.
....

I just want to fuck high school sluts.

Fucking actual children disgusts me.

Move to the UK then. Or Germany. Or Argentina. Or any other country with a <16 AoC

Why do I have to move to a different country just to be with the type of women I like?

It would take me a long time to get that money, even if it was just for a temporary holiday.

Why can't the AoC just be set by nature's own rules in all western nations. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to just get a hot 16 year old.


They are fine, even 20 is okay, but limiting yourself to women within 3 years doesn't give you many women. I want to widen my selection. Also nothing will best a 16 year old girl ever. 16 year old girls are made for sex.

The large majority of women in my uni classes are a older than me and I find none of them attractive. Fucking not even one, except an Egyptian girl and I don't want to mix.

Too compare, I found every single girl in my high school year attractive except the hambeasts.

High school girls also wont yap on to me about their dumb political opinions.

pfta2a #fundie reddit.com

Being good with kids seems to be a trait commonly associated with pedophiles. It is likely that we pay more attention to kids (and treat them with more respect).

It is okay to be sexually attracted to children, there is no harm in that. It is wrong to hurt a child, but an attraction does not lead to harm. Plenty of adults are attracted to other adults and manage not to hurt them.

I am a very positive influence on the lives of multiple children. Other people tell me so, their parents tell me so, the kids love to spend time with me. My closest relationship is with a girl who I am attracted to. She loves me and would live with me if given the chance, she comes from a negative home and I give her way more opportunities to do things (and attention and positive encouragement) than she gets at home.

I don't look at her and think I want to have sex with her. That is a vast oversimplification; like saying a man sees a women and just thinks I want to have sex with her. I want to provide her a source of comfort, a safe place to come to and a safe person to talk to. I want her to be happy, I want to help her grow into a capable and confident women, I want her to be successful in her life and yes, I would also like to have sex with her. I won't do the latter, but all of the former things are things I can and do do for her.

Saying Pedophile = wanting to have sex with a child, is like saying being attracted to an adult = want to have sex with that adult. While it is technically true; it is far too simplistic of a view to have real meaning. Just like other adults we want a relationship, we want the comfort of knowing someone we love loves us back, we want to help that person be happy and safe. Sure sex is a part of it, but it is nothing close to the whole.


That's sadly why you're considered to be sick in the head. Because you don't understand that it is NOT okay to be sexually attracted to kids. There is something wrong with each and every pedophile out there. Your refusal to admit your sickness is what makes you dangerous to be around a child. To have sexual desires towards a child is exactly like saying "I want to have sex with a child". You simply aren't saying it out loud. You're keeping it in your own head(And that's the scary part).

This is my last reply to this discussion. I am just appalled by everything you sick and demented people are saying. You're a sick fuck and like I said to the other person. I pray for any child that comes in contact with you.

So if a person thinks "I want to kill that person" are they a sick fuck even if they never act on it?

If a person thinks "I'd like to rape that person", but never acts on it, are they a sick fuck?

If a person thinks "I'd like to hurt that person", but never acts on it are they a sick fuck?

Or does thought-crime only apply to those have a sexual attraction to kids? I can't choose not to be attracted to kids anymore than a homosexual can choose not to be attracted to their own sex (note: I wouldn't chose not to be even if I could, but that's another story). I can chose how I act though and everyone who knows me finds my actions to be acceptable.


Having a single thought when you're angry about killing the person you're mad at? No, this is normal.

Constant thoughts about killing someone every day of your life? Yes. That is a sign of a mental illness much like being a pedophile.

Having a single thought that you may want to hurt a person? Perfectly normal.

Having thoughts every day that you want to hurt people? That's a sign of another mental illness.

Struggling every day of your life because you're sexually attracted to kids? Yes. I am sorry. That's a sure sign of someone with mental issues.

These are all signs of mental illnesses. Which is what you have -- an illness. Which is why you shouldn't be around kids nor should any pedophile. There's a reason adults with severe mental illnesses have their kids taken away. Endangerment. What makes you and the others sick fucks is not that you have a mental illness. It's that you're trying to defend it and say there's nothing wrong with it. That it's "okay". When it's not it's very far from being okay. This is what makes you dangerous to be around a child.

I don't have a mental illness, I have a sexual orientation. I am not ashamed of it, but I know that people would judge me for it no matter what my actions are. So I don't tell them. I'm not hiding it everyday, I'm going about my life without really worrying about it; but knowing I will never tell anyone.

By your logic being gay and hiding it is/was a mental illness.

Almost everyone I know (including many kids/parents) trusts me absolutely around kids. And I have never hurt a kid. I'd rather have them be the judges and have them judge my actions. They don't need to know my thoughts to judge my actions.

I don't constantly think about my sexual attraction to kids. It's more like having a friend who you are interested in romantically, but who see's you platonically. Sure sometimes it is awkward, but you still get along well and are good friends. You aren't likely to suddenly rape that friend. There's no all consuming sexual urge, it's no different than a sexual attraction anyone else feels.

It's only likely to get awkward in the case of pedophiles if the child returns the sexual interest. Than you have two consenting people who must withhold their feelings due to social stigma.

A child by law can't give consent. So you don't have two consenting people. You have 1 consenting adult and 1 poor child being mislead by said adult.


Consent laws are dumb. Children can consent, if two children have sex according to consent laws they raped each other (which is why a large number of sex offenders are minors). There should be extra protections for child sex. But they can consent.
When you were a child it's VERY likely a pedophile talked to you, maybe even held you, or even hugged you. Did you get hurt by it? most liely no. Although if you have been sexually abused I'm VERY sorry :-( it's terrible I know.


Anormalregularperson #sexist reddit.com

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Incels tell the truth about women, a protected class in the gynocentric reproductive cult known as modern society.

What is pointed out by incels is the ridiculously observable, yet uncomfortable reality of how shallow, superficial and materialistic matters of romance are for modern “empowered” women. It is ok, perfectly acceptable to paint men as being dogs, immature, shallow etc. but extremely offensive to the profitable women are wonderful effect status quo to simply point out how status obsessed women clearly are.

Fact is there is no such thing as romantic love from women; Women don’t love men, women love how a man makes herself look to other women via his appearance, wealth as well as his fame, and women love when a man satisfies them sexually. Women don’t love men, they love what we do for them. In our modern decedent culture the single best thing a man can do for a woman today is help her status mog other women in her social class so that she can feel secure within herself and looks are increasingly becoming the primary factor in this.

Increasingly the most important factors in the way modern women respect and treat men have little to nothing to do with intangibles, matters like personality or intelligence or kindness. Lol “this is a chad”, a man would seriously have a far easier time with women getting plastic surgery rather than investing in his character or career. No man wants to be the guy women settle down with because he makes a good living after she’s spent years fucking “chads” just because of how they looked; It’s clearly better/more satisfying to just be the chad, the guy who actually provokes genuine attraction in women.

The truth is most women literally care more about how a guys face looks compared to the most famous lead actors and how tall he is more than anything else, then they care how much money he has; The truth is men are status objects to women, women don’t love men, they seek to use us for status.

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

A shit test is a test by a woman of a man's mettle. To pass a shit test, a man must simply hold his masculine frame,[1] and put her in her place if necessary. Shit tests have been written about since no later than 1910.[2]

SmellyJelly22 notes, "A shit test is basically when a woman challenges a man with a bit of anxiety she has been feeling. If a man reacts with masculinity, he passes. If he reacts with anxiety, he fails. . . . If I can show the insult doesn't faze me I show myself to be a suitable partner because I can destroy weak emotions in a way she can’t."[3]

Rollo notes, "Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence."[4] According to Powers, everything women say is either a shit test or "Her telling you exactly what she wants or likes about you (e.g. 'you"re an asshole')." Chateau Heartiste advises, "Shit tests are essentially a woman telling you 'Please train me to respect you.' Oblige her."[5]

Women find it sexy when men don't take their shit and call them out on their shit.[6] Charles Sledge notes, "Women want you to put them in their place. They want you to tell them 'no'. To stop them, to put your foot down. They want a man they can submit to but they know that it must be a real man who isn’t going to change for them. So they test you and when you remain your dominant masculine self they love it because they know you are really what they thought you were and wanted."[7] He continues:[1]

Most men fail shit tests as most men have been trained by the media, overbearing mothers, the government, the school systems, and just about everything else that he is supposed to give in to women. Despite that this goes against the natural order of how nature works. The woman gives into the man not vice versa. This false belief that men should give into women has given many men problems with their relations to women. They get stepped on or a woman loses all attraction for them because the man gives in to them. . . . .

When a girl is giving you a shit test, she is challenging you. What she is doing is testing your balls to see if you actually have any or to see if you’re going to be like ninety nine percent of guys and give in to her (in which case she loses all attraction). She is seeing if you are actually a man or if you are a little boy pretending to be a man. She wants to see your masculinity, that is why she is testing you. To see if there is masculinity there.

While a guy can just look at a woman and see if he is attracted to her it doesn’t work that way with women when seeing if a guy is attractive. So a shit test is to see if the guy is actually attractive. Imagine if all women wore burkas a shit test would be the male equivalent of seeing what was under the burka. Is she hot or not. That is what women are trying to see. Is he masculine (and therefore attractive) or is he submissive (and therefore repellent)?

Oneitis as a reason for failing shit tests

The Rational Male notes:[8]

   The reason men fail most shit tests is because they subconsciously telegraph too much interest in a single woman. Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

   a.) Confidence – first and foremost b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option? c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

Responding to shit tests

Heartiste also advises, "Learn to love the pregnant pause. When a girl shit tests you, don’t respond like a wind-up beta. Give her a blank, serial killer stare and wait… wait……. waiiiiit for it…. ANSWER!"[9]

Agreeing and amplifying

Agreeing and amplifying tends to be an effective response to sarcastic shit tests.[10]

Oscarboy3333 #sexist reddit.com

How I went from a Women hating Incel into a reformed Feminist thanks to my girlfriend.

Hey everyone,

I was an Incel like you, spent countless hours a day hating on women for no apparent reason. Now I look back, i'm ashamed of my previous actions. How did it change ?

One day a stranger inboxed me here on reddit, wanted to question my lifestyle, found out she was a "foid"(very disrespectful), she invited me for a coffee. I accepted and my life completely changed for the better.

She helped me realize what an entitled, piece of shit men are and how ashamed I should be. She helped me realize my ethnicity(Indian) is bottom of the barrel, backward that oppresses women, made me apologize to 1000 random women on Instagram on behalf of my ethnicity, I couldn’t copy paste, I had to re-write each time.. She went through the pics of all my crushes from middle school to high school and helped me realize my crushes didn't owe their body to me, and it was actually inappropriate that that some of them found out about it and helped me realize what kind of trauma they would have faced by someone like me having crush on them.

Since I was hard wired into being a piece of shit that hated women and oppressed them, she had to use harsh punishment to rewire the correct way. For example, we walked into the starbucks I worked in, I forgot to hold the door, so she made me kneel down in front of everyone at starbucks and face slap me and yell “I RESPECT WOMEN AND IM ASHAMED TO BE A MAN”.

I once saw her flirt with another dude, when I questioned her she helped me realized that women should not be oppressed, but again I was being a piece of shit so that means the punishment was going to be harsher. She tied me up naked, and beat my testicles hard for 20 minutes straight with a wooden spoon. I was in pain, I cried so much that I stopped producing tears. But that was absolutely necessary for my rewiring.

I caught her another time on Tinder, I confronted but instead of punishing me, she asked to join them on a threesome. We never had sex yet, just a kiss on the cheek. Before the intercourse began she had a little game and told me and Brad had to wrestle each other and only the winner gets to have sex with her. She wanted to see me if I can protect her in case of danger. Brad is about 6,5, muscular built. He put me on headlock and started choking me, my GF however was encouraging and motivating. She kept cheering “Die you fucking incel, I want you to fucking die right now with your mouth open, then I’ll cut your dick and shove it in your mouth and post it on Facebook and tag your mom”. It was encouraging but I knocked out and woke up with heavy feeling in my chest. As I woke up, I realize my GF was on top of me and Brad was on top of her having intercourse. Haha I guess since I lost, I’m still a virgin. The highlight of the night came when she wanted to get comfortable having Anal Sex, she attempted in the past but didn’t work, so she needed me to hold her hand, be therefore her and comfort as Brad is going in. I really teared up when Brad fully went inside her Anus while she was in tear of joy and pleasure. That was the first time I ever shed tears in joy.

Past weekend, she wanted to help me teach how women feel when they are obligated to perform Oral on guys. I was dressed up as a female, wore make up, lipstick and she guided me into performing proper Oral on Brad. It was tough but I'm not an ignorant asshole that is homophobic. Therefore I tried to enjoy my time, I choked, gagged and when Brad came I was ordered to keep his cum inside my mouth for 5 minutes before told to swallow it. I never knew Cum was warm and metalic. It was absolutely necessary for me to go through that to be a full on man in this world.

Guys, give up this women hating subreddit, please find a gf, respect woman and live a better life. and Stop being an INCEL hahahaha.

DAVIS M.J. Aurini #sexist staresattheworld.com

Why Ghostbusters Was Doomed from the Start


It wasn’t a bad script that killed Ghostbusters (2016); the movie was doomed from the start.

BassFzz’s Video: My Problem With “Empowered” Female Characters

The new Ghostbusters film hasn’t even been released yet, and it’s already turning into a disaster. Audiences are panning the trailers, heads are rolling at Sony, and the Director – Paul Feig – is blaming it all on misogyny.

The problems with this film should have been obvious from the beginning. There’s a reason audiences have reacted so negatively, even before rumours of the lame duck script were released. It’s not just that they got the music wrong, turning 80s synth into modern orchestral; it’s not just that the outfits look dumpy, and the jokes are lame; there’s a far more fundamental problem which poisoned this film from the get go, which no amount of creativity could have compensated for.

The problem with Ghostbusters 2016 is that main cast is all women.

Now am I saying that an all-female cast in a comedy-adventure movie aimed at general audiences is an inevitable death knell? Am I confirming Feig’s accusations of misogyny, that audiences are just angry because they can’t deal with strong, female characters?

No; not at all. In fact, if you took the four women playing the ghostbusters and put them into another film it could have been incredibly successful; in fact, the 2011 comedy Bridesmaids had much of the same cast, and the same Director, and it was received extremely well; if, instead of Ghostbusters, the four of them had starred in a sequel to, say, Jumanji – just imagine it, the same four actresses fighting off giant insects and killer plants, while the Great White Hunter comes after them, hating them for no reason at all – that could have worked, as a comedy, as an adventure, and it wouldn’t have traipsed all over the good will from the Robin Williams film.

So is the problem that this is a transparent, feminist reboot? Taking a beloved IP, sex-swapping the lead roles, and pretending that this somehow makes women empowered? Not exactly. While it’s certainly a blatant slap in the face to audiences, that’s nothing more than the icing atop a concept that was fatally flawed from the beginning.

The reason Ghostbusters doesn’t work with a female cast is because at the core it is a male story.

Now I’d like to step back for a moment and consider the term “Strong Female Character”; my colleague Zarius has a video where he discusses this topic at length, and he uses the term “Strong Female Character” to mean Good female character; it’s a great video, and I definitely recommend that you check it out. But I’d like to go in a different direction, and consider the specific words that are being used. Strong Female Character as opposed to Powerful Female Character.

Strength – physical strength – is one of the defining aspects of masculinity. When you contrast the sexes, there’s no contest; the average man is stronger than 95% of women; and even female bodybuilders don’t get much stronger than your part-time gym rat. This is why hitting women is such a universal taboo. We expect men to use their physical strength to protect women – not abuse them.

Somebody who’s strong is somebody who’s powerful – but strength isn’t the only form of power. In Game of Thrones neither Tyrion nor Varys are strong physically – Tyrion because of his dwarfism, Varys because he was gelded – and yet both of them are powerful and admirable despite their physical weakness.

This is why I find the phrase “Strong Female Characters” so interesting; it sets women up to fail, competing in an arena where men are the superior sex – or it requires that they be “Empowered” by the director, who winds up giving superhuman abilities to 120 lb Scarlet Johansson. This results in cognitive dissonance for the audience. In Avengers, Black Widow is tough enough to beat up hardened Russian Mobsters at the beginning of the movie – but later on, when we see her fight Hawkeye, every healthy, well-adjusted person in the audience is subconsciously outraged that this big man is beating a tiny woman.

Strength isn’t the only difference between the sexes, though it’s one of the most obvious; men and women differ in so many ways – in complementary ways! Each sex is specialized to work well with the other; men are good at some things, women are good at different things, and trying to judge either sex by the standards of their complement isn’t just foolish; it’s dehumanizing.

So let’s return to Ghostbusters – the Real Ghostbusters from 1984. What’s this movie really about? When you strip away all of the makeup – the setting, the ghosts, the gags, and the big name actors – what is the kernel of narrative that you find?

It’s a movie about four friends putting together a start-up business, and the difficulties they have to deal with – both from clients, and from regulators.

This is a masculine story at its core. Not because women are incapable of inventing a proton-pack; not because men have better instincts for what sort of businesses will succeed; the reason it’s a masculine story is because of the psychological inheritance we received from our ancestors.

Men evolved to go out and prove themselves to women; to take big risks, to bite off more than they can chew. Women evolved to find security in the home environment so that they could raise their children securely. Women who took risks wound up failing the test of evolution; so did the men who played it safe. Because of this our ancestors were the risk-taking men, who would do something like gamble on Ghostbusting being successful; and our ancestors were the cautious women, who would rather achieve a stable income on etsy, even if that means that they’ll never hit it big.

Furthermore; we tend to have more sympathy for women than we do for men; we’re more likely to give them help when they encounter difficulty. There are good evolutionary reasons for this (reasons that are so obvious I won’t even bother mentioning them), but when it comes to Ghostbusters this innate empathy undermines the conflict. In the original film, Walter Peck – the EPA regulator – was an antagonist we loved to hate; but he wasn’t a villain. At the end of the day he was just another man doing his job, even if he went about it foolishly, and his anger at the ghostbusters was comedic.

Replace Dan Aykroyd with Melissa McCarthy, however, and we’re right back to Hawkeye acting like a wife beater; what was once a funny pissing match between a couple of guys, is now an abusive misogynist who doesn’t want women to succeed.

For most people the differences between the sexes are so obvious that they wind up being difficult for us to even notice. Are men and women equal? Of course they are! What sort of savage would say otherwise? Should you treat a gentleman in the same manner that you’d treat a lady? Why of course not, what an absurd suggestion! This is all so obvious to us, on a subconscious level, that when something like Ghostbusters 2016 shows up on our radar, we just know it’s wrong, even if we can’t quite orchestrate why. So if that’s the case – how did Sony fail to realize that this was a disaster from the beginning?

It’s time we looked at the Director, Paul Feig. In a 2015 interview with Variety, he discussed how his world had been female-centric from a young age; how he never learned about masculinity from a father who was always working. In another interview with Hollywood Reporter, he made a point of saying that his favourite colour is purple.

According to Feig, his world has been female-centric from an early age. Growing up in Michigan an only child, and with a father busy running a surplus store, he spent a lot of time with his mother. “Most of my friends growing up were either women or sensitive guys like myself,” he notes. Though his last name is pronounced “Feeg,” its close enough to a gay slur that boys his age teased him. “You know how guy comedy is,” he says. “They would call me names and punch me. And I would think, ‘I don’t enjoy this male bonding!’ And I hated the locker room, because that’s where I got beaten up.”

It is clear that Feig is a man who’s deeply confused about the sexes. Not because he’s a dandy necessarily – Oscar Wilde was a dandy, and he had a very deep understanding of the sexes – but because from the earliest ages he was encouraged to identify with the female, to seek female primacy.

He was a boy raised to be a woman; and now that he is a man, he takes his malformed, stunted understanding of masculinity, and projects it onto the other sex. He wants to see women as saviours, as soldiers, as successful in business; he wants a woman who will continue to over-mother him, protecting and providing for him. His latent masculine instincts are screaming that he ought to be protecting and providing – but because he never grew up, he projects those roles on to women.

In their review of Star Wars prequels, Red Letter Media pointed out that the biggest failure of those movies was that they didn’t tell a human story. Audiences couldn’t relate to the characters on the screen, and so once the dazzle of the special effects faded, there was little left to care about.

Man is the story telling animal; all of our narratives are built off of rules and tropes embedded deep in our subconscious. The reason that “Rescue the Princess” is a theme you find throughout all cultures, is because women have always been attracted to men who are strong enough to defend them. When you flip the sexes, putting a woman in place to rescue a man, the romance at the end of the story evaporates. Instead of fighting to rescue a lover – she is fighting to rescue her younger brother.

Everybody understands this, even if they can’t put it into words; and when you present them with a narrative that’s broken from the get go, they can all sense that something’s wrong, even if they can’t put their finger on it. Both Paul Feig and Amy Pascal, the Chairman of Sony Pictures, are deeply sexually confused, and as such are obsessed with forcing female bodies into character roles designed for men. They want to see a strong princess go and rescue a weak man and then fall in love with him – to everybody else’s disgust.

It wasn’t a bad script that killed this movie; it wasn’t problems during production; and it certainly wasn’t fear or hatred of women. What doomed this movie from day one was the deep set mental illness of Feig and Pascal. Rather than crafting a good film, they tried to force their sickness into the world; twisting reality with contradictions, and demanding that reality accommodate them. They went against the logic of the human soul, and because of that, Ghostbusters was doomed from the start.

klepperx #sexist reddit.com

Women are incapable of unconditional love for anyone other than their children.

I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost, Than never to have loved at all. ~Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Do you know why a man said that and not a woman? It’s unheard of for a female author to write of a past love who they broke up with. For the same reason why all the great romance poets are men; because women are literally incapable of unconditional love. Even all the “great” romance stories written by women, if the man stopped doing what the woman liked and tipped the scale, the long beautiful love story, spanning over decades, would be over in the blink of an eye. The “love” would be replaced with hate and loathing in a heartbeat; which confirms it wasn’t actual unconditional love in the first place.

Women treat men (and even other women) like tools; something they can use that serves them. And the when the tool stops performing as intended, they flip in a second from really appreciating the tool to hating it and wanting to destroy it because it’s not performing like it did anymore. It’s funny that women will complain that men treat women like objects sometimes. Because men even love objects more than women love men. A car that broke down and almost killed a man at the end yet gave them 20 years of service, even if it was constant costly repairs will still shed a tear when the car goes away and they will look back and speak of how much they loved that car for the rest of their life.

Women do unconditionally love their children though, and it takes the largest biological cocktail known to human science of her entire life to drown her brain for months to force change it from the natural conditionally feeling state. Her husband may lose his job for a time and if the scale is tipped, she’ll divorce him and he’ll instantly become the scum of all the earth, evil, jerk, and not only want him to die, but want him to suffer a horrible pain filled life until the end. However, her children could be serial killers who eat their victims faces off, and she’ll still be like “He’s a great kid, I still love him more than life itself.”

In the ending of a relationship with a man, there is sorrow at the lost, nevertheless, he remembers all the good times, and holds it to be true that it’s better to have love and lost than not to have loved. Because all that time passed at an elevated emotional state. A woman doesn’t feel this way. She’s angry. Bitter. Vindictive. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a idea well known in every single culture around the world as long as they were able to write it down.

Why? It’s just the nature of the woman to be a conditional lover. She’s out of this world nice and sweet with the condition as long as you’re giving her what she wants in the moment. But the second the scales are tipped: watch out. If you’re a woman who has never had a relationship, or an inexperienced man, you probably think, “Oh, this guy is just being vindictive, this isn’t how women operate.” That’s why I want you to go prove this to yourself, by yourself. I want you to find a guy, ANY guy on planet earth, who has just gone through divorce, (there are many) and see if he was not shocked and floored at his ex-wife's total transformation from a nice reasonable rational cordial person, into a super vindictive, evil, lying, conniving, super bitch - at the drop of a hat.

I don’t even need to qualify it, you go find any. single. one. you want and you will find this is 100% true. (I suspect there is something feeding this void seeking behavior in the environment of modern feminism western culture that’s amplifying this core nature in women because the problem is getting worse. Women are allowed more freedom now-a-days to unabashedly be who they really are. That is the modern message they are receiving since childhood.) Even if she cheated on him (women’s thinking: if a man cheats, it’s the man’s fault, if a woman cheats it’s also the man’s fault), even if the divorce was her idea, even if she was a lesbian and tricked him/lied to him to get married because she wanted a more "traditional" life, she will turn on a dime and loath and try to destroy him. This isn't unconditional love.

I don’t think it’s their faults, they are just incapable. Which is why evolutionarily speaking something drastic needed to happen to change their natures when dealing with their own offspring (children are never going to act the way women want them to). Women use people for whatever reasons all women do: money, kids, convenience, handy man, stress reliever, babysitter, use men as a trophy in the competition that women all are apart of until menopause. And they ALL do it, and this is the vast vast majority of all women in all marriages. If she really loved you, there wouldn't be this drop-of-a-hat transformation into ultra-beeotch mode.

Men do genuinely unconditionally love. They are capable and it’s in their natures. Things didn't work out dating? Guys will always have a love for these girls, even if they weren't the right ones, even if they dumped them, even if they got dumped. Many women have received the drunken late night phone call/text from their former boyfriend proclaiming their undying love. Men even have a respect their enemies they fight in war. Yes, they want to kill them before they get killed, but they still have a great and profound respect them. Women have no respect for their enemies. Go prove this for yourself and ask any principal for any school in the country and they will confirm that bullying is a huge problem: and it’s a 99% girl on girl problem. Girls want their (male or female) enemies beyond dead, they want them psychologically destroyed, publicly humiliated and irreversibly damaged and live a lifetime of horror and regret for having bothered/offended/crossed them.

Women understand women, and countless women don’t like women and will only hang out with guys in school; they cite no faux relationships, backstabbing or no drama as to their reasons. And guys are cool with that, and will readily accept them into their groups with loving protective arms. Women will readily agree that this is what adolescence was like, and it carries well over into the dating or corporate world, then it continues into The Mommy Wars. (“daddy wars” is not a thing) Then a battle of whose kids are more successful. Eventually, for most, it starts to fade off with menopause. However there are still small skirmishes with grandma wars in the battle of who has more grandkids for the few who can’t let it go. It’s just their natures.

So my brothers, if you saw a someone with down syndrome freaking out in a store, or even if they hurt you physically, you wouldn’t want to retaliate and hurt him or her back. They are broken, it’s not biologically their fault; so be extra kind to women, be compassionate. This doesn’t mean you have to be in harmony and conjoin yourself to diabolically psychotic behavior. Your kindness isn’t because they deserve it, but because you do, it feels better. It’s who you really are. It’s in your nature to be unconditionally loving and be in that state. It’s not for them, but for you. Because you deserve it.

Hopecel #sexist reddit.com

Fake femcel is ALMOST redundant. I will admit that some older women, and black women can be too ugly, too masculine for any man to want to commit to. They can still get sex, but not LTRs.

What does every man want? Sex.

What’s the expected outcome out of a relationship? Sex on a consistent basis.

You know how pathetic men are and what kind of shit they are willing do to have the slightest chance with a woman. So why wouldn’t a man want a LTR with any woman?

Case closed.

Blair Naso #sexist returnofkings.com

The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?

Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”

The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.

But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.

Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.

Less Than Feminine

It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.

Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.

[...]

Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.

Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).

And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.

Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.

Bad For The Family

Ultimate History Project writes,

One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

[...]

If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.

True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.

Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?

[...]

Progress

We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.

Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.

The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.

The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.

To_Live_is to_Serve #sexist incels.co

[LifeFuel] Imagine if the gender roles were reversed.

You could get a one-way open relationship with your looksmatch while also using tinder to get Prime top percentage Stacies. Your fellow men will be lazy and thousand cunt stare making you a real catch. You will not have to work; you could just get a virgin betabuxx 7/10 engineer wife without sexual experience.

You could give thousands of cream pies and not worry about pregnancy as you have total control over paternity and abortion. You get easy well paid job as receptionist while your looksmatch get a depressing manual labour job. You could sell your dirty undies for money while staying completely anonymous and you could show your currently subhuman body on webcam to get endless compliments and money by women who want to admire your body. You would get softer sentences and it would be a crime to make you homeless. You would not get attacked violently by other men as they have a great solidarity and would burn 1000 women alive instead of having your needs go unmet which the government would support.

All modern media would cater to your hedonistic desires while you would be praised for having the spirituality you have. Genes would be filtered out by selection of females instead of female selection meaning that your mass reproduction could be justified as a part of evolution. You could have sex with virgin teens illegally and they would be grateful for you taking their virginities and creampieing them. You could help the incel normies ascend in this world and get praised as a moral paragon by both the privileged and the unprivileged. You would get endless personalised compliments by sending a mass message on your real tinder intead of just the catfish account.

Women would instinctively protect you with their lives and send you gifts, expecting nothing in reward and getting joyfully over a dicpic which they would brag about getting from you on the internet. No face would be too foul and no penis too small for you to live a life of leisure and privilege and anyone who says otherwise would get deplatformed immediately. Women would still cook food and take care of children as betabuxxers do now. You would decide when sex is had in the relationship and media would uphold male pastimes like warfare, sport and gaming while condemning fraudulent make-up. Women who get caught frauding men get burned alive by jealous women as soon as you give the hint.

You wouldn't need to have a personality or an inner monologue to get by but having one would grant you great opportunities. You could wear shorts in public and get compliments IRL daily while being able to have sex with any woman who compliments you. You would be the archetype of an admirable moral person. Parties with high energy would be held to attract and amuse people like you and get you to open up and have sex like for young females. All men would have a similar smv; some difference in attraction would exist but fetishes even it all out. All female students and teachers would want you and especially you as you don't appear to be damaged by the cunt coaster. It would be paradise-like.

The true paradise comes from within but is a poor comfort when you are poor, wet and unwanted.

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.

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.

SnowWhiteQueen #racist stormfront.org

Re: Black female university journalist writes that it's racist for White males to exclusively date White females

Where are all of these white men who only date or prefer white women? I seriously doubt any white man ever told her that he only dates white women.

I see white men with black women all the time where I live. It's the latest trendy interracial couple and has been on the rise for about 10 years in my town.

As for this idiot and her whining.

At the root of your exclusion of women of color from your dating pool

All white men should exclude 'women of color' form their dating pool.

Further, straying from white women as your partners of choice could have dastardly consequences that result in the dilution of your family and your own perceived whiteness.

Yes, racemixing will kill off white people. White people need to see that the only thing dating or marrying interracial will do is result in the death of European people. Any white person who doesn't see this or doesn't care is an idiot.

And perceived whiteness? No you fool. European people exist genetically like any other race.

and white privilege is as valuable as gold in a country overflowing with Trump apologists and white resentment.

There you go again getting hung up on this fictional non-existent white privilege and blaming it for why white men choose to date white women. In your stupid ignorant mind the only reason any white man would ever prefer white women is because of white privilege.

Many women of color are encouraged from a young age to use skin-lightening creams, use apps to make their eyes wider and conform to white societal standards of beauty. The entire world is tied into this white privilege.

Boohoo cry me a damn river. Black women are the ones who choose to adhere to these beauty standards. No one forced them to. You black women only whine about white beauty standards because you know that 'black is beautiful' is a bunch of bull**** and an attempt to make black women feel better. There is a very good reason that a whole entire industry exist around making the hair of black women look nothing like real black African hair. And that's because black women know that that black peoples hair is complete crap and they have to change it to look nothing like their natural hair. Don't blame white people for the beauty standards you choose to copy.

Saying that you prefer certain women to others not only reinforces stereotypes about women of color, but white women too. Arguing that you prefer white women based on the presuppositions that white women are inherently more beautiful, passive, kind or financially-stable is — you guessed it — racist!

And not only is it racist, but it’s insincere.

Who cares what black women think is racist? They think everything they don't like or agree with is racist.

It's not a stereotype to say that white women are more beautiful, kind and passive than black women. It's the truth most of the time.

And black women are the last people on earth who should be complaining about stereotyping people or being insincere.

So she's trying to nag and White-Guilt some poor sucker into dating and/or marrying her. Yeah right.

And it'll probably work. I have no doubt some wimpy white male loser will date her. I see it all the time where I live. I can't go anywhere now without seeing some loser white male wimp out with his hideously ugly black girlfriend.

Black females have like a triple race card they play. They get mad when White men won’t date them. They get mad when Black men pretend to like them and then bang them but then leave immediately and turn them into single mothers. They get mad when Black men date White women. But when a Black woman is somehow able to date a White man, they oooohh and aaahhh over it like it is the most amazing thing on earth, because they know that the best a person can get for themselves is a White. Black women (and men too, but mostly women) were the most hysterical about Meghan Markle marrying Prince Harry. It was all they talked about on Twitter for months. They think that just because we have now broken some kind of magical race barrier because a sheboon married a White prince, that somehow this fantasy can possibly happen for them too. They believe that maybe White men may be more open to dating them now because of Prince Harry. But that was a one time fluke, and Harry most likely has undetected tumors or cysts in his brain that caused a severe lapse in judgement. Either way. They are already having marital problems, even the lying Jew press admits it here and there. I don’t expect them to last more than five years, even though they are now unfortunately having a kid together. Blacks are even saying on Twitter that they hope the kid comes out really dark skinned, just to rub some more crap into the Royal family’s face. They really can’t get over this psychotic love and hate thing they feel for us.

Black females are a bunch of hypocrites. When it's white women dating black men they whine about how white women are stealing black men from black women. As if black men can't decide who they want to date and have to be manipulated into dating white women. But when it's black women dating white men that's ok, not a problem at all.

They see black women dating and marrying white men as a way to get back at white women who they can't stand, as a way to push black women as being better, more attractive and more desirable than white women and as a way to get their filthy hands on the white man's bank account. For black women dating or marrying white men is about revenge and money.

Some white men will go along with this and date or marry black women, if only because it makes white men look progressive and anti racist. Throwing their genetics into a pile of dung all so they can be seen as progressive and get liberal and multicultural brownie points.

It’s already being said that if a man doesn’t date a “transgender woman” he’s a bigot and transphobic.
When You Say “I Would Never Date A Trans Person,” It’s Transphobic. Here’s Why.

I would never date a guy who dated anyone transgender. Eww! That's just nasty. But if white men are stupid enough to date black women then dating trannys is just right around the corner. That will be the next dating trend. Men dating girly dudes instead of real women.

David J. Stewart #sexist #fundie #homophobia jesusisprecious.org

I detest a woman doing a man's job! Women cops often act like rugged men, having a Smart Alec attitude, talking tough with a manly voice, which I think is shameful. They lack femininity! I truly feel sorry for them for being “turned aside after Satan” (1st Timothy 5:14-15). A women's place is in the home, married, bearing children, guiding the home (baking pastries, preparing home-cooked meals and fulfilling her God-given role as a wife and mother). The whole idea of career women is straight out of the depths of Hell! The Devil and his children hate the traditional family. God bless the woman who works hard at home as a mother and a wife. You are the best!!!

I am exposing the ungodly trend for today's Bible colleges to train nurses instead of wives and mothers! I know a female Bob Jones University graduate on Guam, a nurse, who is so proud of her career, but she is in her 30's and can't find a husband because of her half-feminist attitude. I seriously doubt if she's ever going to get married, because she has a wrong spirit. She's going to end up an old woman with no children, or marry anyone in desperation because she doesn't think right. I wanted to marry her, but she is too foolish to know a godly man when she meets one. She wants a good man, but not a godly man. She wants a religious guy, but not a spiritual guy. She wants a loser, like her, who values the temporal over the eternal!

Singer Dolly Parton has publicly expressed regrets about her career, looking back in hindsight during her elderly years (now at 73), having no children or grandchildren. She has nothing now except a lot of filthy-lucre and worldly friends. What a tragic existence! What a horrible life's choice! Truly the Devil comes only to steal a woman's virtue, children and happiness!!! Kindly, Dolly Parton is as fake a Christian as her breasts! She is a daughter of Jezebel, not of Sarah. Sarah wore dresses! I SAID SARAH WORE DRESSES!!! Jezebel wore the attire of a harlot! The Holy Bible calls lust a “WAR AGAINST THE SOUL.” 1st Peter 2:11, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” For a child of God, a female, to wear pants in the presence of their male neighbours is to mock God's Word. Society's women wearing pants is synonymous with the Sexual Revolution—a woeful lack of regard for modesty, morality, the sanctity of life and marriage, masculine authority, the traditional family and a holy God. We're living in a reprobate nation of rebels in 2019!!!

Say what you want about Arabs, who forbid women from even showing their faces in public—THEY COME CLOSER TO RIGHT than America's daughters of whoredom, who wear the attire of a harlot (if they wear any clothes at all), and are nearly all guilty of having premarital sex! And may I say, there is NOTHING as unbiblical, evil, wrong, and mentally destruction than premarital sex!!! Fornication is a sin that will destroy your life girls! I personally know of several young girls who fell in love with some bum, who lied when he said “I Love You!,” who afterwards dumped those girls and went his merry way. ALWAYS GET LEGALLY MARRIED FIRST!!! You cannot get burned if you get married! If you give you virginity to a man to whom you are not married, you are stupid!!! I said, YOU ARE A STUPID FOOL!!! I am not trying to make anyone feel bad who has committed fornication. I feel sorry for you! My intent is to talk some sense into any woman reading this, regardless of your age, so that you'll get legally married first before giving away your most prized possession, your chastity. The ungodly Walt Disney corporation promotes “scoring” (fornication) among teens. It might come as a surprise to many parents that about 40% of Disney's 63,000 employees are homosexual. Their former CEO (a Sodomite himself) said that!

APieceOfFemShit #sexist reddit.com

Disclaimer: I already know NAMALT

Do you really believe that the male imperative is sex, and sex alone. That there's nothing else that men want/need from women, besides being a human Fleshlight?

I'm asking because most men want to get married and have families. That differs from the sex imperative, because men can get sex without getting married. Marriage requires relationship building, and every guy knows that, so why go through all that hassle if your only interest is sex? This is a verboten idea on this board, but men want relationships just as much as women do. The process is different, but the goal is the same

Marriage is actually androcentric. Women and girls have been indoctrinated into thinking that marriage, LTRs, etc. is a female/feminine idea "Mr.Right", "obsessions with power", but it is not. It is men that created this through sexism and inferiority complex. Hate to agree with the red pill religion, but the male imperative involves religiosity around women, whether it be sex or relationships - almost impulsively that they cannot help - while the female imperative just revolves around reproduction and protection of offspring, with no interest in males to the extent that males are obsessed with females. Females are just shamed by society and men that their imperative is "unnatural" or immoral - so we have taken on more masculine attitudes and preferences, such as "settling down and getting married". This is ulitmately why The Red Pill clergy women are some of the saddest women in history to look at. In reality, we can select any male in nature we want and reproduce with them and spread genetics easily. This naturally ties males to their offspring, so there is no need to "marry one" for 50 years or be stuck with some man for 50 years. This is why women leave marriages early and remarry a lot less. Men continue to shame women that "divorce" shit men or love claiming "women are incapable of love" just because they aren't brainwashed into male imperatives, and etc for a reason. Like marriage/divorce are some natural thing. Stats continue to report decreased happiness that this causes women, which is not so for the male.

"Prince Charming," Disney, "Damsel in distress" "Provider," , relationships, marriage, etc etc etc was all androcentric and mostly only benefits the male. We can see in history women did not agree with these ideas. They did not agree with marriage. Women have marched since the 1600s way before feminism. These were socially established to compensate for male expendability in nature. The female on the other hand can mate and spread her genes as much as she wants, needs no male for protection nor financial means, and can also function at full cognitive capacity as the male, while also having the ability to reproduce. Males know the potential of women and how useless they are in comparison to the female, which is why they are obsessed with "keeping them somewhere" and indoctrinating them into "needing men" to the point of infantilization and benevolent sexism brainwashing. Most of this stuff is just male projection and envy. Freud was a big one. He made penis envy a thing which is just all projection, envy and jealousy and proven to be insane and made up (like most male things and fake male "academia" that demonstrably made of lies about female anatomy and women for ages), like the rest of his theories that were all projection, such "everyone is obsessed with sex" from birth.

Males worship and obession of women goes back to the very beginning with Goddess religions, and in nature. What we see today is all made up androcentricism. The world is entirely androcentric hiding it as "traditionalism" and laughably false monotheistic/theistic androcentric "religions" and other indoctrination's blaming on "what women want out of men" - so they have some reason to live. Traditionalism is just worship of women by men and this is why it needs sexism/mistreatment of women in it and to be virtue signalled by religions to justify it's stupidity.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 2 of the previous Jim quote]

To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.

White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.

Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.

Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all her days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.

Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power an status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.

I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.

It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.

You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.

That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.

And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.

So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

Legalization of marital rape sends an important message, which is that frigidity is not a behavior that a husband need tolerate from his wife. The point is not that he should actually rape her, but that he has a right to if he wants to, since she is his property, given (or sold) to him by her father. This can help instill a proper attitude of submission, which will ultimately benefit her, since women like to be dominated. Not only that, but women will probably have an easier time getting men to want to marry them if they say, "Look honey, once we get married, you won't have to worry that I'll deny you sex, because you can just rape me whenever you want, and the law will allow it."

Men want to own women. But this isn't bad for women, because good men tend to feel a strong sense of moral obligation toward their wives. A typical man, especially after he has had kids with his wife, will not want to divorce her, even if she is refusing sex after she promised she wouldn't do that.

So the typical feminist argument, "If she's not having sex with you, you can just divorce her," falls flat. Feminists who say that are putting themselves in men's shoes and thinking of what they would do if their needs weren't being met in a marriage, but men's sense of love and loyalty is typically less opportunistic than women's and their integrity is more to principles than to feelings. He will generally feel duty-bound to stay, even if he has other options. These days, men are realizing that marriage imposes obligations on them without offering them much in the way of benefits, so they are opting not to marry, with the result being that now there are bastard children running around everywhere.

One hypothesis (mentioned in A Natural History of Rape) for why rape evolved as a method of mating is that it helps ensure that women only reproduce with the strongest men, i.e. those who are capable of raping them. Therefore, women have been biologically programmed to sometimes often token resistance to sex (much like a shit test) as a way of seeing whether the man is strong enough to persist. If the man fails or is deterred by her cries of "No," "Stop," etc., this of course leads to her feeling frustrated at the man's weakness, and she then craves a real man who will dominate her the way she wants and expects. Rape is flattering to women, because it tells them that there is a man who wants her badly enough to force himself upon her if need be.

To quote Illimitable Men Maxim #122, "Women loathe being sexual objectified by lesser men, crafting their disgust for the unworthy into a veneer of moral superiority. Yet hidden within this guise of upright disgust is a depraved desire to be objectified by powerful men. Weak men get nothing, powerful men get perversions." Or as Sanchit Garg writes:

Even if we criminalize rapes, unlike normal criminal cases, marital rapes will be the most difficult cases to prove the alleged charges. It will be the word of the wife against the word of the husband. Naturally, there will be no eye witnesses or even medical proof of the same. The factum of sex between the two can never be denied, the semen samples or the pubic hair or the factum of any other medico-legal evidence can be naturally inferred to. Even, if the wife pleads injury to her private parts, the defence can attribute it to a wild intimate night.
In my opinion, the prosecution of marital rapes will be the most difficult of cases to prove and most of them will end in an acquittal. The prospects of Marital Rapes being used as a sword by disgruntled wives are also quite likely happen.

Rape legalization could even lead to better sex, as being raped provokes an emotional response in women, causing chemicals to flow that produce arousal and, ultimately, orgasm (which could explain the popularity of rape fantasy fiction such as Fifty Shades of Grey). It has been noted, "First of all, orgasms in women being raped are not frequent, but they are not uncommon either. In the study you cite, about 5% to 21% of women interviewed in the studies surveyed reported having an orgasm when they were raped. Researchers have hypothesized that the actual figure is probably a bit higher in reality due to victims being understandably embarrassed both by the rape and by having achieved an orgasm during unwanted, forced sexual relations. Around 20% seems to be a likely, real-word figure."

This is unsurprising, since it has often been noted that the use of male strength in the bedroom can give women vaginal tingles.[1] Tingles generally tend to be caused when a man behaves in a way that shows masculinity and causes a woman to feel a range of emotions. A woman's experience of being raped by her husband might meet that description. It's certainly unlikely to be boring.

As we all know, a young woman will often prefer to open her legs to an exciting badboy rather than a boring niceguy. Women will even watch horror films because they love to feel the roller coaster of emotions of fear, relief, surprise, etc. Novels like The Fountainhead feature heroines who deliberately put themselves in situations that invite rape, and then at the moment when it's about to happen, they hope desperately that the man won't weaken and ask permission. Tuthmosis Sonofra notes, with regard to his pickups, "I'm shocked at how consistently girls will comment on the 'danger' of going home 'with a stranger.' It's like they're reading from a script. I had, literally, three girls over the course of the past 10 days say the same, identical shit. Of course, girls love 'dangerous situations' so play on that."

Anne Kennedy #fundie patheos.com

[=Context: Part 3 of Anne Kennedy's rant against Jory Micah=]

So, yesterday I chattered away about all the annoying possibilities for women in the church–the Duggar Option, the Ray Romano Option, the Giving Up Option, the Backing Furtively Away Option. I started with three but it looks like it morphed into four. We needn’t worry too much about how many there are and what to call them. The fact is, since that long lost edenic landscape, men and women have never been able to comfortably sort themselves out. Some millennia or other we’re going to notice this and lower our expectations.

I am going to get to the other annoying option for women in the church–showing her her place–but before I do that I want to talk about Tone, which means the other one will have to wait.

In the Land of the Internet–that great vast playground of everybody saying and being whoever they want to be–it’s very natural that we would want to bubble wrap ourselves in protective layers no matter what the conversation is. As human discourse has become technically easier, it seems to have become exponentially more tetchy. Anyone can talk, therefore we are all much quicker to have our feelings hurt.

This being so, I have some friendly counsel. I think if women want to be taken seriously in whatever sphere they hope to inhabit, it would be helpful for them to set aside many of their trigger warnings.

For example, one of the jarring thing about reading so much Jory Micah in one day is the vague feeling that she has Definitely Overcome. She has been victimized by the church and everyone, but she has gloriously overcome all the hideous persecution to forge a better and more enlightened way for herself, a way that actually fractures the body of Christ because she’s going off to start a new one. But me noticing this in the public writing that she is publicly doing, will doubtless bring cries of ‘don’t be so mean!’ Which shuts down the conversation. Either you can say something publicly, and have people respond to it publicly, or you can go hide in your cupboard. But we like to have it both ways.

As we are increasingly offended and hurt, the church becomes an impossible place to actually sort things out. What set of men will want, reasonably, to talk to women about anything, let alone what women can do, if the women are poised and ready to cry Foul at every turn? Men, for all they are so evil, are not usually spoiling for a fight. They want the women to be happy so that they will leave them alone sometimes. I jest…sort of.
What I’m trying to say is, the victimization tone needs to go away. There are some true victims in the world–lots of them actually, more of them women and children–but being in a church that doesn’t think you should, because of the Bible, preach the sermon, does not make you into an oppressed woman. And when you insist that it does, it actually only serves to close off other avenues where you might be useful in the kingdom of God.

If women want to be taken seriously in any sphere by men, I think it would be awfully helpful if they set the tone of the conversation in a more Gospel centered posture–with wisdom, grace, humility. I actually think this is already how things are trending. But the specter of hurt feelings mingled with the muddy heritage of feminism is always hovering.

Likewise, for the men, not assuming that every woman who isn’t squatting over her cooking pot adjusting her veil is the same as Jory Micah would go along way towards calming troubled water.

Someone has to be willing to leap in and talk through what might be seriously uncomfortable issues. Do we want to return to a golden, if not actually real, past? Where women stayed at home and men earned the check and little Beaver Cleaver pulled up to the dinner table in his collared shirt and his cheerful attitude? Where June was so taken with Ward and he was so clever and her pearls were so perfect? (Actually, I would not have minded this. Especially the air brushing.) Or shall we go back further still to the yet more glorious past where the man was probably cobbling the shoes in the front room and the woman was cobbling the meat pie in the back and when they went to church they knew it had been great when that nice bell rang?
Or, maybe we could start from where we are, with women and men both in the work force, women in even greater numbers in university programs, and children expected to all be geniuses by age three. None of these various ways of being are perfect. But we have to account for where we are, and we need to let go of the foolish ideals of utopia. And we need to center our gaze back on the scriptures. And if we want to really go forward we need to stop getting our feelings hurt every few seconds. I say we but I am obviously just talking about you. (JOKE)

GreekSymmetrics #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

Why are modern urologists/endocrinologists so misandristic and ignorant?

Claiming that a 4 Inch length 2 Inch girth penis is normal and totally acceptable….

Just lol at any "doctor" who denies the importance of sexual dimorphism

since when did emotions and gynocentric/liberal ideologies became more valued than Cold rational Facts?

A guy with a 4 Inch length and 2 Inch girth penis will get terrified and socially belittled by almost every sexual Encounters, he might find a Woman for a Long term relationship were emotional and financial support primarily matters, but sexually wise he will never be a raw satisfaction, he will never be able to have truly satisfying ONS, he will be the typical long term relationship provider who's considered by over 30 women when their sexual wild years are over


No sex toys, creativity, communication or Position will ever be able to compensate for the lack of a well sized dimorphic human male penis

Thats literally just a meme created by the feministic 68s Generation who tried to make sex into a eloquent science

for hundred thousands of years humans relied on the typical Basic primitive in and out game during sex (of Course only strong men with a relatively large penis had Access to sex, weak unmasculine men were simply wiped out of the genepool), but now suddenly in the 20th century a Generation of "sexual experts" wants to tell us that Women's sexuality is far more than just Basic Penetration, and that women actually hate Basic vaginal sex because they are magical complex sexual beings who prefer a intuitive sensual romantic twink who can effectively hit her 230830248 errogenous spots over a strong primitive masculine man


But no no no, penis size and masculine dimorphism doesnt matter, every Woman is a lesbian anyways

It's About personality, humans especially women are complex individual beings who have a complex individual sexuality, women dont want brutish vaginal Penetration with a large thick penis, no no they want a feministic feminine man with a small penis who's totally fine in making himself to a submissive lesbian by only Performing oral sex

Women dont want to be dominated, it just happens so that 98% of women want a Partner who's taller then themselves teehee


Such Arguments are basically Nothing else than human narcissism in a nutshell, this whole "Sexual dimorphism does not matter women want nice Kind husbands" nonsense is just a direct proof that most humans on this earth totally lack self awareness

Claiming that women and men are both complex individuals, and that Basic primitive natural dimorphic traits dont matter since it's all About "Personality and communication"

We are one evolutionary stage higher than a caveman… And we still Claim that humans are non-primitive morally superior individual beings….


This here basically describes 95% of all modern urological/endocrinological "doctors"
image

TranscriptPhysician labelled “Dr. Cuck”: “Trust me, it's totally normal to have a 16 inch bideltoid as a full grown male along with a 3 inch penis and peanut sized testicles. My junk and boy is also not bigger but my wife still loves me We hadnt had sex since 5 years but thats ok since tyrone does a better job than me anyways

And stay away from that toxic testosterone (BTW if you want some estrogen I can quickly prescribe it to you)”

btw if you want to get some urological and sexual Facts from A REAL RATIONAL BASED urologist/andrologist then visit the Website of the austrian urologist"Dr Georg Pfau" he's an extremely based doctors who doesnt care About liberalistic or feministic Moral constructs but only About Cold rational facts

Michael V. Wilson #fundie preachingpolitics.com

HETEROSEXUALS AND THEIR GOALS
Heterosexuals are individuals who are sexually attracted to individuals of the opposite sex. Because of this attraction their long-term goals tend toward marriage and family. There are exceptions but generally speaking this is what they’re after. It comes about because men want sex while women want love and security. Women offer sex in exchange for love and security; men offer love and security in exchange for sex. There are endless variations to this arrangement but essentially it’s an exchange of these basic desires to mutual advantage. This arrangement leads to children which are the natural result of sex between men and women.

some incels #sexist reddit.com

When a female joins the group of my online friends that I play vidya with every day after work and now everyone acts completely different and tried to subtly belittle each other for a 0.00001% chance of fucking her

image

(Salvador66)
Foids ruin male spaces. They need to mind their own business.

(throwawayirl3)
Reminder: pussy-hunting cucks will ruin male spaces before an actual female will

(TreesnCats)
But it's the females presence and unattainability that drives the men to do what they do, cucks are pretty normal people when you subtract women from the equation.

You’re giving women a LOT of power, do you realize this?

I ain't the one doing it. I was gonna amend my statement by saying yes, the people who give women this much power over them have issues.

Look we can't control what women do, but we have every right to be disgusted by men that fucking grovel and lick the ground they walk on

(AyeThatsAGoodNagger)
But the point is, most men are pussy-hunting cucks. You can’t blame them; it’s evolution. But they only become intolerable when they're activated by the presence of a woman. Women are the problem here. Video game groups should have a zero-tolerance policy for open women.

To find and impress a woman is evolution, to act like a baboon at the presence of a woman online that wants to play video games is cuckery.

It happens to almost everybody. The monkey part of your brain sees the 0.00001% chance and jumps on it. Lonely men will never not cuck if they think there’s even a small a chance they can get a gf. The key is to not let women play in the first place.

(batmansthediddler)

Why are you enabling the worst men among us. I thought the common argument here is that women are the "simplistic" ones. If men can't even fucking have enough self respect not to be pathetic that's on them

yeah no shit sherlock this is why all the cucked soyboys hate incels so much, it's because we have the self respect they lack and they can't seem to grasp that idea.

also why do you think inceltears is like 10x bigger than braincels? it's because of the massive amount of soyboys infesting this fucking place.

if you really think women are the only problem you got some thinking to do

(WhoopiCushionberg)
This is precisely why gender segregation is a good thing. Even the entrance of one female automatically and intrinsically changes dynamics to be less brotherly and more competitive. Same goes for women too

(livear)
Men get anxious and distracted when available women are around.

Women get anxious and distracted when available men aren't around.

(LateStructure)
THIS is the reason to not have women in the military. The media pretty much refuses to acknowledge this and diverts the argument around "ability." Just goes to show how subtle manipulation is.

(RacistNigga420)
This happens to me all the time. Seriously fuck women, they ruin even my gaming experience. Actually recently stopped playing a mmo because too much of this shit on my guild.

(StopCopingStartLDAR)
that’s probably because most men are playing MMOs to get away from their shit real lives. but women live on absolute tutorial mode, so if they need that escapism then they’re probably severely fucked in the head

(Dearjohn_)
Good post. I never really put any thought into it before (bitches be crazy, basically) but what you said makes complete sense. Women already get everything handed to them IRL and get validation just for existing, so they'd have little incentive to seek out escapism via virtual worlds unless there is something wrong with them.

(Tony_Danza_the_boss)
This happened to my friend group as well. And the foid still hasnt left and brags about all the guys shes fucked right in front of us but knows she will never fuck any of us. Ive tried getting my friends to kick her out but they all want to try and fuck her. It's been 2 years -_-

Arvinger #sexist suscipedomine.com

But why is that? Because after sexual revolution and so called "liberation" of women men have no incentives to be husbands and start family anymore. In general, men will do what it takes to get sex, and sex drive is a huge factor behind met getting married. It is well-known that the traditional (pre 1960s) mating system required men to be reliable husbands and providers in order to marry, and marriage was by large considered the only legitimate sexual release (as it should be). In other words, women and society required men to become husbands and providers in order to get sex and satiate their sex drives.

This was also a moral solution in which sex was restricted to the confines of marriage, as it should be (sure, there were patologies, but I'm talking about the system in general). Also, women married in their early 20s, giving incentives to men to work hard and become candidates for husbands and providers. Fast forward to today. "Liberated" women are not interested in marriage untill their late 20s/early 30s, spending that time at various LTRs/casual sex with whomever they like. Therefore, women no longer require men to marry them and be reliable husbands and providers in order to get sex, so men don't do it, because they don't have to - simple as that.

It has also another layer. Sexual revolution removed all shackes on female sexuality. Women can now financialy support themselves and don't need to lock down a provider husband like they did before the 1960s. All social stigma was removed from fornication, therefore women are free to select their partners solely (or at least mainly) on the basis of sexual attraction. It is well known and proved by research that due to their hypergamy majority of women are sexually attracted only to top 20-30% men (alpha males) - these men get tons of casual sex and don't need to become husbands/providers in order to achieve that.

Other 70% men (mostly betas) receive little to no female attention in their early 20s (women will settle on them only later, when they can't lock down one of the top 20-30% for marriage), therefore they also have no incentives to do work to become reliable providers and husbands. Before the 1960s an average beta male had a good shot at marrying a feminine woman early, as he was in demand as a provider. Now, with "liberated" women supporting themselves and entering the workforce, a beta provider is no longer needed (women often settle for one in their late 20s/early 30s, since there are not enough alpha males to go around, but they are not happy about it, which results in 40% divorce rate).

Add to this terribly unfair divorce laws in the US which are heavily skewed in favor of women, including no fault divorce (70% of divorces are initiated by women - women can blow up marriage for any reason any time and be sure of getting cash and prizes), child support (imputed income, in some states men can go to jail if they lose a job and can't afford child support) and you have further disincentives for men to work to be husbands, again caused by feminism. Finally, husband's authority as head of family has largely been dismantled by the aforementioned unfair divorce laws, feminist propaganda, state education, popular culture, #MeeToo, etc.

Tl;dr - men will do what women and society require them to do in order to be selected as mates. After sexual revolution, advent of feminism and decline of Christianity and its moral values in Western societies, women rejected early marriage en masse, no longer requiring men to be husbands and providers in order to get sex, so men don't do that. Also, the authority of husband and father has been completely destroyed by feminism. Feminism started all of this and remains the main driving force behind this process. All of this is well documented and covered in Christian/Catholic manosphere by such bloggers as Dalrock and Donalgraeme.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: Why even try as a manlet

image

(Nigrum-Turcam)
They aren't like this in real life, especially if they have no buddies around to back them up. If I was even a quarter as cruel as them I would bully them into submission but I don't. It's all so tiresome.

(Incelebrity)
and if fake-up was banned they would be their timid selves a lot more too

ever seen some foids irl without makeup? they dont act up for shit because they know they look ill in comparison to their usual masked selves

(IqRaterMan)

A lot of insecure women gravitate to social media specifically for validation, and taking the piss out of men for things we cant control is a great, socially acceptable way for them to achieve some validation with minimal risk from other like minded insecure women. Lots of men would do the same thing, but its not socially acceptable for men to "body shame" women. Nobody checks women for seeking validation and approval this way, so they gravitate towards this method as it is a low effort way for them feel better about themselves.

When it comes to people like her, its better to take their opinions for granted. Insecure height queens like this are an extremely vocal minority of women that are distorting how most women actually look at men. Most of the time if a girl likes your face and how you carry yourself she wont care about your height.

For a second I thought this was r/short or something, these are cope levels that shouldn't be possible. All women care immensely about your height. I actually haven't met a single woman in over two decades who has answered even "maybe" to the question "would you date someone your height or shorter?"

(Watchwhattheydo2)
The only way a short guy can attract foids is if he’s really good looking, or has a big dick, or is famous/high status. Otherwise it’s betabux.

Normal regular short guys all struggle immensely with women unless they betabux an alpha widow, and even now that’s less common as chad harems/poly relationships are beginning to normalize.

Women don’t want no short short man, they hate them and seriously see them as inferior. All foids see short men as a fate reserved for inferior women who lost at the game of love and are forced to settle. If a male is short, he seriously isn’t even a real man to women.

I went through his post history, at the least he’s delusional, at most he’s humble bragging about his success with women.

The worst part about being a shortcel is that both inceltears and braincels deny the heightpill. You're the ones coping: https://old.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/a3hq0u/the_ultimate_heightpill_compilation/

All women care about is how big a man is, how good looking a man’s face is, how big his dick is, and how much money he has. Lmao men need to wake the fuck up, women don’t love men.

It’s more important to be tall or well hung than it is to be a good person when it comes to attracting women. The fact that the exact opposite is what people want to believe is pure women are wonderful effect delusion.

Men are trying to deny what’s plainly in front of their faces lmao. Men need to wake the fuck up.

(Votetojudge)

Tell me how what I said is cope.

Because most women by far are like the woman in this post and you don’t want to believe it.

If men started body shaming women, guys would pop up to defend women. Women dont defend short guys because they are silently agreeing. If this foid was talking about tall men in a derogatory way other women would probably shame her.

You are in denial, most modern women literally value men as status objects and height is a big part of a man’s status to women, particularly today. If a guy is short today, almost all women disqualify him right off the bat, because his stature prevents them from getting the status out of a bf they all feel they deserve.

David J. Stewart #fundie #sexist #homophobia jesus-is-savior.com

Of all the vices, sexual lust is the worst! Pastor Jack Hyles used to wisely say to young men with sexual problems: “You're not over-sexed, you're under-charactered!” I agree with that statement, but it is also true that people vary in sex drive. Some people do a have much stronger sex drive than others! This is true of men and women. That is why I am teaching the truth that masturbation is proper for people who need it. I do not think a married person should masturbate, and you shouldn't need to if your spouse has a godly attitude. 1st Corinthians 7:4, “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.” This Bible verse simply means that you ought never deny a request for sex from your spouse. Many many and woman have been compelled to commit adultery because of a romantically distant partner. I like the bumper-sticker which reads: The secret to a happy marriage is NOBODY WEARS THE PANTS! Sex is the fire in a marriage.

Carnal knowledge (sex) is a beautiful thing made by God. It was the Lord Himself that designed our human bodies. Psalms 139:14, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.” Sex is a beautiful thing within the proper bounds of a legal marriage. It is tragic when the sacredness of marriage is violated. Americans society today has sunk to the lowest possible moral level, permitting homosexuals to get marriage and even adopt children. Thank God for the traditional marriage and family! I get frustrated when I listen to the Old Testament, when I hear about saints who had dozens of wives. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. A concubine didn't have the same rights as a wife. I learned the other day that Solomon's son followed in his father's sex-perverted behavior, having 60 wives and 18 concubines and 88 children! I get frustrated when I hear things like that, and I don't have even one wife, and am all alone.

I am often reminded of a Scripture that says the time will come when SEVEN WOMEN will grab a hold of one man, begging to be his wife. Isaiah 4:1, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” Wow! I want to be that lucky guy! In 2019, men are running away from American women—because they are proud feminists, fat as cows, divorced, having two or more children, and only still in their 20's! And those women all have shopping lists for the type of man they want. Women today want a man to “complete” her, but God made Eve to complete Adam, a “help meet” (Genesis 2:18).

various commenters #racist incels.co

(Popbob)

[LDAR] Stop with the asians like white men meme

Asians like attractive white men, asian women dont like me any more than white, black or hispanic women just because im white. This is a big cope pushed by white incels who hope to have a chance but in reality asian women dont think your sexy or attractive they think you are a subhuman

(NeverSubmit)
White is more attractive to Asians they worship white features

(BlackPillUNC)
So what you're saying is: you have to be attractive to get laid.


What a revolutionary thought. I don't understand why others make up theories to get around that.

(theultimate341)
Another white trying to cope when it’s been proven over and over .

(sadricecel)
Asian women deserve the rope

(Cynistic)
Always whitecels who deny that they have it easy compared to us ethnics.
No empathy at all kek

(rafaelvicuna3)
Cope, a 5/10 white guy is more attractive in the eyes of thirsty asian women than an 7/10 ethnic guy

(theultimate341)
Legit saw a asian with a sub 5 white guy at the store today. Whites have it the easiest out of any race. I’m tired of these guys coping.

(BlkPillPres)
Dude seriously just be fucking honest, you have a racial advantage, if this was an rpg video game it would be like you chose the white race which has a bonus of +10 attractiveness vs asians, its not even funny how much asian women worship white men and white features. Unless you are fucking physically deformed its almost impossible for you not to go to an asian country and get laid.

Heck didn't a guy recently get banned for doing such a thing and then bragging about it. He was average looking, perfect example of a 5/10, and I see him as a 5/10 so imagine what the white roasties in his country of origin see him as, more like a 4 probably. So a 4-5 out of 10 guy can just waltz into an asian country and get laid endlessly and you still want to fucking deny this shit. I literally work with a guy who lived in Canada, and told me most of the girls he dated were asians and it was easy for him to get them, he primarily targeted asians because they "responded better". He's a legit 5/10 white guy. Cut the bullshit please.

(Vitriol)
It depends on your location. If you're in an Asian country and you're an average white guy, if you can't get laid you're a mentalcel. Girls will pick and choose from what's in front of them, and with regard to online dating, they can get a guy 2-3 points higher than them so why settle for just an average white guy if you can get better? It's not difficult to determine why things turn out like they do. If you had the closest equivalent to the SMV of a woman (chad/chadlite) are you going to pick out a pretty, skinny girl, or are you going to pick out a plain jane who is carrying extra weight? The answer is pretty simple.

When a female sees a male with recessed and weak facial bones, that's the equivalent of us seeing an obese female. We just don't want any part in it and neither do they. Development is crucial for a male and millimeters decide your life.

(BlkPillPres)
Wrong, white men are seen almost as a token of "high social status" among asian women, so just being white gives you a leg up, and stop being disingenious, you ask where is your Asian GF, I ask how many asian women did you even attempt to woo...... exactly. Most of you so called white incels don't even do shit and then you say - "seeee, seeeee, look nothing happened, seeee I'm incel". Nothing happened because you didn't put in much effort.

I've tried to court white girls, black girls, asian girls, fat girls, tall girls, stacies out of my league even (got friend zoned hardcore), spanish girls, legit 3/10 girls. Never got laid even once, always ends in a friendzone or just being ignored. Still haven't really stopped trying, most of the white cells here from what I've read probably only target white women, and then use the few failures they have in that department as proof of them being incel, I call bullshit. Black women literally speak about trying to get a white man so they can get a child with some "good hair", white men are fetishized in some shape or form by the women of all other ethnicities.

Like I said, unless you are physically deformed you have no excuse, you are probably the only person keeping you from getting laid, Trying courting black women for once, women of other races, get out of your comfort zone and see if you still fail, but you won't, because then you'd have to admit that you never were incel and were the only thing holding yourself back.

.
.
.

Yeah I call BS, unless you are physically deformed or your face is really fucked up (the exception to the rule, most men are "average looking", hence the word "AVERAGE"), then you have no excuse and its likely due to your own lack of trying. Even then I'm being lenient because I've see a lot of couples of asian women with BELOW AVERAGE WHITE MALES. Also courting asian women in a western country isn't the same thing as courting asian women in an asian country.

Asian women also see white men as a possible meal ticket, a possible escape from their "shitty lives" in their country of origin, that you may possibly "take her with you". That in itself ups your attraction, especially in poor countries like Thailand or the Philippines.

You have multiple factors that are seen as "desirable traits"
1. European Features - Desired by basically all ethnic women for their children (connected to #2 and #3), especially asians and blacks, l'm black and like I said its a known thing to hear black women say they want a baby with "some good hair", a scrawny nerdy average looking white guy can get a girl that I would have to get buff and "pull thug game" for. Not only that ethnic women ironically tend to hate dark skin (again especially black women), you ever sit amongst a group of black women and listen to them speak about desirable traits, dark skin is almost always used as a -1 in selecting the man, its seen as a negative trait.

2. Perception Of Social Status - Obvious what this one means, being white means you are perceived to be of a higher social class among women, especially among women of other ethnicities, especially among women of other ethnicities in poor countries.

3. Perception Of Wealth - Also obvious, being white makes you be perceived by the women of other races (also your own race in comparison to other ethnic males) as "having money".

4. The Escape Route - The most effective tool in a white man's arsenal in getting laid in ethnic countries (and even your own country), its so effective it works without him even being aware of it. It goes hand in hand with #2 and #3. Women perceive you as a possible escape route from their current life in their poor countries, and fucking you and getting you attached to them increases their chances of you taking them with you back home.

That's just what I can come up with off the top of my head and there's way more and everybody knows about this, but go ahead and pretend like everything I've said here is a lie.

Aldabruzzo #sexist reddit.com

NOTE: This is advice for girls in this slut's position. As such, it will be offensive to some of you.

EDIT: LOL at the downvoting. You who downvote lack the courage to face the truth. Repent, and be of good cheer. Have the courage to face the truth. END edit

Listen, Ms. 24 year old slut who wants to change her ways and be a good wife.

Here's what you need to do:

First, STOP FUCKING RANDOS. Then take a year off dating. No dating, no fucking, no ONS, no nothing with men. Gets your head screwed on straight, and gets your priorities right.

Then go to a physician and get a head to toe physical, full blood workup, and a full STD panel. Make sure you're clean.

Then go to a counselor and get to the bottom of whatever's going on with you. Mommy issues, Daddy issues, substance abuse, someone was mean to you growing up, organic issues, personality disorders. Whatever it is, get to the bottom of it and get it handled.

Then work on your career or job. Get frugal. Get rid of whatever you don't need. Start learning how to live within your means. Start learning how to take care of money. If you are going to be a wife, you need to show a man you can be trusted with money.

Then start learning domestic skills. Learn how to cook, clean, and take care of a house. Learn how to manage time and use it wisely. Learn how to live within a budget. If you are going to be a wife, you have to know how to take care of a house and make do with what you're given.

When your year of voluntary celibacy is up, and you start dating again, if you are really serious about finding a husband, job #1 for you is to start getting very serious about what you can actually attract long term. Chad is not going to commit. Sorry- not sorry. HE IS NOT GOING TO COMMIT. EVER. So you are going to have to settle. Sorry-not sorry. That's the consequence of your sluttery. You've ramped up your taste for alpha cock so high that ordinary mere mortals will never be attractive to you. So you now will have to make do with regular men.

Job #2 is to find men who you can be attracted to and whom you can fuck. Pick a guy you can be reasonably attracted to, you can fuck him, even enjoy it. Then tell him everything. Tell him how many guys you fucked. Don't get into detail. But you do need to come clean that you were a slut and you fucked a lot of guys. And then you need to accept his decision.

Throw yourself on the guy's mercy. Do whatever he asks or expects of you. Accept whatever conditions he puts on your relationship. Offer him a prenup waiving alimony forever. Include in the prenup an adultery penalty, and give him primary custody of any children you have in the event of divorce. Offer to submit your children to DNA testing to establish paternity. If you can't do those things, cut him loose.

You have sex with that man whenever he reasonably asks, for the entire duration of your relationship. You do it even when you're not attracted to him, not feeling it, and don't want to. I don't give a flying rat's ass that you're not attracted to him in that moment, you're not "feeling it", and you don't want to. I don't care. I DON'T CARE. YOU FUCK HIM ANYWAY, AND YOU DO IT WITH ENTHUSIASM. That guy accepted your slutty past, and is willing to overlook it. The very least you can do is give him the sex you gave Chad. You get down on your knees and you service him however he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. You fucking DO IT.

Accept with grace and dignity the station you have created for yourself. Accept with humility and gratitude that a man, any man, was willing to accept you and your checkered past. Be grateful that any man was willing to take you. Express that gratitude by dropping trou and having enthusiastic, wild sex with him, sucking his cock, and giving him whatever he wants sexually. Take care of his house, cook for him, clean his house, do his laundry, and for the love of God, DO NOT EVER COMPLAIN.

Do not EVER tell him you're not attracted to him - even if you aren't. You might feel that way, but do not EVER tell him that and do not EVER act like that. DO NOT BE A BITCH, EVER. Do not EVER tell him you wish X was different. Do not EVER tell him you want a BMW when your used Toyota minivan works fine. Do not EVER tell him you want him to work more so you'll have more money. Do not EVER tell him you want him to work less so he'll be home more. You fucking accept his work life however the fuck it is and DO NOT EVER BITCH ABOUT IT, EVER.

Do not ever, ever say a mean, cross word to him. EVER. Do not EVER disrespect him in front of his children or in public, EVER. Do not EVER say or do anything that belittles or derides him. Be quick to apologize, even if you didn't do anything wrong. if you said something to hurt or offend him, acknowledge it, and apologize immediately.

You do whatever he wants, when he wants it, and you don't complain. You give him what he wants, when he wants, it, and you dont' complain. You be glad and grateful for whatever he's willing to give you, and you DO NOT COMPLAIN.

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.

incelwarrior95 #sexist reddit.com

Brutal BlackPill: 1 man likes 4 women while 4 women like 1 man

A man's lust for women will never be satisfied unless he is Chad. Even if he does get laid he will always be stressed about the possiblity of his gf/fuck buddy leaving him. He will always check out females and imagine what it would be like to fuck them. You just can't enjoy life as a sub 8 man.

Women, on the other hand, are only attracted to the top tier males. They would happily become part of Chad's harem than date 100 incels each. Chads, being men, like to fuck as many women as possible(a man's goal is to impregnate as many femoids as possilbe after all) so they happily do them a favor and give them dick. It's simple supply and demand. Women crave Chad's cock and the later is willing to provide it.

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.

some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

[Highlights from their second thread on this article]

Re: Men are more disadvantaged than women in the UK, US and most of Europe, scientists claim

(dunesfrank)

Because it's an awful measurement used.

It's certainly superior to that of the feminist WEC and UN indexes, which don't even taken into account areas in which males are behind females in a particular area. In fact the WEC index actually portrays female superiority as "more equal". So this is at least a step in the right direction.

However it's flawed. The paper doesn't really get into the institutional oppression of males in western nations and focuses mainly on health. It doesn't mention MGM, discrimination against boys in school, institutional discrimination against males in the family and criminal courts, the constant hate campaigns against males in the media, the demonization of male sexuality, discrimination against white men in the workplace, discrimination against homeless men in shelter access, complete lack of reproductive rights, curtailments of due process rights, paternity fraud, male victims of domestic and sexual violence etc. etc.

Basically it just scratches the surface. But yeah, still vastly superior to feminist attempts at measuring "gender equality", which are completely fraudulent if not downright bizarre.

Take some of this with a grain of salt.

no doubt men are disadvantaged in many areas, but some of their overall data is flawed.

take their example of saudi arabia:

The researchers said the gravest disadvantage facing men was often heath, particularly in countries with high levels of alcohol consumption, which tends to lower men’s lifespan.

ok....

For women, the disadvantages are strongly related to education.

one is not like the other, and comparing the two are dumb as shit.

for men, its our own faults that are holding back (in saudi arabia not else where). where as women's one is institutionalized

Males suffer institutional oppression in almost every area of western life. Boys can have their genitals legally mutilated, causing hundreds of deaths every year; boys suffer institutional discrimination in schools (see CH Sommers "The War Against Boys"; also we now known that female teachers mark boys down by an average of 20 percent for the same work); males in college are routinely denied due process rights when accused of some crime by a woman; entire departments in universities are devoted to demonizing males and male sexuality; countries like Canada are literally attempting to reverse due process in rape cases; "female only" scholarships and programs continue despite women making up a strong (and growing) majority on college campuses; men are twice as likely to be arrested and charged when they commit a crime and receive on average 60 percent longer prison sentences; male victims of sexual violence by women rarely receive justice; men are profiled as pedophiles when they want to work with children; white men suffer institutional discrimination in the workplace due to affirmative action and corporate "diversity" measures; males have zero reproductive rights; males routinely suffer discrimination in the family courts, and are sometimes denied access to their children due to false accusations (which are hardly ever punished); though men pay the majority of taxes (females have a net drain on the tax system) nearly all gender-specific programs by government cater to females; much more money is spent on female health care than male health care; male victims of domestic violence are routinely arrested for domestic violence; I could go on indefinitely.

So yeah, you have it exactly backwards. Women suffer from social issues, mostly based on their choices, but it is males that suffer institutional oppression.

The third world is a different ballgame. It's difficult to get accurate information in part because feminist organizations only concentrate on areas in which females are allegedly disadvantaged.

Even in "patriarchical" countries (eg Saudi Arabia) you can find clear evidence of male institutional oppression. Eg men being thrown in prison if they lose their job and can't support their wives; men being treated much more harshly by the criminal justice system (which, again, is an example of institutional discrimination); males being considered expendable (whether in wars or the workplace or even leisure activities -- eg until a few years ago in Saudi Arabia boys as young as 4 were forced to become "camel jockeys" and would frequently die as a result); male victims of sexual and domestic violence being completely ignored (in many cases the law doesn't even conceive of female sexual assault as a crime, even if the victim is if a boy); and so on.

The much higher rates of male alcoholism are undoubtedly related to institutional discrimination, not in every case, but many.

(Seagram1)
The world filled with female middle management is discriminating against the male gender. It is happening in the West because the rsst of the world has not filled its office management and HR departments with women. The lesson to learn here is that a woman is a sexist and by giving them power to decide who gets what they give to other women and let the men do without. It must end or chaos will ensue.

(UsernameIWontRegret)
Woman have always been more privileged than men. They point to kings and act as if that represents men at large.

Let's not forget women by and large did not want the vote in the early 20th century because they didn't want that responsibility.

Let's also not forget that women are by and large more pro-life than men.

If you want your cause taken seriously, I wouldn't recommend saying stuff like this.

There are two types of people in this world.

Those who don't care about facts or realities, only the feeling or emotion conveyed.

Those who don't care about feeling or emotions conveyed, only the facts and realities.

Most men fall into that second group, whereas most women fall into the first. Someone once said for men communication is all about content, for women it's context. So this is what makes it hard for women to take MRAs seriously. We are all about conveying the facts that make people feel uncomfortable, and women don't like the fact that it makes them feel uncomfortable, so they ignore it. It doesn't change the fact that these are in fact facts. And I will never apologize for stating what is demonstrably true.

(dawnpriestess)
Probably because white women usurped affirmative action, meant for minorities who were historically oppressed, and are usually the most underqualified people found in the workplace.

Another reason could be because feminists successfully infiltrated HR departments nationwide and mostly focus on getting women into the board rooms and high level positions of Corporate America, a place they did not build.

If you want your cause taken seriously, I wouldn't recommend saying stuff like this.

The part about voting is actually true. Feminists were pushing for the right to vote, but many women were fighting against it, since it also meant they would be eligible to be drafted to war. Of course men ultimately protected them from that responsibility, and died by the millions while women stayed at home.

(HQR3)

We did it boys! We beat feminism.

Yep. Just like we did in the mid-70s when we proved parity in DV/IPV./s

(WikiMB)
I can see feminists explaining that it's because of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: Dumbass has Tinder experiment with GF....ends predictably

image

(TheVantablackPill)
Wanna know the worst part? I GUARANTEEEE you she is fat. You don't just get an eye opening at 27 unless you are a whale. When you are sexy, you just KNOW.

She is fat & unattractive, probably dating her looksmatch because she believes no one else wants her.

(C0nserve)
Dumbass. Women will hate you if they think you have no options.

There are studies out there that show women actually like married men MORE than unmarried, something about their brains causes them to go for things they couldn't possibly have. Proves that women are status-chasers.

(jeremyjimmy)
Yep! That's exactly it. Even decent looking guys get almost no matches, he's so fucking stupid for thinking he's just able to do a normal experiment with a girl as if she'll react like a guy and go "wow, unfair double standards, that's horrible."

Her brain, predictably, goes to "holy shit I can exploit this, how did I not realize this shit? Why am I with this fucking loser?"

(feministsonredditare)
They're are literally insects, and share a hive mind. That's why they're all attracted to the same things (and roasties wont be able to argue this in the future when male designer babys all look the same and are the same height), and why they all have the same favorite sexist insults.

(Votetojudge)
Women are very insecure compared to men. They have minimal reason to try and be different than other women, because most men by far have no interest in or attraction to a woman’s status compared to other women’s. When women try to be different, it’s almost always in a way that some other women around them are already doing. They follow trends to feel safe because they are obsessed with what other people think of them at all times.

(livear)
All your life you think women are so fucking complicated.

Turns out they are primitive and mercenary, and all that energy was spent trying to turn a blind eye and not understand.

Understanding is easy, internalizing that all women are like that is heart-wrenching.

(lurkingnormie987)
Men are objects to women, like clothes. Women only value men for our ability to make themselves feel superior to other women. They dont really care about us, they basically just seek to use us to improve their own status.

She sees that other women apparently dont want him, so she automatically loses attraction for him. She now sees him as inferior, its over for him. Women treat clothes the same way: She sees she can afford to get a higher value, more name brand handbag, so her current regular handbag now seems pathetic. She sees other women dont want to wear her current handbag and now feels less good about wearing it herself.

Do you think AWALT? This behavior sounds rather primitive, it’s hard to believe there aren’t women who value a loving partner and won’t just lose interest because his perceived value drops.

I think that so many women are like this that awalt is a fair thing to say. Enough women are like this, that saying awalt isnt a large exaggeration.

Women are wonderful effect - Men never want to see women for how they observably are if its negative. Men project their masculine way of feeling love onto women and this is largely wrong. Men are not attracted to a womans status, but status means so much to women.

(Tyronesthrowaway)

Women know men want them. What she didn't know was no women want him

Accurate. Most women really think most men have similar options as females. Its a combination of apex fallacy and a victim complex that wont let them accept that men could have it harder than them.

(Administrative_Worth)

She will cheat on him in 2 months max

it'll start slow, where she can maintain her belief in her own morality. Just re download tinder to see if the same results hold up. Oh they do. Well there's no harm in chatting to the guys and seeing their experiences. Oh they are so ncie and friendly and handsome. I've told them I have a BF. Oh they still want to have coffee. Well I just I can meet one or two just as friends. Oh they are so charmng in real life. Oh I just want to kiss him, I know it's bad but I can't help it. Alright I'll go see your place but no sex. Oh now I'm riding your cock half an our later. Well it was all just an innocent string of accidents, I don't need to tell BF, what he doesn't know won't hurt him.

Describes 99.99% of cheating women. fuck, this sub has telepathy or what? JFL at inceltears for thinking this sub doesn’t understand females.

I actually ascended for a short period of my life before become a disabled/cripplecel. Brutalblackpilling. Seeing how women justify things to themselves to preserve plausible deniability.

Then overnight, hardly being able to move, post an injury, and the look of disgust they would give me. The minute the value perceptions change, it's over. Doesn't matter who you are inside, you just lost societal value. She could honestly care if you go die in a hole.

(jeremyjimmy)

I don't want to dislike women but fuck shit like this makes it so hard.

I said something similar recently. I was never a misogynist but it's like women are trying to change me into one.

Derek Rake #sexist derekrake.com

“Psychopath.” “Misogynist.” “Narcissist.”

Hardly a day goes by without me getting called one of these names.

Shogun Method has made me, Derek Rake, a villain.

I’ve been vilified by the press (a major newspaper columnist called me a “sadomasochistic, chauvinist hog”), hated on by hardcore feminists (I get emails threatening to “cut my balls” all the time) and despised by a colluding gang of “Pickup Artists” and “Seduction Gurus” (for calling them out on their bullshit advice.)

And yet, frankly, I don’t care.

The word has to get out.

...

The truth is that when it comes to dating and relationships, guys have always gotten the short end of the stick.

In the modern times, men are the new women. Period.

How so? Well, we have been conditioned to allow women to walk all over us, mentally and emotionally. We have given up on our masculinity in order to make women happy (often times at the expense of our own happiness.)

Pathetic!

There are no two ways about it… we must take the power back.

(And with Shogun Method, we will.)

Listen here. It’s entirely un-political correct to say this, but it’s true:

Women are born manipulators.

Lying and deception is probably hard-wired into their DNA by nature.

When a woman gets into a relationship with a guy, her natural instinct is to find ways to pussy-whip him into lifelong subservience.

No fucking joke.

And to make things worse, most guys don’t even know that they’re being manipulated like wooden puppets at a carnival show.

...

On the other hand, Shogun Method is exactly what you need if any ONE of the following describes you:

You don’t merely want women to be attracted to you. You want to put them under your control and domination for as long as you want.
You’re done with dating around, and you want to settle down with one special woman that you want to be with for the long term.
Your woman is losing interest in you, and you need to rekindle her attraction to you, fast.
Another guy is in the picture, and you want to destroy that jerk-off so that she only has eyes for you.
You want a stable relationship which is free of drama, mind games and emotional turmoil.
You’re tired of being the “nice guy“, and you want women to respect you for the man you are.
You’re sick of getting stuck in the friend zone, and you want women to see you as a potential lover.
You’re willing to use psychological manipulation techniques on women to get what you want.

If ANY ONE of the above describes your situation, then congratulations – Shogun Method absolutely fits the bill.
Why It’s Not Enough To “Seduce” A Woman… You Got To ENSLAVE Her

Have you ever wondered why most “Pickup” or “Seduction” advice programs fail?

Well, here’s the answer:

As its namesake would suggest, “Pickup” or “Seduction” tricks are good for what it says on the box… for “picking up” and “seducing” women.

To control and dominate a woman, “seduction” is not enough, my friend. You’ve got to ENSLAVE her.

image

You see, if your woman is losing interest in you, there could only be one reason, and it’s this…

It’s because you didn’t take the final step to enslave her to you.

You’d have realized that it’s just as easy for her to fall OUT of love with you as she fell IN love with you.

On the other hand, ENSLAVEMENT is a one-way street.

Once a woman is enslaved to you, she’s pretty much yours… forever.

See the difference?
Four Steps To Eternal Enslavement – The IRAE Model

So how do enslave a woman to you then?

Answer: in four simple steps.

These steps or stages are summarized into what we call the IRAE Model –

The first stage is the “I” stage – Intrigue Generation
The second stage is the “R” stage – Rapport Building
The third stage is the “A” stage – Attraction Development
The fourth (and final) stage is the “E” stage – Enslavement

These stages are strictly sequential: it means that one follows another in a strict, step-by-step sequence.

image

...

Enslavement Stage

There’s only one Shogun Sequence in the Enslavement stage, and it is the Black Rose Sequence (which we will describe in the next section.)
What Is The Black Rose Sequence?

The endpoint of the Shogun Method is Enslavement.

(Befittingly, it’s also the fourth and the final IRAE stage.)

The Enslavement stage is divided into two steps:

First, you’ll segregate her by isolating her from the outside world.

(This is done by using a combo of techniques which are similar to what cult leaders use to build a following which is completely fanatical to their cause.)

Then, when she is sufficiently isolated, you’ll then perform an Enslavement routine on her called the Black Rose Sequence.

Here’s what it does:

It “erases” a woman’s existing identity, and a new identity (named “Persephone”) is installed in its place.

“Persephone” is designed to be completely enslaved to you emotionally, and psychologically programmed to need you to survive.

(In other words, in her mind, quitting you is a sheer impossibility.)

The Enslavement module inside Shogun Method contains the complete Black Rose Sequence in all its glory – all the scripts and action steps you need to take are here.

Before you use the Black Rose on a woman, you must remember two things:

She must have gone through all the preceding IRAE stages with you (Intrigue, Rapport and Attract) – otherwise you’ll come across as a downright psychopath to her, and
You can’t “undo” the Enslavement effect. Once she is Enslaved to you, it’s possibly forever.

Look: I won’t deny that the Black Rose is somewhat sinister (because frankly, it is).

There’s nothing which is going to stop someone from going on a rampage and using the Black Rose on everyone he meets… leaving behind a disastrous trail of Enslaved females with damaged psyche.

Make no mistake… the danger is very real.

Shogun Method is not a game.

Only join us if you reckon you can deal with its consequences.

Illustrious_Try #fundie reddit.com

Re: Sex Before Kissing: How 15-Year-Old Girls Are Dealing With Porn-Obsessed Boys

Fascinating. I didn't know the US had already degenerated to this level although I suspected something along these lines.

15 year old girls should be kept seperate from boys their age or at least supervised. At that age boys have levels of testosterone exceeding even that of violent adult males. I recall thinking about sex or something sex-related almost all the time when I was that age. It faded as puberty ended of course, but pubescent males are basically drugged up on a powerful aphrodisiac drug that also makes them aggressive and impulsive.

The media and liberalism have made it normal for 15 year olds to have sex. The truth is that as much as the hormones tell them to have sex at that age, they're just not mentally and emotionally ready for it.

I don't know about full segregation, but we at least need to be talking about this on a societal level, in comprehensive sex ed classes, etc... & parents are going to have to get over their squeamishness over talking about sex with their kids. As for the last part, I am grateful that I was strong willed & had strong boundaries at 15, because I ended up hearing too many cautionary tales that involved girls who didn't.

At that age boys want to have sex with anything female that moves. Liberalism has normalised sex for all ages to such a degree that it's now bordering on pedophilia.

These days when a teacher has sex with a student it's not even seen as wrong anymore. It's called a sex romp these days. Even when the kid later comes out and feels seduced and abused, the media will often still speak of it as a sex romp instead of rape. The media has created this sense that rules are meant to be broken, that no means yes if you try hard enough and that 'bad boys' are real men.

Too many women put up with it though. These boys become fuckboys in adulthood and consider relationship gatekeeping as a tool to get women to have sex with them. They don't see women as persons proper, just as delectable creatures with warm, soft and moist holes for them to stick their penises in. It was bound to happen at some point though I mean women are objectified just about all the time. I wonder if women are aware of it.

For example I'm sure a bikini is nice to wear but it's effectively the same as being naked, Almost everything of interest is already on display if women wear it, so any time a man wants to ogle women who are stripped almost bare, he can just go to the beach and have his fill.

While there is definitely a faction of pedos trying to normalize their behavior, I really am not convinced that 'liberalism' is wholly to blame for this- people practice child marriage in many of the most socially conservative societies on earth. Even here in the US, FLDS(a breakaway sect of Mormonism) members practice child marriage, & I myself met several girls under 16 who were married off, legally(with 'parental consent'), to much older men in fundamentalist evangelical christian communities. I am not convinced that any of those marriages turned out well. I can't remember who said it, but there was some quote to the effect that many right wing guys consider women private property, but left wing guys consider women public property. I wish what I have observed in my own life convinced me otherwise, but it doesn't.

I don't believe that all men engage in this or are responsible for it, but then they don't really have to- one of the greatest myths is that it takes a majority to influence social trends or societal expectations. As for swimwear/beachwear, my own choices just aren't centered around men's preferences at all- I don't care for hot, crowded beaches, so I'm usually in swimwear either because I'm going for a relaxing swim, or I'm doing some other sort of activity. Neither bikinis, nor the 'burkinis' that are positioned opposite them are actually optimal for any of the activities I like to do...trying to swim, dive, or stay on a board while I'm having to worry about a boob popping out, or dealing with so much extra fabric I might as well be wearing a beekeeper costume doesn't appeal to me. If I wanted to wear lingerie, I would wear lingerie, & I wouldn't be trying to swim in it.

I'm a nihilist and marxist. I'm not coming from the religious angle here (although most men who blame liberalism are so I understand why you would assume that). I'm not trying to say what came before wasn't extremely bad. I mentioned liberalism because as an ideology it's just bad on almost all fronts. I'm anti totalitarian but do believe in a little bit of authoritarianism/illiberalism when needed. Of course I believe in limits to such authoritarianism, I'm of the opinion that some rights are sacred, including right to bodily integrity, as well as the sovereignty of the self, and should be beyond legislation.

Left wing guys who think women are public property are just crazed tankies. Mao used to force people to do everything communally, including take showers together, sleep (not have sex, just sleep) in same room.

There's this thing called dialectical materialism. Some ideas come from the material realm, that is to say the ideas are thought up to justify the material conditions. Right wingers and left wing traitors will come up with ideas to justify the oppression of certain groups, just like how the rich like to claim the poor are lazy and that they are the parasites of society, etc.

Berniebros and common leftists don't even know what marxism is and have never read Das Kapital let alone excerpts of it. Marx says that society is divided into classes. There are the owner classes and then there are the proletariat classes, or simply the proletariat. These workers are exploited and forced to sell their labour as well as their body in certain conditions, to survive.

In a sense, men women and children alike are objectified. Men and children were worked in mines, used like disposable tools and were discarded of when their bodies were destroyed or outlived their usefulness. Women same thing, but also exploited in sexual manner. Men were sent to war like living meat bags to be shot up and bleed to death and die a few years later of PTSD if they survived.

Marx, meant not just labour but oppression as a class. That's why he makes it so very clear that there are the oppressed classes and the capitalist owner class doing the oppression.

Berniebros and so forth don't know anything about Marx, they just want a bailout for their student loans and useless college degrees. (I do think student loan debt has to be restructured though because it's abundantly clear that it's set up as a slavery ring)

John Doe #fundie returnofkings.com

10 Reasons Why Foreign Women Are Better Than American Women

1. American women have unreasonable standards.

They expect you to have a big house in the suburbs and a salary of at least 150,000 dollars from a high status job (e.g. doctor, lawyer, CEO). Foreign women on the other hand, are content with a man, as long as he is a nice person and takes care of her and the family sufficiently.

2. American women have the highest obesity rate out of any other women worldwide.

Look at your average American woman nowadays— she is fat and looks like a hog. American women lose their beauty by age 30 and become very ugly, wrinkled, and fat. Foreign women, on the other hand, take care of themselves, exercise, and generally have very sexy bodies. Foreign women continue to be beautiful and attractive into their 40s, because foreign women take care of themselves and have a much healthier diet than American women.

3. American women see nothing wrong with cheating on her man.

Just look at the culture of America today. Women are glorified for slutty behavior. Foreign women, on the other hand, have not been raised to act like whores. They generally are far more chaste and loyal than the vast majority of American women. This is no doubt due to the more traditional cultures that non-Western countries have.

4. America has the highest rate of divorce in the world.

Considering that 90 percent of divorces are initiated by women, the vast majority of divorces are the woman choosing to leave the man. American women are divorce happy, and will divorce their husbands over extremely trivial reasons. The divorce system in America is also extremely biased in women’s favor, and many women will divorce their husbands simply to “cash out” (to take all of the man’s money and assets). Foreign women, on the other hand, have a much more loyal mindset to their men and won’t just abandon their husband because she read the latest chick book like Eat Pray Love and decides she “needs to find herself.”

5. American women have the worst attitudes in the world.

Pretty much every negative quality you can think of, American women embody it—selfishness, immaturity, narcissism, fake personalities, arrogance, and anger. In short, American women are a real pain in the ass to be around. This is just one of the reasons why I chose to cut all contact and friendship with American women and only maintain friendship with non-American women. Foreign women, on the other hand, are generally pleasant people to be around. They don’t have the massive chip on their shoulders like American women do, and are much more down to earth, humble, and genuine.

6. American women have no sense of humor.

If you tell a joke in front of an American woman, and it is even slightly politically incorrect, it can literally cost you your job. American women tend to be extremely vindictive and they get offended over the slightest things. Foreign women, on the other hand, are much more relaxed and not as psychotic as American women. Even if they do find something offensive, they will generally overlook it and not create a scene. This is because foreign women are not as insecure as American women and don’t feel the need to constantly prove themselves.

7. American women don’t know how to cook.

It’s like American women barely even know how to boil water. A home cooked meal to an American woman means boxed Mac N Cheese or Ramen Noodles. Foreign women, on the other hand, know how to cook complex multi-course dishes. The complexity of Indian cooking or Chinese cooking is something that would take an American woman years to master.

8. American women are more brainwashed by feminism than any other country on earth.

Feminism in America has transformed into a a man-hating movement that is reflected in the attitudes of American women. According to an American woman, “independence” is equal to acting like a spoiled, loud mouthed brat. Foreign women, on the other hand, may support feminism but they have a much more realistic view of what feminism means—equality. Feminism to a foreign woman means simply being treated with respect, instead of wanting to dominate the man, like American women.

9. American women have the highest rate of mental illness by far than any other women on earth.

Let’s face it—American women are pretty screwed up as a whole. They are emotionally unstable, mentally unstable, and suffer from delusions and are out of touch with reality. An American woman is living in her own movie, with herself as the star. And this narcissism is reflected in their mental health, as well. Foreign women, on the other hand, are very mentally stable, and aren’t prone to psychotic outbursts like American women are. Foreign women are much more down to earth and do not suffer from narcissistic delusions of grandeur as a result.

10. American women are superficial and fake.

They expect their men to also be superficial and fake. You have to put on a false image and be someone who you are not just to be considered as acceptable in America. Dealing with American women is exhaustive because of the amount of games you have to play.
Foreign women, on the other hand, are genuinely warm-hearted people and you can just be yourself around them. You don’t have to wear a mask or be a fake person in order to get a foreign woman to like you. That, in the end, is probably one of the best things about foreign women. You can relax and just be yourself and have a genuine relationship with a foreign woman.

Steve Jabba #sexist #fundie #crackpot stevejabba.com

Socio Sexual Hierarchy : What Rank Are YOU?

What Is The Socio Sexual Hierarchy?
The socio sexual hierarchy was a term originally coined by Vox Day to describe where men fit on the socio sexual totem pole. Just as in nature, there is a hierarchy, where the guys at the top tend to get the most attractive women in the greatest numbers.

A key point to note is that the socio sexual hierarchy as it was originally intended was based on patterns of behaviour. These patterns of behaviour tend to lead to outcomes such as social success and success with women. We’ll get into that more later.

[…]

The Socio Sexual Hierarchy Ranks (Top To Bottom)

Alpha : Often physically imposing (tall, handsome) and confident.

[Picture of Donald Trump]

A good phrase to capture the essence of an Alpha is that they suck all the energy in a room.

The most famous example of an Alpha male that springs to mind in 2019 is president Donald Trump.

Alphas usually do very well financially and with women and alongside high functioning Sigmas tend to sleep with the most attractive women in the greatest numbers. They usually insert themselves in a social scene and dominate by virtue of their powerful personality and social skills. You’ll often find that Alphas get success with women by their place in the social hierarchy and social status.

You will rarely see Alphas that would choose to do Daygame, for example. That’s not how they meet women.
Positives : social success, financial successs, success with women.

Downsides : Alpha males care about their place in the hierarchy and are sensitive to criticism (especially from women), whereas Sigmas are indifferent. Often their focus on winning and being on top means they are prone to walking all over other people and not being mindful of other people’s feelings.
[…]
Sigma – Sigmas share some qualities with the alpha, such as self confidence, but they tend to be way more introverted and do not thrive on social attention.
[Picture of Han Solo]

They do not want to be a leader as an alpha does, and often shun social groups.

Whereas Alphas can make friends with anyone and intimately understand social hierarchies and alliances, Sigmas go their own way and usually form very close friendships with few people which tend to last for life.

The 2 key traits of the Sigma Male : Very attractive to women. Outside the hierarchy.

Because of this, Sigmas will often gravitate towards activities like Daygame, or solo game. They tend not to enjoy socialising or indeed having contact with those they don’t respect or wish to spend time with, so high functioning and intelligent Sigmas will seek to get out of the hierarchy as much as possible, by finding their own source of income that doesn’t involve having to perform a conventional job.

Sigmas do not acknowledge the social hierarchy or pay it any attention. They can be frustrating for Alphas because they tend to look them in the eye and show that they have no interest in the Alphas social status or any respect for it.

[…]

The article you are reading and all the content on my website is written by a Sigma Male (me). My book Primal Seduction and video series Secret Society explain how a Sigma can leverage his natural tendencies to get success with women.

Postitives : Do what they want, live the life they want, not affected by the opinions of others.

Downsides : Can take introversion too far and become socially isolated. Can experience periods of intense lonliness if they spend too much time alone and don’t actively approach women, which can mean long dry spells.
[…]
Beta : Betas are probably the happiest rank overall. They are like the lieutenant to the Alpha.
[Screenshot of Maverick from Top Gun]
They are also confident, but don’t have quite as much swagger and are less prone to boasting than Alpha Males. If you look at Donald Trumps famous tweets as President of the United States, it’s a fascinating insight into the mind of an Alpha. Were Trump a Beta, you’d see far less boasting and bragadocio on his Twitter feed.

Betas actually have the most stable existence with the best cost / reward ratio. They can thrive in hierarchies, they can get attractive women, and they don’t need to engage in all the risk taking and status jockeying of the Alpha. For this reason, there are far more Beta’s than genuine Alphas.

Many guys hear the expression “Beta Male” and get the wrong end of the stick. The Beta’s have a pretty sweet set up!

Advantages : happy life, high position in the socio sexual hierarchy.
Downsides : Always playing second fiddle to the alphas and they know it.

Delta : The average guy. Most men are Deltas. These are the guys that keep society running smoothly.
[Picture of a pilot from the 1980 movie Airplane!]
They tend to be average looking, with nothing particularly striking phyically or mentally (they tend to hover around the mean in terms of IQ). Think of Deltas as “worker bees”. Whilst less glamorous than their higher counterparts, they have a pretty happy existence as they are often happy with their lot.

Whilst Deltas do have some limited success with women (on average 6-10 lifetime partners or less), they do not really understand women and view them somewhat fearfully. They tend to give up on women earlier on in life and settle with a midrange woman, and are by and large happy with this arrangement, not wanting to spend too much time or energy in figuring out the opposite sex.

Advantages : They get the job done, everyone tends to like Deltas.
Downsides : Often pedestalize women, (which women really hate!).

Gamma – Probably the most disliked of all the archetypes by both men and women (Sigmas in particular cannot stand Gamma Males).
[Grima Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings]
Gammas live a life of dishonesty both to themselves and others. They construct a powerful delusion bubble and think of themselves as “Secret Kings”, who will one day get all the rewards of the Alpha when the world finds out how talented and powerful they really are.

They believe themselves to be worthy of adulation and praise (especially from women), and alternate between pedestaliation of women (usually by a girl who is unwise enough to smile at them), or outright hatred of the entire female race. Gamma rage and reality denying are a very real and scary phenomena.

They are often unattractive physically, if not because of genetics but also because they are too lazy and conceited to accept their flaws and get to work on ironing them out.

[…]
Factors That Affect Your Place In The Socio Sexual Hierarchy

Appearance : It should be pretty obvious to most but it’s worth mentioning. Your appearance does have an impact on your socio sexual ranking. The number one thing any guy can do regardless of his archetype to improve here is to get physically fit, strong and well built. I don’t think anyone would deny that muscles are a universally attractive masculine trait.

Location : Where you are in the world can affect your place in the socio sexual hierarchy. If you were born in the UK or USA (for example), you would naturally have a higher place in the socio sexual hierarchy if you moved to Bolivia (for example). This is known as geography arbitrage (actually, it isn’t , I just made that up.)

It’s not just that you would have more money than the locals. It’s that you look different and might well be perceived as exotic (there are some parts of the world where pasty white skin is considered exotic, believe it or not!)

Game : Game, or behaviour can have a big impact on your place in the socio sexual hierarchy. This is why the concept of the rank is based on patterns of behaviour rather than just physical appearance. There is no single bigger predictor of sexual success than simply upping your game (or displaying more universally attractive masculine traits), and putting yourself in front of more women.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

Ann, perhaps you understand my overall perspective here quite well. Men give to women, women do not give to men. This is a fundamental aspect of gender relations under patriarchy. This is a fundamental aspect of gender relations in general. Now this is not true 100% of course but it is true in general; what men give to women in a practical direct sense is much more than what women give to men in a practical direct sense. This is exactly the way it should be by the way. To expect women to give to men equal to what men give to women is very abusive towards women and destroys women’s ability to contribute to society effectively and hurts children most of all. This imbalance between the genders furthermore is exactly what makes patriarchy necessary for relations between men and women to work well and by extension makes patriarchy necessary for society to work well overall.

Definitely marriage is not “mutual self-giving” as you refer to it. Marriage is idealistic and about sacrifice on behalf of the other. Marriage is mutual generosity, not mutual selfishness. Marriage is mutually beneficial at the emotional and spiritual level but a man is not going to make a financial profit off of marriage, practical benefit to himself is not the point of marriage for the man. A woman very definitely should expect to receive practical benefit from marriage but for the man on strictly selfish terms marriage represents a financial loss. A woman costs money; that is just a plain fact.

noseyredditguy #transphobia removeddit.com

Why I now identify as a transphobe instead of a gay man.

I first would like to say that I’m not actually transphobic, far from it.

Over the past few months I have been called a transphobe countless times for my attraction to cis men. despite my acceptance and understanding of transgenders and their struggles, I am still called a transphobe. So I embrace it.

I am a transphobe because I love the way men are shaped, their voices, they’re beauty. I am transphobic because I like men who were born male, in all their natural ways and characteristics. I am a transphobe because I love the way men walk, talk, and in most ways, act. I am a transphobe because I love men the way god created them. I am a terf ally because women are perfect, mothers, sisters, friends, who accepted me the way no man would have, and whose rights I will stand up for, lesbian or straight.

I am no longer a gay man, as that word has lost all its meaning. in a world where women can be gay, men can be lesbian, and a man dating a man is straight. I am no longer a gay man, who is required to like a bodily organ that I am not attracted to. in a world where a straight man is considered transphobic for not wanting to date another man, and lesbian women are threatened for not wanting to date men.

I am a transphobe because i am same-sex attracted. I am a transphobe because I like penis, vulgar I know, but in these times, such vulgarity must be said. I am a transphobe because I like the male organ, because I like men who can relate in what it is to be male, from birth until death.

I am not a gay man, that word is reserved for the trans men, who will never know what it was like to come out of the closet, of praying to god every night begging him not to send you to hell for your attractions. Who don’t know what it’s like to be harassed and in some instances, beaten, for looking at another man.

Gay is reserved for the women who chose to be gay, those people who will never understand the constant battle that one faces as a gay person. who will never understand the internalized homophobia, the strain of trying to change ones attraction to “normal”, they will never understand how going through school was like walking through hell. they will never understand the horror and yet beauty of being attracted to your own sex. They will never know what it was like to have a preacher look you in the eyes as he prayed that gay deviants were never allowed to be married. They will never know the joys of waking up to learn that if you ever find that one, you now have the opportunity of marriage, they will never know that excitement, that relief, that instant that made history.

I am not a gay man, for I am not a brave trans man, who believes it is adamant that everyone unlearns their genital fetish, whose trans sisters believe anything other than pansexual is immoral. I am not a gay man, when my gay brothers and lesbian sisters shun me for my same-sex attractions and exclusion of trans men when it comes to dating.

I am not a gay male, because gay men like women, straight men like men, and lesbian women like whatever she’s told to like. I am not gay, I am a man who likes men, a genital fetishist, and person with immoral bigoted preferences. I am not gay, because I don’t like vagina, or women. It took me years to find my true identity.

I am not gay, but a proud transphobe.

various incels #sexist #dunning-kruger #quack incels.co

(Silverandgold)
Even when I was younger and more of a normal man, not a sexually frustrated nihilistic misanthrope, I didn’t think rape was that bad. I thought it was wrong, like stealing a loaf of bread or maybe an expensive TV at worst, but I never thought it was a crime worthy of jail time. I never thought it was a crime that was unforgivable. I always thought it was ridiculous when rapists got lumped in with murderers and child molesters. Rape is really not that serious. Women just don’t like it because the men are ugly. If I was raped by an ugly woman, I would take it as a compliment. Now if she was really fat, elderly, and had smelly genitals that she forced me under gunpoint to lick, I would be mad. I would probably vomit. But I wouldn’t be traumatized for life or believe that the woman deserves to be in prison for 10 years. A hefty fine would be enough. Women who get raped are no virgins. women who get raped have sex with at least 10 men by age 20 so how is it traumatic to take just one more penis? It’s not. Women have too much time on their hands to dwell on things and become neurotic about unimportant situations. If women were in a tribe, they would get raped all the time and wouldn’t even care anymore after one point because they would have more important things to worry about like surviving in the harsh environment. By the way, I don’t want to rape anyone. It wouldn’t turn me on to be with someone who is repulsed by me. I Would never rape someone even if I could get away with it. I’m just thinking out loud. Rape isn’t that bad. By the way, I know a woman who got raped by a black man when she was a teenager and she turned out okay. She is a happy wife and mom now of 3 kids.

(mentalcel666)
depends on the rape, if the rape is brutal with alot of physical harm and injuries then there should be a prison sentence since its the same as assault or something.

but normal rape is just what all animals do, you think the dog or elephant waits for consent? no

same with early humans, im convinced most babies come from rape because woman had no protection from the law, so the strongest male could just take the women and rape her because he is stronger, and since there were no abortions back then they had to deliver the baby,

so most modern women are descendants of women being raped. thats why they like being submissive, its an evolutionary trait passed down from all the females that have been raped for thousands of years before the law was invented

(Dialgatime321)
LOL based, women know this is true, they just crave attention and validation and also shit-test constantly, and thus must always put max effort into appearing to be victims at all times.

My only problem with your post is when you claimed, "Women have too much time on their hands to dwell on things and become neurotic about unimportant situations. If women were in a tribe, they would get raped all the time and wouldn’t even care anymore after one point because they would have more important things to worry about like surviving in the harsh environment."

BS. They're not "neurotic", they don't mind it that much. They may convince themselves that they are victims, but deep down inside they know they're not. They don't "care", they're just using shit like #MeToo to shit-test and gain attention and validation, not to mention ensure that virgins can never ascend.
>Assuming women tell the truth when they say they don't like rape and it's "the most horrible thing ever"
:feelshaha::feelshaha::feelshaha:

One more note, men take care of women entirely, so they're entitled to pussy 100%. The only problem with rape is that it's disorganized, creates hierarchies, and instills no responsibility to caretake on the part of the rapist (there are a few more, can't think of them right now). Therefore, rape damn well should be illegal and is immoral, but under Betrev (beta revolution), women would be paired involuntarily with men who chose them based on a decision made by a bureau of deciding which man is more productive to society, and they would not be obligated to work (in fact making women enter the workforce would be illegal, JFL at MGTOW and MRA who want women to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work just as hard as men, that will never happen and never should).

Women should not even be obligated to do housework, JFL at maledoms who think their "house/tradwaifus" aren't hiding broken glass in the couch cushions to shit-test. In return, every man is entitled to 1 sex a day, no strings attached.

Isaiah4verse1 #sexist reddit.com

(Bolding by me to make quotes easier to recognize)

(White knight? How is laughing at a bunch of losers white knighting? I didn't even say anything. Also already alpha, also already married, got a bigass house and the wife and I made plans to make homemade quesaritos after the holiday. My life is awesome, yours sucks, you're not getting sex, I am, you're using this place to try and justify why you aren't getting sex and I find it hilarious because you're pathetic. Now that we've cleared that up I've got more of your goofy shit to read for entertainment, I actually forgot about this hours ago but you've brought me back.)

You guys make it so easy.

Let's bust up your delusions you have towards your own slavery, shall we?

Also already alpha

Alpha males do not marry, they sow their oats. This is a biological fact. If you presume to be alpha in your marriage that means you are in a constant state of trying to woo your wife. In other words, you have to WORK non stop just to keep her from leaving!

also already married

The laws are in her favour. You don't have her, she's got YOU.

got a bigass house

Her house.

and the wife and I made plans

Her plans. That's why you put her first. You are only secondary.

My life is awesome

Says the happy house slave. If that were true you'd be too distracted by it to peruse and comment on Reddit.

yours sucks

Prove it.

you're not getting sex, I am

While we're in agreement that women's only value is in her vagina, consider for a moment this analogy.

Take your most favourite dish and eat it every day, 3 times a day for the rest of your life.

Take your favourite song and listen to it 3 times a day for the rest of your life.

Take the favourite episode of your favourite show and watch it 3 times a day for the rest of your life.

Get the picture?

I don't consider receiving sexual rations in exchange for the immense cost of marriage with an aging hambeast a prize. Single men are free to have as much sex according to their terms with whoever they want, with much more attractive women for infinitely less cost. The single man versus the married man is taking a million different favourite dishes and having a different one 3 times a day. That is paradise.

you're using this place to try and justify why you aren't getting sex

You are not an alpha male. Alpha males do not brag about getting sex because it comes easy to them. You brag about getting sex because you put a lot of work into it. But even if I'm wrong and that's not the case, you have reduced your entire marriage to an act that lasts one hour long at best. Your marriage summed up is an available vagina. I'm sure your wife will be pleased to know that she's just a wet hole and no thought whatsoever is given to any other attribute of a "happy marriage".

I find it hilarious because you're pathetic.

I find you hilarious because you're married. Marriage is for men with no ambition, no imagination and no purpose.

Now that we've cleared that up I've got more of your goofy shit to read for entertainment, I actually forgot about this hours ago but you've brought me back.

At least you have something to do in between chores and picking out drapes! Happy wife happy life!!!

The End #sexist incels.co

Just to reiterate - I hate women

Trying to get sex from a woman is torture.

You see a pretty girl, you want to fuck her. What do you do to get her to like you? Say anything except that you want to fuck her!*
These stupid games we have to go through. Where it's all second-guessing; where women will blame their own faults on men. Women tell us it's easy to get laid - and then NONE OF THEM WILL FUCK US.

What is this? Did god decide this cat and mouse game would be fun for people? We've got about 70 years on this planet, so how about we spend 50 of those years trying (and failing) to fuck women.

Almost every single goddamn thing women want in a man I am antithetical to. So even if I do manage to get one of these lying, demanding cunts to talk to me, I have to be on the defensive the whole time. She has a huge checklist she has to go through before I am even permitted to be near her.

The funniest part is that it's all for nothing! They love for loser men to jump through hoops for their amusement; they'll get free-meals from a guy for 3 months before fucking him, but literally beg Chad to fuck her the first time she sees him!

I hate women. I don't know if fucking them or fucking killing them would be more pleasurable.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: On how the only aspects of "womanhood" that are valued are the ones males can buy into

image

(lacubana)
Yesssss thissssss

Wanna know when I felt most “like a woman”? I can tell you I sure wasn’t wearing makeup or heels or having a pillow fight. I wasn’t delicate in the slightest.

It was when I was pushing another human I had made out of my body. Oh yeah that.

(earthgarden)
and if you're not pushing a human out, or in the process of growing a human, you get a monthly reminder by your body (for at least 4 f!cking decades of your life!) that it had to tear down the nest it built just in case you set one to growing. I swear to god!! If men could experience a period ONCE they would leave us TF alone! That would be an end to the oppression because their pity would know no bounds, they'd experience massive shame at the treatment men have inflicted upon female humanity these long millennia. because then they'd realize nature already oppresses us just fine, thank you very much

(LadyCeer)
My dad used to be really sweet about it and let me sleep a lot and he fed me eggs and ibuprofen and was just very kind when I was being shot down by my period. He also used to talk to women in the form of long, friendly, non-sexual conversations....But then, he never tried to become a woman. Maybe that's a connection.

(shortstroll)
I don't know about your theory but I think it's one of two options.

The first is that some of them are just gay men who in their formative years internalised gender roles. So since they like clothes, have a crush on a dude and their penis isnt a major erogenous zones they think they are girls. It's also sub conscious sexual strategy. There's a greater selection of partners for them if they can fake being a woman. In fact you now see them pushing the idea that genuine heterosexual males would knowingly copulate with a tim.

The second is that some of them are straight men who just have a weird fetishism of womanhood. They don't just want to have sex with women, they want to be them. This isn't dissimilar from the cannibals who get sexual gratification from eating their sexual partners. Bruce Jenner is the perfect example of this. He slowly turned himself into a male version of his wife and the closer he got to his goal the greater his resentment of her grew. Once he had completed his transition, he didn't just discard her, he tried to destroy her in the media. I'm convinced that in a different world, he would have murdered her. That would have been his version of a perfect conclusion.

(TerribleConfusion)
I saw Graham Linehan retweeted a man suggesting something similar. It’s hard to empathise with this, as a woman, but it seemed to make sense to him and the other guy. And I suppose when you think about it, a lot of men do get INCREDIBLY uncomfortable when discussing ways in which men oppress women. Even decent guys don’t want to think about it. So I can kind of imagine how that discomfort might feed in to autogynephilia. Maybe when you feel like your desire is oppressive you want to be the object of desire instead of the subject.

It’s very hard to reconcile this with how misogynistic many TIMs are, though. But I suppose maybe they feel like they’re allowed to hate and bully women because they’re “women” too, and they’re more special and oppressed than any other kind of woman blah blah etc. And maybe it’s the most misogynistic and shitty of men who are most uncomfortable with themselves deep down so they transition to escape their own shittiness. Spoiler: they don’t escape it, they just found a different method than other misogynists to project their shittiness on to (actual) women.

(witchy_xx)
actually this is the exact reason given when my ex came out as trans. he wanted to escape the role of oppressor. what a load of shit.

it's also an easy power grab. for example that asshat Hailey Heartless was a no one politically before and now everyone knows his name.

(griffxx)
We have seen TIMs along with their Handmaidens, trying to dislocate all things female, from the definition of of woman, womanhood and female. I'm truly fascinated, in a psychologically clinical way, the TIMs asserting that they have Bloodless Periods. This a whole other level of Delusion.

Why on Earth did these Feminized White Men, think they could dictate WOMEN diminished our Womanhood, for their OBSESSIVE NARCISSISTIC NEED FOR THE VALIDATION OF THEIR GENDER IDENTITIES!!!!!

The minute these Prostate Havers and their Handmaidens said point blank that, "FEMALE BIOLOGY AND THE EXPERIENCES OF LIVING IN THE BODY, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMANHOOD" this Misogynistic, Homophobic and Racist Movement should have been REELED/REALED in to what it was supposed to be:

Lobbying and advocating for laws that reassert Civil Rights protections against various forms of discrimination.

They have framed as "A FIGHT FOR THEIR EXISTENCE" this is categorically A LIE.

And to make the claim there are plenty of Lesbians that will date and fuck them; Bisexual leaning women more like. If this were true the Cotton Ceiling War Against Lesbian Sexuality would have ended 5 years ago. Instead it's still continues, and we are at 7.5 year mark.

We need to build on the momentum, we currently have. We need to explain to the Civilian class of women--> not part of the Feminist or LGBTQ Communities, how White TIMs are engaged in the process of erasing their sex-based protections, in the name of attaining their Civil Rights

(scienceisarealthing)

I have no way of knowing whether most pass or not. I’ve never seen a study. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

I've seen a lot of trans-identified males in real life as well as in photo & it's very rare for them to pass. The few who do pass visually are clockable as male as soon as you hear their voice, see their body shape, or see how large their bone structure is when they are next to a female person. This is not meant as an "insult" btw, bc there's nothing wrong with being a feminine male (as long as they arent sexist, etc...)

Transmisogyny is intrinsically illogical bc either the trans-ID'd male passes as female (and experiences some forms of misogyny) or he is clocked as male & faces homophobia/ transphobia/ whatever you wanna call hatred/ disgust against gnc males. It's the reason why drunk guys will sometimes hit on a trans-ID'd male, then the moment they find out he's actually male will scream things like "Fggot! Trnny!!" and sometimes resort to physical violence. That is NOT an example of misogyny bc it wouldn't happen to a female.

How would you know you saw a trans person if they did pass though?

I've never seen a trans-ID'd male who passes in real life, only in photos. There's just no getting around the differences in bone structure, voice, and movements between males and females when you observe people in real life. As someone who is involved in the natural sciences & figure drawing, it is easy to determine someone's natal sex & tell if they are trans or not.

edit: I mean, even when you look at the transpassing sub, few pass even in photo. It does a disservice to trans people to lie to them by telling them they pass when they don't. I see women and other trans people do this all the time & it makes me cringe, because it's so obviously.. not true. In fact, it comes across as cruel to lie to someone like that. It should be ok for people to look/ dress however they want without striving for the unattainable goal of passing completely as the opposite sex.

If a trans woman passes as female, what forms of misogyny would they not face? Honest question. Is it just from medical professionals who would know about someone’s private health details? If they pass, then why would it come up in conversation?

Side question, why does it matter if someone is facing violence due to misogyny or transphobia? Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences under the same system?

It is impossible to say definitively whether or not most trans women can pass based on one person’s interaction with the public. You can definitely say that you’ve seen some trans people not passing. Why would anyone reveal their medical history to a stranger?

Jesus christ, seriously? They wouldn't face:

-limited birth control access, abortion access, reproductive rights battles

-the pain of pregnancy/ discrimination against pregnant women

-dying in childbirth

-the fear of becoming pregnant

-menstrual pain/ stigma/ menstrual huts

-female genital mutilation

-femicide/ sex selective abortion

-medical stigma against female health concerns like PCOS, uterine cysts, endometriosis, severe PMS, menopause, etc... (the list goes on & on)

-sex trafficking & rape (most men want to rape females, not trans-ID'd males)

-being sold as a child bride

-limited access to education bc of being female

-breast ironing

-bride burning

-foot binding (though this only happened to females in the past, as far as i know)

I'm leaving off so much more I can't think of right now. Trans men, nonbinary females, women.. we all face these issues based on what part of the world we live in. It matters whether someone faces misogyny vs. homophobia/ transphobia because those are different forms of oppression! By your same logic, we could include men who face racism under the branch of feminism because (as you said) "Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences?"

FEMinism is the only political movement that is exclusively for FEMales. It's horrible that other people face different forms of oppression, but they can form their own movements to address their needs. Black women & black men both face racism but ONLY black women are welcome in feminism. Poor men & poor women are both economically oppressed, but ONLY the poor woman is welcome in feminism. A woman & a passing trans-ID'd male may both be catcalled, but ONLY the woman is welcome in feminism.

Trans-ID'd males are welcome to (and in fact, already have) formed their own political movements against the unique problems they face. It is narcissistic and unreasonable to demand that women dismantle the ONLY political movement that we have to ourselves. Can female people seriously have nothing to ourselves?Do we have to give in to every group who wants "in"? We can be allies with each other to overcome some similar problems we may face (if any), but we are not the same, and that distinction in lived reality matters.

Isn’t feminism for anyone who believes in the social, economic, and political equality of women? Everyone is welcome. That is a great point about not including everyone who is oppressed ever, but the type of oppression we are talking about is targeted at people who present as female. What I find disturbing by your response is that you aren’t inclusive. Why do you need to say that someone is not welcome if they are experiencing something as common as cat calling or workplace harassment? Would it be so bad if a trans woman was in your circle? Would you not feel safe? I don’t understand what benefit there is to being so specific in membership? It seems to me that it would be best to differentiate by who is suffering a type of discrimination. For example, a trans woman might be subject to being talked down to in public (there is a great TEDtalk by a trans woman who knows what it is like to walk around in society as an adult male and an adult female. She passes btw). A trans male might have not had access to birth control prior to transitioning. I would think both types of people would be welcome.

Feminism is Liberation of females from male oppression. We are already equal, stating that is redundant and offensive.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.